Northern Ireland Assembly, 22 March 2010

277 contributions from 58 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Before we begin this afternoon’s proceedings, I wish to make some comments on recent debates in the Chamber, especially those of last week. I am concerned by the comments that were made. Some Members have either caused considerable offence to others or fallen short of the standards of debate in this House or displayed a lack of respect, especially to the Chair.

Certainly, in relation to the lack of respect for the authority of the Chair, I was disappointed to note the challenges made by Mr Storey and Mr McNarry during last Monday’s sitting. In case there is any doubt, let me make it absolutely clear once more that it is not in order to challenge the Chair in any way, especially in the way that Members did on those two particular occasions. I warn Members: I have raised the issue in this Chamber for some time, yet we still have Members who feel that they can get up in this Chamber and challenge the authority of the Chair. I can assure Members on all sides of the House that that will not happen — that will not happen. I certainly ask Members to reflect on the difficulties that would arise if Members were repeatedly to challenge the authority of the Chair. Members who make such challenges in future may not be called to speak in debates in the Chamber for some time.

In relation to the standards for debate, Members should, by now, be fully aware of my ruling of 24 November 2009, when I introduced a different approach to moderating the use of language in the Chamber. Rather than focus on particular words or phrases that might previously have been described as unparliamentary language, I now judge Members’ remarks against the standards of courtesy, good temper and moderation. Importantly, in making my judgements, I take into account the context in which Members make their remarks.

Let me say to Members on all sides that I understand that on occasions, especially during some of the debates in the Chamber, emotions may rise. I can understand that. However, when Members are warned to temper their language they should do so, rather than trying to repeat it. Once again I say to all sides, when the Chair indicates clearly that Members are about to cross the line, or have crossed the line, it is vitally important that Members reflect on what has been said and try to use different language. Certainly, when I adjudge remarks to have fallen short of those standards, I may ask Members to moderate their remarks, withdraw them, or move on. In future, if a Member feels that they can challenge the authority of the Chair, I intend to ask that Member to take his place, and I will move on to the next Member. It will be as simple as that.

With that in mind, I was very disappointed that, during last Monday’s sitting, Mr Bell refused to accept the authority of the Chair. Therefore, I caution Mr Bell that a further challenge of that nature will result in him not being called to speak in the Chamber for some time. When a Member knows that he has crossed the line with unparliamentary language and is asked to withdraw the comment, but further repeats the comment and challenges the Chair, I assure Members that, from here on in, that Member will not only be removed from the House but will not take part in debates in the Chamber for some time.

When the Chair indicates very clearly to a Member that he is using unparliamentary language, I would have thought that that Member would, at least, have respect for the Chair, and would, as far as possible, withdraw the remarks; but to further challenge and repeat the remarks is something that I, as Speaker of the Assembly, will not have. I will not have it from any Member, whether it is Mr Bell or anybody else. I have made that clear a number of times. However, it is quite obvious that there are Members who are continually rising in their places and are prepared to challenge the authority of the Chair. I can assure Members that that will not happen and will not continue.

Remarks made by other Members during recent sittings have also caused offence, including comments such as those made by Mr Kinahan last Monday. I have read Hansard, and I can understand that, during the cut and thrust of debate, Members may say things and on reflection may think differently about how they express themselves.

Remarks made by Mr Poots on 1 March about Mr Dallat caused particular offence, and certainly the Member has spoken to me about it. At the time the remarks were made, I judged them against the context of a very heated debate, when strong remarks were made by a number of Members from a seated position. At that time, I responded by calling on all Members to temper their remarks. I have since discussed the matter with Mr Poots and have asked him to consider how he might best address the offence taken at those remarks. I understand that Mr Poots will meet with Mr Dallat to try to see if they can reach an understanding on the issue.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

[Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I now consider the matter closed, and will not allow it to be reopened by any points of order. Once again, I caution all Members — all Members — on the language that they may use in the House, and especially about making a challenge to the Chair.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

If it is a point of order on the issues that I have raised —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

It is not a point of order on the issues that you have raised, but it arises from the points that you have raised. On the issue involving one of the Members whom you named, the occasion arose because he was seeking a retraction from the Education Minister in respect of an allegation that she made about my Department and me. Will you give some guidance on how the incorrect information that was given can be remedied on the Floor of the House, since it was given on the Floor of the House?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I am not prepared to open this up to points of order, but let me answer the Minister. If any Member of this House feels that a Minister has not given correct information in the Chamber, there are clear guidelines on how that can be corrected. It is really up to Ministers to decide how they will correct information. In the past, Ministers have written to me with such information. None of us is perfect; we all make mistakes. Ministers have addressed those mistakes through a letter from their Department. There are different ways of addressing incorrect information that Ministers have given, sometimes through no fault of their own, to the House.

I am not prepared to take any further points of order on the issue, because I would feel that Members were trying to challenge the authority of the Chair. That will not happen.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I am not prepared to take a point of order on what I have said, and I shall now move on.

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

I do not believe that it is on a matter that is particular to what you have just said, Mr Speaker. I wish to confirm what you said on 24 November 2009. You ruled:

“On other occasions, as in the past, Members may make remarks or allegations that fall so far short of the standards that I have outlined that I will ask them to withdraw them.” — [Official Report, Vol 46, No 2, p81, col 2].

That is the ruling that you made. On a matter of general principle, could I ask you to clarify whether, if a Member were to make a remark in the Chamber —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I have said that I am not prepared to open up a debate on the matter. I will judge any remark that is made by any Member from any side of the House. I know where the Member is trying to go, and I would prefer it if he did not go there. I shall now move on. As far as I am concerned, the matter is closed.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I beg to move

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 22 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 22 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 for Regional Development that he wishes to make a statement.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. In compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make the following statement on the eighth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in transport sectoral format, which was held in Newry on Wednesday 3 March 2010. The Minister of the Environment, Edwin Poots MLA, has approved the report, and I make it on his behalf. I chaired the meeting, and the Executive were also represented by Edwin Poots MLA, the Minister of the Environment. The Irish Government were represented by Noel Dempsey TD, the Minister for Transport.

Ministers discussed progress on the Dublin to Belfast rail link and noted that the collapsed viaduct at Malahide was repaired ahead of schedule. We welcomed the increase in passenger numbers on the line since its reopening and the fact that the rail companies intend to keep fare promotions under review. The council noted that the railway companies have produced costed proposals that are under consideration and which are aimed at improving the reliability of trains on the line by improving the viability of the existing fleet.

We also noted that the two railway companies continue to consider fare harmonisation on the Dublin to Belfast rail service. However, the current focus on growth in passenger numbers limits the potential to advance that at present. The development of integrated ticketing systems across the island of Ireland remains a longer-term objective.

Ministers noted the completion of the northern railway corridor development study and the main findings and recommendations of the report. The main focus of the report is on the development potential along the Ballymena to Derry railway line.

The Council noted that contractors had been appointed to the A5 and A8 road projects and that work is progressing to meet the next key milestone — the publication of the draft Orders — by late 2010 or early 2011. In December 2009, the Minister for Transport made a payment of €9 million to the NI Consolidated Fund in accordance with the agreed arrangements. We also noted that construction work had begun on the two service stations on the M1 at Castlebellingham in County Louth and at Lusk in County Dublin. Those are expected to be open before the end of 2010.

Ministers discussed road safety issues on rural roads and in border areas and the current position on road fatalities in each jurisdiction. We noted that co-operation on road safety strategies and enforcement actions in both jurisdictions will continue to focus on rural roads, including those in border areas. The Council noted the introduction on 28 January 2010 of the mutual recognition of driver disqualifications between the UK and Ireland. Officials continue to work towards the longer-term objective of the mutual recognition of penalty points. Ministers noted that a pilot scheme for the release of vehicle-keeper data on a cross-border reciprocal basis to bodies enforcing parking and toll penalties was launched earlier that day.

Ministers discussed progress on reducing blood:alcohol limits in both jurisdictions. The Road Traffic Bill 2009 in the South includes proposals to introduce blood:alcohol concentration limits. It was also noted that, following public consultation in Northern Ireland, an options paper is being prepared that will give consideration to a range of policy and legislative options that relate to the setting of new blood:alcohol concentration limits. A co-ordinated approach to the introduction of new limits will continue to be explored. The Council noted that officials from both jurisdictions are meeting to discuss the sharing of information, where appropriate, on the procurement of new breath-testing equipment.

Ministers noted the Department of Transport’s publication of the ‘National Cycle Policy Framework’ as a follow-up to the Smarter Travel policy. They also noted that the Department for Regional Development (DRD), through the Travelwise initiative, actively promotes walking, cycling, public transport and car sharing to businesses, commuters and schools. We also noted that the Department for Regional Development is forming an active travel forum. The Council noted that officials are actively pursuing a sustainable transport agenda, sharing experiences on issues such as public bike rental schemes and progressing plans for an all-island bike week in 2010, which will take place from 13 June to 20 June. We welcomed that the jointly supported car-sharing website for the north-west region is now operational. An update on that will be provided at a future NSMC meeting in transport sectoral format.

Ministers reviewed the outcome of the initial meeting of the freight forum, which was held in Dublin Castle on 29 January 2010 and was attended by a wide range of stakeholders with an interest in promoting a sustainable freight sector. We noted that officials in the relevant Departments will set up working groups to examine the priority issues that were identified. Those were: the need to be competitive in a sustainable manner; safer, compliant and eco-efficient road freight transport; rail freight and other alternatives; international connectivity; and network management.

The Council noted that construction of the Knocknaginny bridge is under way and construction of the Annaghroe bridge will be under way by mid-March and is expected to be completed by winter 2010. Ministers noted that Louth County Council submitted a report to the Department of Transport regarding the proposed Narrow Water bridge project.

Ministers noted that a pilot scheme for cross-border community-based rural transport was completed at the end of December 2009. A report on the evaluation of the pilot scheme will be presented at the next NSMC meeting in transport sectoral format. The Council agreed to meet again in transport sectoral format in October 2010.

Fred Cobain (UUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Has he discussed the findings of the 2006 survey of the seabed? Irish Rail’s report on the collapsed bridge clearly revealed that Irish Rail engineers did not understand the viaduct structure and how it worked. What steps have been taken to ensure that such an incident cannot happen again, that the health and safety of train travellers are safeguarded and that Translink is protected from further financial losses?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Obviously, safety on the rail networks is the key priority. As regards the leaked element of that report to the Irish Railway Safety Commission, Iarnród Éireann issued a press release in which it denied that it was oblivious to any difficulties with the viaduct and that it did not understand the structure of the bridge. That is, therefore, a matter of contest between Iarnród Éireann and whoever produced that report to the Railway Safety Commission.

Obviously, there was significant concern about the incident at Malahide. We were pleased that the repair work was done ahead of schedule. Nonetheless, the fact that a bridge such as that collapsed caused significant concern. As a result, there has been a concerted effort to examine carefully all bridges that are partly submerged in water to ensure that the proper safety compliances are met. The safety of that track will certainly be a key focus in the future. Obviously, there is an ongoing programme of maintenance work and checks, and the incident at Malahide brings that into sharp relief. I am sure that it will sharpen the focus in that area of work.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

The Minister said that the rail companies continue to consider fare harmonisation and increasing the number of passengers who use the Dublin to Belfast rail service. Can he give us any figures as to what the indicators for the increase have been? Is it still a work in progress? Will he also put out a message on behalf of rail users about the dissident republican activities that closed down the line on such a high usage period as this past weekend?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Passenger numbers dropped by around 60% as a result of the collapse of the Malahide bridge. However, within one week of the bridge reopening, journey numbers were well on their way back to previous levels. Between then and 17 January 2010, passenger journey numbers were higher than in the corresponding weeks in 2008. Those results are very encouraging. However, they were based on some fare reductions.

One of the key impacts on harmonisation is the different currencies and the fluctuation in currency rate. That means that the harmonisation of ticket pricing can be affected by events that are outside the control of the railway companies. That is the difficulty. However, the companies continue to look at that.

I spoke publicly to the media about the closure of the line, yesterday and this morning, to utterly condemn any attacks on it. I made it very clear that I think that such attacks are counterproductive.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas ar an tuairisc.

I thank the Minister for his statement on the report of the meeting. I note that the northern railway corridor development plan was tabled, and I am sure that the Minister will keep a keen eye on that as he knows that it is of great interest to the people of the north-west. Is the Minister satisfied that milestones are being met in the A5 north-west gateway project and that the project will continue as promised?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The northern corridor railway development study is important, and it is encouraging that all councils along that route value the railway network so highly and have come forward with short- and long-term proposals to enhance the route and to ensure greater usage. Passenger numbers are increasing and a significant capital investment is planned for the track between Coleraine and Derry.

I am pleased to report that milestones on the A5 construction scheme are being met. The next milestone will be in late 2010 with the publication of the draft statutory Orders associated with the environmental statement, the direction Order and the vesting Order. That is likely to lead to the holding of a public inquiry in 2011. Subject to satisfactory progress from draft to statutory procedures, and the confirmation of the availability of funds through the normal budgetary process, it is anticipated that construction could start in 2012 and be completed by 2015.

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

There are several very encouraging aspects to the report on North/South co-operation on transport and road safety. I want to ask the Minister about the Dublin to Belfast rail link. Were there any discussions about the currency conversions that are used by the catering companies that service the line? There was considerable disparity between the euro and sterling and where the gap has closed, that is not reflected. Something must be done so that passengers, particularly those paying in euro, do not feel that they are being skinned when they ask for a sandwich or a mineral.

I want to ask the Minister about sustainable transport.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Member to conclude his question.

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

Will the Minister tell us whether there are any plans whereby we could have a pathfinder town in each jurisdiction that would co-ordinate the sustainable transport strategy with its counterpart on the other side of the border? That would be very useful in areas where there is a considerable amount of daily traffic due to people travelling to and from work.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I am quite happy to discuss both issues that the Member raised with the Minister for Transport in the South. The issue of price variation was not specifically discussed in respect of catering on the Enterprise service; it was in relation to the harmonisation of ticket prices. Currency fluctuations have a direct impact on prices. That means that ticket prices would need to change on a regular basis as the differential between sterling and the euro goes up and down, and, presumably, that would be the same for the catering facilities on the Enterprise. We do not want anyone to be left with the sense that they are being taken advantage of as those differentials change, but the Member, as I do, lives in a border area, and will be aware of how often prices fluctuate and that the price of every item would need to change. Fluctuation will present an ongoing difficulty in respect of the harmonisation of prices for tickets, goods and services provided on the Enterprise.

There has been excellent co-operation between Departments, North and South, on sustainable transport. I am quite happy to raise the Member’s idea of the twinning of towns, because it has considerable merit. The Member will know that an active travel forum has been established to bring forward recommendations to the Department for an active travel strategy. That is another area in which his suggestion could be useful.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I remind all Members that they should ask questions on the Minister’s statement, rather than make further statements.

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his state­ment, and I look forward to the consequences of the 2006 seabed survey. The disruption of the rail link between Belfast and Dublin has continued, and there have been several disruptions during the past few months. Indeed, at the weekend, the special trains for fans travelling to the Ireland rugby match in Dublin were cancelled, and the plans of those fans were disrupted. Have there been any discussions about ways in which inconvenience can be reduced when such incidents occur?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The substantial number of disruptions to rail services are beyond the control of the rail companies and are normally the result of security-related issues. The railway line between Dublin and Belfast remains closed and the decision on whether the line can reopen, which will largely be taken by the PSNI, will not be made until tomorrow. The punctuality and reliability of rail services continue to be high, even taking the closures into account, and arrangements kick in immediately after a closure so that people can be bussed around the affected areas to minimise disruption. That is happening today between Newry and Dundalk railway stations.

An early decision was made about the availability of the special rugby trains over the weekend. People were advised about the withdrawal of those services and that alternative arrangements should be made on Friday. There seemed to be a full house at the match at Croke Park on Saturday, and I can only presume that most people managed to make alternative arrangements. Line closures are frustrating and damage the revenue of the railway companies, particularly on rugby weekends, which are big earners for them. There are well-tested means of trying to minimise disruption, but if the line is closed, there is little that can be done other than bussing passengers around the areas affected by closure.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh ráiteas an Aire.

I welcome the statement. The Minister highlighted the continuing need for co-operation on road safety. Was there any discussion at the meeting about a role for private firms, such as mobile phone or insurance companies, in the road safety strategies?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

There was no specific discussion of that nature at the sectoral meeting in Newry. However, road safety is an ongoing matter of co-operation between the Department of the Environment (DOE) in the North and the Department of Transport in the South, and a variety of initiatives have been adopted. It is very early to claim any successes, but it is to be welcomed that there was a prolonged period in recent times in which there were no deaths on the roads, although there have been several since.

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

The Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport are looking at increasingly innovative ways to try to get the road safety message across, particularly to young people. As I said, the emphasis in the discussion was on rural roads and on roads in border areas, because those are the places where the problem is most persistent and where most of the damage is being done due to accidents. I imagine that both Departments will continue to look at any and every means to improve road safety.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement: there is much in it to welcome. I will focus on sustainable transport. Did the Minister discuss with the Republic’s Minister of Transport how best to use sustainable transport initiatives on the main routes into Belfast in line with car sharing? We need more funds for park-and-ride schemes, because those are the basis from which car sharing can start.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As I said, there is excellent co-operation between both Departments on sustainable transport. We are looking at initiatives in different parts of the island and are sharing experience and best practice.

As I said in my statement, the car-sharing initiative was launched in the north-west. During the first four or five months of the initiative, there were more than 4,500 hits on its website, and more than 100 people have signed up for car sharing between Derry and Letterkenny. That will have an impact on the number of vehicles travelling to Derry each morning.

There has been investment in park-and-ride schemes in the North and in the South, and we continue to share the benefits and experience of those schemes. In Edinburgh last week, I had an opportunity to look at the city’s park-and-ride plans to see how people are using sustainable transport initiatives to try to reduce the number of cars that enter major urban areas. Therefore, there are benefits and experiences to be shared from both sides of the border and from other cities in Britain and elsewhere. We continue to learn from that and try to adopt and apply best practice.

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

I welcome the Minister’s statement, and I am particularly pleased that the report of the Northern Corridor Railways Group was discussed. I declare an interest as a member of that group. The Minister is well aware of the work that the group has done, and its report has been noted. Will he indicate how the main findings of the report will be delivered?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As the Member said, the report was very much welcomed. Its main aim was to consider the possible long-term social, physical and economic developments that could be achieved by enhancing the railway line between Ballymena and Derry. There were a number of short-term focuses on park-and-ride schemes and ticketing and timetable improvements. A park-and-ride strategic review team has been established and meets regularly to discuss ways of creating more park-and-ride facilities in order to make public transport more available.

There are opportunities to improve ticketing and timetabling arrangements, especially before the planned changes to frequencies take effect due to the introduction to service of new trains and the completion of the Coleraine to Derry track relay.

Therefore, some of the issues raised in the report have been acted on, and opportunities to develop those further will arise. The medium- to long-term opportunities will be addressed in more detail as part of the reviews of the regional development strategy and the regional transportation strategy, and following that, as integrated transport plans are developed.

The reviews will be shared with all relevant Departments, and opportunities, such as the development of tourism linkages, transport hubs, the use of Ministry of Defence sites, airport linkages and potential linkages to waste-management plans, will be taken forward following their completion.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

The Minister briefly mentioned the report submitted by Louth County Council on the Narrow Water bridge project. Will the Minister give us some of the report’s detail and say whether it contained any costings for the project?

On previous occasions, the Minister has said that, with respect to the Narrow Water bridge and the southern relief road projects, it is not an either/or debate. Given the present economic conditions, is it not obvious to the Minister that it is an either/or debate and we should be backing the southern relief road project?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I am not aware of the detail of the report because it was not presented to me. The report was presented by Louth County Council, which was commissioned to carry out the report on behalf of the Department of Transport, so, essentially, it is a matter between those two bodies. I expect to receive an update on the report’s content and the Department of Transport’s plans for that scheme at the next North/South Ministerial Council meeting. It has always been the position that the Department of Transport would wait for the report and would then discuss with us how it plans to progress, if at all, in due course. That remains the position.

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

Mr McCallister has beaten me to one of the questions. Nevertheless, I thank the Minister for his statement, which, although it is short in print, is a record of a very intensive meeting. I appreciate that it has taken place.

Before I ask my questions, I join the Minister in condemning the attacks on the railway line. We have endured such pointless attacks for 50 years, and I appeal to the people who are carrying them out to listen to the words of those who repeatedly call for them to cease.

First, was any reference made at the meeting to free travel for companions? The travelling companion of a person in a wheelchair receives free travel when they go from South to North. However, the same does not apply to travel from North to South. Secondly, was any reference made to the restoration of the previously discussed Greencastle to Greenore ferry project? Thirdly, given that —

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Members should ask one question only.

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

I am entitled to ask more than one question, Mr Deputy Speaker.

What early preparation has the Minister’s Department made in advance of the Narrow Water bridge project?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I have answered the question about companion travel previously. The Member will know that we bid for a range of concessionary fares for people with disabilities, and we obtained some concessionary fares for people over the age of 60. That is not reciprocated in the South, where the qualifying age is 65. There are still a number of categories of people with disabilities to which a concessionary fare does not apply. Before we discuss the issue of companion travel, my priority has always been to ensure that all people who are disabled receive concessionary fares. We will continue to argue that case in future budgetary discussions.

The Member asked so many questions that I am starting to lose track. He asked about the Narrow Water bridge project. Roads Service was asked only to share information about some of its studies on the southern relief road, and it did so. As I said, the report is a matter between Louth County Council and the Department of Transport, and it rests with those bodies. I have an understanding with the Minister of Transport that, when he has made his assessment, he will discuss that with us at a North/South Ministerial Council meeting.

The Greencastle to Greenore ferry was not discussed. However, I understand that Louth County Council — it is merely my understanding, I have no written report to that effect — is considering that matter as part of its study on the idea of a Narrow Water bridge.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I welcome the statement, especially the references to the northern rail corridor. The Minister talked about timetable issues and park-and-ride issues. Is he in a position to give us any news on the proposed park-and-ride facility at Ballymartin, Templepatrick? I join Mr McCartney in welcoming the fact that trains now arrive in Derry before 9.00 am, but does the Minister accept that it means that commuters from Mossley in Antrim have problems arriving in Ballymena for 9.00 am? Will the Minister assure us that the timetables will be looked at before the new rolling stock comes into place?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As I said, we will have the opportunity to consider all timetabling issues in advance of the new rolling stock. Moreover, the major investment between Derry and Coleraine will allow us to examine those issues. Of course, it is sometimes a matter of balance, because getting commuters to a certain place will have a knock-on effect on commuters who travel elsewhere. We want to achieve maximum usage of public transport, and, therefore, we should try to encourage more and more people to use public transport and to benefit the majority who use it. I do not have any specific information about the park-and-ride facility at Templepatrick, but I will correspond with the Member in due course.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

Is the Minister satisfied that enough is being done to encourage greater use of rail services, especially in rural areas? The Minister knows which area I mean. There is a glorious opportunity to expand the service there.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I was expecting a question about Scarva railway station at some stage. I had the opportunity to look at the station when I was in Scarva last week. The Department’s policy is to find ways to encourage more people to use public transport. However, the Member must bear in mind that if we create more stops along an intercity service such as the Enterprise, we slow that service down and discourage people from using it. There is a balance between finding innovative ways to get people from rural areas to use public transport and ensuring that the big transport initiatives between the two main cities on the island are not slowed down but improved, speeded up and running more frequently.

Executive Committee Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to introduce the Waste and Contaminated Land (Amendment) Bill [NIA 10/09], which is a Bill to amend the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 and the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Northern Ireland) Order 1998.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Bill will be put on the list of future business until a date for its Second Stage is determined.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to two hours for the debate. The Minister of Finance and Personnel will have up to 10 minutes to propose the motion and 20 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I beg to move

That this Assembly approves that a sum, not exceeding £1,432,778,000, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund, for or towards defraying the charges for the Department of Justice, the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2011 and that resources, not exceeding £1,369, 871,000, be authorised for use by the Department of Justice, the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2011 as summarised for each Department or other public body in columns 4(b) and 4(a) of table 1.3 in the volume of the Northern Ireland Estimates 2010-11 that was laid before the Assembly on 15 March 2010.

The motion seeks the Assembly’s approval for the 2010-11 spending plans that will be inherited by the Executive on the devolution of policing and justice powers on 12 April 2010. Specifically, the plans are in respect of the Department of Justice, the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland and other additional expenditure arising from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) as a consequence of devolution as set out in the Main Estimates volume, which was laid before the Assembly on 15 March 2010.

On behalf of the Executive, I request and recommend the levels of Supply set out in the resolution under section 63 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Following the Assembly’s agreement on the motion for a resolution on 9 March 2010, requesting that a broad range of policing and justice responsibilities cease to be reserved and be devolved to the Assembly, this motion is an essential stepping stone towards the completion of the devolution of policing and justice powers. The Supply resolution and the Budget (No. 2) Bill, which I will introduce later today, are an integral part of the devolution of responsibility for policing and justice powers to a locally elected Administration after some 38 years, throughout which responsibility for this important aspect of the governance of Northern Ireland has been held by direct rule Ministers.

This step in that process is necessary, as Northern Ireland Departments do not currently have the statutory authority to spend money on policing and justice matters. Assembly approval of the Supply resolution, the Estimates and the enactment of the associated Budget (No. 2) Bill will provide that authority and allow for expenditure and associated financing of the new Department of Justice, the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland and, in the case of OFMDFM, in respect of those functions occurring as a consequence of the devolution of policing and justice powers from the appointed day of devolution. Although the inherited spending plans do not reflect spending priorities set specifically by the Executive, it is important that the Assembly supports the existing allocations for the financial year 2010-11.

The Hillsborough Castle Agreement commits to an addendum to the Executive’s existing Programme for Government to reflect the extended responsibilities that will shortly devolve to Northern Ireland. The new Justice Minister will draw up the addendum and bring it to the Assembly for approval. However, in future, the Executive will review the spending plans for policing and justice in the context of all their strategic priorities. In that sense, the spending plans before the Assembly today are an interim measure aimed at enabling the smooth transition to the second stage of the devolution of policing and justice powers to Northern Ireland.

Although the spending plans are inherited, that is not to say that the Executive and the Assembly are simply accepting them without question. A detailed review of the financial requirements of the policing and justice bodies was conducted by the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, and extensive negotiations by the First Minister and deputy First Minister resulted in an additional financial package being offered by the Prime Minister on 21 October 2009. That package aims to address any identifiable shortfalls in the current level of funding for policing and justice functions and to provide a secure financial foundation for their devolution. The primary purpose is to ensure that such issues have no impact on other spending areas.

The first of two particular elements that are reflected in the Estimates is a £20 million increase in the baseline for legal aid. As a consequence of negotiations with the Prime Minister, its underfunding, which had been recognised, is now being addressed. The Estimates also reflect a reclassification of police pensions that brings the budgetary treatment of the PSNI pension scheme more into line with that of the police forces in Great Britain. That will stabilise police pension costs and protect the policing budget from the impact of variations in the annual valuations of the scheme liabilities as assessed by the actuary. Other elements of the package will be assessed as and when required and do not, therefore, need to be reflected in the Estimates being considered today.

In moving forward with those new responsibilities, the Executive must examine all their programmes to decide how best to allocate resources in line with their priorities. However, the Executive will need to take an early decision on whether there is merit in the policing and justice budget being ring-fenced in the Northern Ireland Executive Budget for 2010-11, as recommended by the Assembly and Executive Review Committee.

The policing and justice budget that will be transferred is substantial. The future presence of a locally elected Minister, supported by the Assembly and its Committees in developing, scrutinising and prioritising spending proposals, will provide the basis for ensuring that those functions are developed and enhanced to meet the needs of the population of Northern Ireland.

The main purpose of the motion is to seek the Assembly’s approval for the use of resources to discharge those new responsibilities in the year ending 31 March 2011. The amounts of cash and resources sought by the motion are in addition to the cash and resources Vote on Account for OFMDFM for 2010-11 in the Budget Act (Northern Ireland) 2010, which was passed by the Assembly in February. The level of resources being sought is summarised in the Main Estimates volume that was placed before the Assembly on 15 March 2010. The motion also seeks the Assembly’s approval for the issue of cash from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund for the financial year 2010-11, as detailed in the Estimates volume. The total cash and resources for which approval is sought is significant and will amount to £1,433 billion — sorry, £1·433 billion — and £1·370 billion respectively. I saw Mr Ford’s eyes light up there.

The Supply resolution, once approved by the Assembly, will be the precursor to the Budget (No. 2) Bill 2010, which I will introduce to the Assembly later today. Subject to Assembly approval and Royal Assent to enable the Bill to become an Act, it will provide formal legal authority for the Department of Justice, the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland and OFMDFM to incur expenditure in relation to the devolution of justice and policing powers for the 2010-11 financial year.

In that context, I record my thanks to the Committee for Finance and Personnel for its approval of the use of accelerated passage for the Budget (No. 2) Bill. As Members will be aware, accelerated passage is the normal procedure for Budget Bills because they require Royal Assent within a short timescale. However, on this occasion, I propose an additional acceleration of the Bill. For that to happen, I will ask Members to support a further motion on the suspension of Standing Orders 31(d), 37, 39(1) and 42(5) in respect of the passage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill (Northern Ireland) 2010.

The suspension of those Standing Orders removes any reference to Further Consideration from Standing Orders and does away with the minimum 10-day period for the Bill’s passage through the Assembly. It will mean that the Bill will pass through the Assembly over two days. That is unavoidable because, until the vote was taken on the 9 March Assembly resolution, we could not be sure that the powers would be devolved.

The spending plans are detailed in the Main Estimates volume. I do not propose to go through that material in any detail, although I will endeavour to answer any questions that Members may have. However, I hope that Members will appreciate that due to the fact that the Department of Justice and Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland come with inherited spending plans, and the underlying detail reflects decisions taken by the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Court Service, I may not be able to respond to every specific query in detail. In such cases, where appropriate, I will arrange for written responses to be made.

The motion is a significant milestone in the completion of the devolution of these important responsibilities. The Justice Minister will commence work on the development of an addendum to the Programme for Government. In that context, the Executive and the Assembly will, in future, be able to better reflect their priorities in this important area.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Senior Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) officials briefed the Committee for Finance and Personnel on 10 March in relation to the Main Estimates for 2010-11 and the associated Budget (No. 2) Bill, which gives legislative effect to the Main Estimates, the Department of Justice, the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the Public Prosecution Service following the transfer of policing and justice powers to the Assembly. The Bill will be introduced to the Assembly following this debate.

The Committee was advised that although the Main Estimates have been drawn up on the basis of existing spending plans, two areas have been adjusted slightly as a result of the devolution package. Therefore, it has been necessary to build provision for police pensions into the Main Estimates, and a further £20 million has been added to the baseline for legal aid. I note that DFP officials indicated that an adjustment will be factored in for a George Cross museum.

Provision has also been made within the Supply resolution for the Main Estimates in relation to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister for the purpose of gaining statutory authority for two new functions, namely the office of the Attorney General and the Judicial Appointments Commission. OFMDFM will not, therefore, be included in the Main Estimates that are to be brought forward later this year. Any necessary changes will be made through next year’s spring Supplementary Estimates. The Committee was also advised by DFP officials that it will be a matter for the Executive as to whether the total budget allocated to the Department of Justice will be ring-fenced or the Department will be subject to the in-year monitoring process in line with other Departments.

The Committee looks forward to the new Department of Justice receiving the same level of financial scrutiny as existing Departments, both from the Committee for Justice and the Department of Finance and Personnel. On behalf of the Committee, I support the motion.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I support the motion. It is important for us all to recognise what this will deliver. Recently, I nominated an officer serving in my area to be police officer of the year, and that is important for a number of reasons. The officer is well known to me, an elected representative. He has worked with my office for many years. Any time I request his co-operation, I find him conscientious, friendly and efficient, and he handles every issue with sensitivity and the utmost confidentiality. I have the highest regard for that officer in every respect, and I wish that there were 50 just like him in my constituency. This motion gives us an opportunity to secure the jobs of a great many officers and, perhaps, offer employment to many others.

This officer is known throughout the town, and people from all areas recognise and, more importantly, respect him. His commitment to the community has reaped many rewards in the form of great community relations and the sort of working relationship that is essential with elected representatives and the community.

How does he achieve that? Recently, I had to fight for this officer to retain his position as community officer amid financial cutbacks. For that reason, this funding, and the security that it gives 1,200 officers on the streets, is essential to our communities. People have come into my office and asked me to ensure that we retain and enhance policing on the streets, and this is exactly what the motion will do.

In the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ today, there is the sad story of a lady from my area, Ruby Jamison, who was robbed by two masked men some time ago. She was traumatised and police officers helped her and were very conscientious and responsive. She died shortly after the robbery. If we can make policing better and take the important initiatives through the budget that we have, is that not what we should be doing? I believe that it is, and this will give us an opportunity to address —

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Does the Member accept that, to a large extent, policing has been devolved and the Policing Board on which his colleagues sit is responsible for that budget? I am sure that the Member will join with me in saying that that body has done a good job.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his contribution. It is nice to hear him speak. During the last debate on this subject, he did not bother. We welcome his comments. I accept that they are honest and heartfelt. This debate is about a budget that will deliver for the next few years. That is what we are about.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Absolutely. How could I not give way to the Minister?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Should the Member not express some surprise at the comments made by the Member for Lagan Valley:

“to a large extent, policing has been devolved”?

When it came to a debate in this House, that Member and his party voted against the devolution of policing and justice on the basis that we are not yet ready for it, and yet he says that it has been devolved and is working very well.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his intervention.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member may have an extra minute.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I need an extra three or four minutes.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way again, so that I might respond to the Minister’s point?

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

No, I will not. I have no time left. You will have your chance to come in, Basil. I want to touch on a couple of things that I think are important.

One of the things that will come out of this motion is compensation for those officers who have suffered hearing loss. It is vital that we have that in place. I know a great many officers who have lost their hearing. I am not being condescending, but they are as deaf as a post as a result of what happened to them. This gives them an opportunity to have compensation. The pension fund for part-time Reserve officers will also be properly provided for. The men and women who spent endless nights patrolling our streets at the height of the Troubles, some of whom were forced to move homes, and the families of those officers who made the ultimate sacrifice, will receive the pension that they should have received a long time ago. The Compensation Agency will have adequate funding to ensure that it can carry out its job of allocating funding to those who need it most, through the Department of Justice. Money is set aside for legal aid.

I have seen examples in my office of people who have applied for legal aid and did not get it. I know of young working mothers who look after their children single-handedly and without financial aid from partners, who were asked to pay £10,000 for fact-finding cases, on top of their household bills. That is impossible for them.

Legal aid enables them, and those who most need legal aid, and I welcome that as well. That is only one example; there are a great many others, and I am glad that the budget will enable legal aid to be given on a larger scale to those who need it.

The Prison Service and the Youth Justice Agency will also benefit from devolution. A new probation and youth justice office will shortly open in Newtownards, not as a result of this budget, but coming through from it. However, the budget will enable that service to continue to deliver in the area that I represent. Local representatives were involved in allocating some of the money that is badly needed to bring the Prison Service and Youth Justice Agency up to scratch in health and safety and effectiveness.

The budget enables the Minister to make available the finance to deliver policing and justice. I urge Members to support the motion. I would be glad to get the support of everyone in the Chamber, and I am sure that the Ulster Unionists will give their support. It is a pity that they were not there to support us last time around. Nevertheless, it is good to have the Johnny-come-latelys come now, which is always important.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

In response to the Minister’s rather mischievous comment about my good friend and colleague Basil McCrea, it should be recognised that the motion heralds only the end of the internal political debate about devolving policing and justice; it starts the actual process of devolving finances to the Assembly.

I am struck by how many issues are still not resolved. We are hurtling towards the devolution of policing and justice without resolution on a number of key issues that may well have a significant impact on the suitability of the budget that we are being asked to approve. The Supply resolution allows for moneys to be drawn down from the Consolidated Fund into the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. However, there are still considerable reservations about the role of the Attorney General. Mr John Larkin QC seems to have been working with the First Minister and deputy First Minister to write his own job description. However, no one in the Chamber, unless the Minister of Finance and Personnel tells us today, is any the wiser. Will he confirm, for example, that he is happy with the financial settlement worked out for the role of the Attorney General?

It is my understanding that there was considerable disagreement among the Assembly and Executive Review Committee about the justice sector of the North/South Ministerial Council arrangements for dealing with policing and justice. Again, we are being asked to agree to funds being drawn down from the Consolidated Fund to cover an issue about which there is still considerable uncertainty. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us about that.

I welcome the fact that the Northern Ireland Executive will have access to the national reserve to meet any exceptional security pressures on policing and justice. In light of the ongoing national debt problems, is the Minister confident that the promise of access to the reserve during the next comprehensive spending review is a copper-fastened guarantee?

There was no consensus among Assembly and Executive Review Committee members on parading. That is disappointing. Again, we are being asked to agree a budget on an issue that has the potential to suffer from selective disruptive targeting. With the increased level of dissident threat, there is much concern among communities that we are heading towards renewed tactical violence controlled to cause maximum community tensions.

While the motion will secure some certainty for the next financial year, it also illustrates to us how unprepared we are for the devolution of policing and justice, how many outstanding issues there are and how uncertain things will be after 2012. We cannot forget that we are entering into the most fiscally uncertain period that this Assembly has known. In May 2012, the sunset clause will also kick in, and the institutions will be thrown into further turmoil, because we believe, and the public share our view, that we cannot go on for ever in placing a political party with no democratic mandate into the role of Justice Minister. Let us hope that we do not do that in the next couple of weeks.

Given that the Assembly’s will on the devolution of policing and justice has already been recorded, we will not stand in the way of the motion today. However, we have serious reservations about how the Department of Justice will work and its medium- and long-term future. In light of the number of uncertainties that exist and the Executive’s continuing dysfunctionality, I reiterate that the time is not right for the devolution of policing and justice. That is our opinion and it is on the record. On behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, and to ensure that we end up with as stable and secure a situation as possible in forthcoming months, the Ulster Unionist Party will continue to raise its concerns about the issue.

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

I am pleased to speak on the Supply resolution to approve funding for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, the Department of Justice and the Public Prosecution Service (PPS). Each legislative stage in the Assembly brings us a step closer to the devolution of policing and justice, which I greatly welcome. However, I do not welcome how the process is being carried out, and many of its outcomes are not in the best interests of uniting our society.

Financial matters require close scrutiny not just at the outset, as we are doing today, but on an ongoing basis, particularly through the relevant Committees. The Committee for Finance and Personnel was told that the spending plans have been inherited. The figures were arrived at individually by OFMDFM, the Department of Justice and the PPS; they were not arrived at through the normal process, which closely involves the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP). At times, some of us have concerns about DFP’s scrutiny and views, but the figures have not even undergone that level of scrutiny. They were merely presented to DFP for approval. Indeed, it would be fair to describe them as having been rubber-stamped by DFP, which is all the more reason why scrutiny will be required during the year to see what lessons can be learned and to determine the implications for future Budgets.

A fundamental question, which the Minister referred to at the outset, arises about the extent to which justice funds, dispersed throughout the two Departments, can be fully ring-fenced. What will happen when in-year pressures occur when money is freed-up? Will there be flexibility to vire across broad headings? Will such funds enter the monitoring rounds? What will happen to capital funds that are not spent; will those be lost to Northern Ireland temporarily or permanently? I hope that the Minister will clarify his views on those matters so that Members will be able to comment on his plans. What is the long-term future for policing and justice money? Will it become a collective part of the block grant and be subject to Executive discretion? Those are very important questions for the future.

That brings me to the second area that I want to address. Our policing and justice needs are closely connected to policies, strategies and outcomes in other areas. Even within justice and policing, success in one area can reduce pressure in another. If we have a more effective prison and probation system, and I may come back to the prisons issues in a later debate, we can reduce offending, particularly reoffending. That has obvious implications — in this case, benign ones — for the level of policing that is needed and the demands on the courts system.

More broadly, the extent to which society is stable and settled has huge implications for justice and policing. If mayhem breaks out on our streets or if dissident activity persists or increases, there will be huge demands on the resources on which we are voting today. Our politics are not shared, and that sets the tone for the rest of society. That point cannot be overstated. Funding for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister may have to cover mechanisms to deal with parades, which is still a reserved function, so what we do to address the parades problem is central to the discussion. On all of those issues, I am pessimistic.

We are told that a cohesion, sharing and integration strategy has been agreed. I have not seen it, and my party’s Minister, my party leader, has not seen it. Therefore, what confidence can I have in it? Given the approaches that the two parties in OFMDFM adopted in the past, I am sceptical that we will have a strategy that truly represents a shared society rather than a shared-out one. Some in the Chamber are prepared to accept a cheque without having seen it first. However, my party and I are not.

I draw similar conclusions when I see how parades are being handled. For that issue to have climbed its way to the top of the political agenda again is a tribute to political failure in those places where the responsibility for parades lies. We are told, again, that a deal has been done. The Orange Order has seen that deal, but I, as an elected Member of the Assembly, have not, and I am entitled to feel angry about that and to feel —

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I do not want to interrupt the Member’s flow, but he may also wish to deal with the point that we have suspended Standing Orders, meaning that we will not have the Final Consideration Stage of the Bill. Therefore, we are being asked to consider these issues with about five minutes of discussion, even though there is a whole range of issues that we really ought to be talking about in the House.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

For clarification, we have not suspended that particular Standing Order at this point.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg your pardon, Mr Deputy Speaker; I thought that I heard you read a list —

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

That was for the afternoon.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

You thought wrong.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The suspension of that Standing Order concerned the length of time that is to be allowed for today’s proceedings; it was not to do with this particular issue.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

When you are wrong, do not compound it.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Don’t you bother to tell me that.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Order.

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

I repeat the point: we are told that, behind closed doors, some form of deal has been done on parades and that the Orange Order, behind its closed doors, has seen and discussed that deal. However, I, as an elected Member of the Assembly, have not seen that deal. The implications of that for the quality of our democracy are immense. I am seriously concerned about our approach to politics here and about the implications for justice and policing.

Therefore, I support 100% this step on the way to the devolution of justice and policing powers.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

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

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

However, I am fearful for the kind of society in which the justice and policing agencies will have to operate.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

The Alliance Party will support the legislation through all its Stages in the next couple of days, including its accelerated passage — or should I say warp-speed passage, because the light probably escapes Mr McNarry’s black hole.

First, it is important to acknowledge that a generous financial package is available from the UK Government. That, of course, addresses only legacy issues in four key areas; it does not address the ongoing or future pressures that may emerge in the system. Nonetheless, it is important to recognise that.

The Ulster Unionist Party, which lectures us about the fiscal difficulties that all governments face, should recognise that, had the Assembly followed that party’s advice two weeks ago, we would have no financial package at all and that our justice system would face quite chronic fiscal problems. Ironically, we today have the Ulster Unionists’ so-called partners, the Conservative Party, voting yes to the deal in the House of Commons, while the UUP continues to pose problems here in the Assembly.

The spending profile on policing and justice in Northern Ireland is obviously very different to that elsewhere in the UK. In some respects, that may be justifiable because of the circumstances that are faced in Northern Ireland, such as the ongoing problem of terrorism and providing justice in a divided society, for example. We must tackle those issues as we try to normalise this society, and there are inefficiencies in other aspects of the justice budget that we should try to face up to in the very near future.

Of course, breathing space is needed to allow for reforms, and any notion of trying to ring-fence this budget over the forthcoming financial year would be welcome. By the same token, we must be realistic and recognise that reforms are required and are, indeed, inevitable. Any breathing space that the Executive grant to the Department of Justice, especially initially, must be used wisely to bring forward sensible reforms that not only use resources more efficiently and effectively but deliver a better justice product for the people of Northern Ireland.

The devolution of policing and justice powers provides the advantage of enabling MLAs from all parties to better scrutinise policy issues and financial matters. Therefore, if there are concerns —

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

The Member rightly states that this Assembly will be able to scrutinise various aspects of policing and justice. However, there is an extreme lack of accountability when it comes to the Public Prosecution Service and there is lack of capacity to scrutinise it.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I am grateful to the Member for his intervention. I do not disagree with the points that he made. Elected representatives should be able to enquire about the financial management of the PPS and its policies, such as when and when not to prosecute, and about items that are referred to as being in the public interest. However, it is important that we take a hands-off approach when it comes to the operational independence of the DPP with respect to individual decisions about whether to prosecute. It is important that those are not perceived to be influenced by any political considerations.

Returning to finances more generally; we have the opportunity to engage in detailed scrutiny over the coming months and years. Today, the situation is almost parallel with that in 2007, when we inherited budgets that had been set under direct rule. From this point onwards, we are on our own with respect to doing things differently and setting different policies and priorities. We can do things differently and better with the resources available. Ultimately, this is about people feeling safer at home and on the streets and about building a more secure society. However, to use resources more efficiently, we will need to put greater focus on early intervention and better joined-up government, for which devolution provides opportunities. Over the coming months, Departments can look at their budgets to see whether they can make changes in order to engage better with the Department of Justice and achieve more rounded outcomes. As Mr O’Loan stated, there are areas in which things can be done differently and better. It is important that Departments are prepared to think creatively. So far, I have not seen much evidence of Departments seeing justice as a new opportunity to address some of the cost pressures that they and we, as a society, face.

Things can also be done differently and better with respect to community planning. There is no doubt that the Department of Justice will seek to establish new crime reduction partnerships, but those have to be part of a wider community planning model, and the DOE has to bring that model forward as part of the review of public administration (RPA). Neighbourhood renewal should also be brought under that umbrella so that everything is going in the one direction. This is about improving community safety.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member should draw his remarks to a close.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I acknowledge the role of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee and the detailed work of the Economic Research Institute of Northern Ireland (ERINI). I look forward to commenting further as the debate goes on.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Before I call the next Member to speak, I remind Members to switch off mobile phones, which are interfering with the sound system. Valuable speeches could be lost.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker; it would be a travesty for future generations if any words of this debate were lost. I am sure that none of us in this Chamber, not least the Minister, wishes to become one of the first victims of the new Department of Justice under some form of prosecution.

I welcome the Supply resolution that is before us today and the fact that there appears to be some level of consensus. It may be a bit difficult to realise that consensus has emerged given the level of begrudgery that we have heard from the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP. However, I note that Ulster Unionist Party Members indicated that they do not intend to divide the House on this issue and that they support the proposals. Indeed, having ripped the back out of the motion for about five minutes, Declan O’Loan finished with the slightly surprising statement that he supports it 100%. I look forward to such unqualified support for this issue in the future. The Minister correctly highlighted that, in many ways, it is an inherited budget by virtue of the way in which divisions have been made between different sectors in the policing and justice budget. When any new function is taken over, the budgetary position is inherited, but I join with others in hoping that the opportunity for the Assembly to control policing and justice will lead to a more imaginative use of money in the future.

We would all welcome a more joined-up approach to justice and early intervention, both of which have been mentioned. As well as leading to a reduction in crime, those approaches could be financially beneficial to Northern Ireland. Although direct rulers ultimately drafted the budget, Members of this House had some influence, and, indeed, it bears the fingerprints of the First Minister. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee conducted an extensive exercise, in conjunction with various justice agencies, to try to identify any future problems, such as a funding shortfall. That exercise also sought to identify any black holes — to use the phrase so keenly used by the Member for Strangford Mr McNarry — and to try to ensure that they were filled before we reached any devolved settlement.

A long list was drawn up, and the items on it were gradually ticked off during negotiations with the British Government and the Treasury. The carving of the cake at that level may bear the imprint of the NIO. Undoubtedly, however, the negotiations by the First Minister and deputy First Minister with the Prime Minister mean that we have a bigger cake to carve, which is welcome, and a sound financial position on which to move forward.

The Minister mentioned a couple of issues. A massive difference of about £100 million is linked to shifting police pensions from the departmental expenditure limit to annually managed expenditure. Actuaries relate that to people living longer and the fact that the number of police pensions will be disproportionately high in Northern Ireland compared with anywhere else in the UK. That would have placed an increased financial burden on the police budget and resulted in their having to cut numbers, and so forth. Had the overall financial package not been accepted, as some Members would have preferred — indeed, some would have completely rejected the devolution of policing and justice powers — it would ultimately have led to the loss of 1,200 police officers across Northern Ireland. Those were the financial implications of rejecting that package, but we have now secured something for the future, particularly in respect of police pensions.

The focus has almost always been on the policing side, but there have been various problems on the justice side too. There were already problems with legal aid 15 years ago, when I was a barrister, and those problems gradually built up over the years. However, legal aid is now in a stronger financial position, and the people who trot into Mr Shannon’s office may feel that they are on a more secure basis in that respect.

Among the fluff that was presented, Mr McNarry said that it was good that we have a national reserve to draw on but asked how we could rely on that in the future. Negotiations took place with the Prime Minister, but we also sought and secured the assurance of Mr Cameron, his leader in waiting, that he would stand over any agreement.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member should bring his remarks to a close.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Therefore, it is strange that Mr McNarry seems to place little credit in that assurance.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member’s time is up.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I wonder whether he will be similarly disparaging about Mr Cameron during the forthcoming election.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. On behalf of Sinn Féin, I support the resolution. Notwithstanding the fact that other parties again levelled criticisms today, they said that they will support the motion. Indeed, notwithstanding any party’s views on the issue of the devolution of powers, the Assembly has decided that the transfer will proceed. Therefore, it is wholly appropriate that all Members give their support to ensure that the required budget will be available to the new Department and that all the necessary preparations to ensure a smooth transition to the devolution of policing and justice powers will be made. It is all well and good for people to criticise, as long as they support the resolution.

People have tried to rehash some of the old, and mostly failed, arguments. For instance, one Member asked what would happen if there was greater trouble on our streets or a greater threat to society. As has been mentioned, there will be access to the financial reserve. Other Members said that they had not had time to scrutinise the figures and that it is an inherited budget. During devolution, we always had inherited budgets. It has been estimated that it takes some 18 months for any previous budget to wash through the system, regardless of whether such a budget was imposed under direct rule or devolution. The budgets that we establish, with our own integrity, take the same length of time to come through the system. Therefore, there is no difference in how this budget and previous departmental budgets were transferred across into devolution.

Some Members said that they had not had the chance to scrutinise the figures; I think that Mr O’Loan referred to that. Other Members rightly mentioned that the Policing Board has statutory responsibility over policing and the policing budget. Mr O’Loan’s colleague Mr Attwood, who is a Member of the House, chairs the Policing Board’s resources and improvement committee, which deals with the PSNI budget. Therefore, his colleagues on the Policing Board will have plenty of opportunities to scrutinise the budgetary decisions because, unlike the scrutiny Committee here, it has statutory authority over the matter.

There is also the question about what will happen to the overall budget in the long run. Mr O’Loan’s party is represented in the Executive, so that party will be able to input directly into that type of discussion at Executive level. A scrutiny Committee will also be established, and the Member’s party will be afforded representation on that Committee to scrutinise the ongoing work of the Department, how budgets may be spent, and so on. I hope, and I have no doubt, that there will be lengthy and considered debates. I look forward to important debates in the time ahead, not only on the budget but on the delivery of a system of policing and justice in a modern society that will be more responsive to the needs of the people whom we represent.

I support the motion. I look forward to a smooth transition, which will be facilitated by the vote being passed.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

As has been said by my colleague Mr McNarry, we have certain reservations about the issue, but we have taken on board the fact that the decision has been made by the Assembly. We will, therefore, support the motion.

However, our concerns stem largely from the fact that we think that the House, with a few notable exceptions, is totally unprepared for the challenge that it faces. I do not say that to slight individuals here but because of the sheer volume of information that has to be processed. I do not know whether other members of the Policing Board have similar worries to mine, but I am concerned about the PPS budget, the cost of legal aid and the volume of paperwork in our policing system. A range of areas needs to be addressed.

That brings me to the reason why I rose when Mr Shannon was speaking. I have much respect for the amount of work that Mr Shannon does, but he seems to take a different position to that of others. I say that because the Minister intervened. On the one hand, Mr Shannon appeared to be saying that he was looking forward to the budget because it might provide more money to enhance policing in his part of the world. Surely we would all subscribe to that. However, the Minister suggested that the PSNI budget should be ring-fenced because it might come under pressure. I may have got that wrong, so he may clarify, if necessary. I think that it was Mr Weir who said that this is about carving up the cake and that we got a bigger cake. I am concerned that we are making decisions on large numbers without understanding the impact and the knock-on effects. I would appreciate some time for an understanding of that.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Will the Member reflect on the fact that the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, of which two of his party colleagues, one of whom is his party’s deputy leader, are members, had lengthy discussions on the financial aspects of the devolution and policing and justice powers? I do not recall the Member’s party colleagues raising those concerns, particularly about legal aid, at that meeting. Will the Member reflect on that with his colleagues?

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I will reflect on it. My understanding is that my colleagues were concerned about those issues. My general point is that because so much information was brought to bear, it was quite difficult to process.

I am interested in the pension aspect of the budget. The Policing Board, of which I am a member, discussed the total budget, which is around £1·2 billion. Of that sum, £450 million is for pensions and only £500 million is for day-to-day running costs and pay for serving officers. That leaves around £170 million for discretionary spending. When one looks at what pensions will cost, why they are a problem, and whether they should be included in annually managed expenditure — I understand that particular point — the question is that if provision must be made for hearing-loss claims, how can the estimated £400 million be found from a budget of £170 million? People have put forward the case that this is new and additional money, which is erroneous. It was a legal obligation. It had to be done. One could say the same about national pay bargaining and all other such issues. The central tenet of my party’s argument is that those are big figures —

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I am sorry: I must carry on.

The important issue is that those are big sums that will have knock-on effects, which the Assembly has not had the opportunity to scrutinise, understand and get to grips with properly.

Given that the central tenet of the Minister’s argument is that this is a handover period and the Assembly must just take the budget that it is given and work through it, my party is prepared to support the Supply resolution on that basis. However, I point out that many issues, some of which were raised by Mr O’Loan, have not been resolved. The Assembly simply does not know what it is being asked to spend money on, how it is to spend that money, or why it is being asked to do so. My colleague raised the issue of the Attorney General. The Assembly has yet to deal with many issues.

The Minister rose to take exception with and to make a little dig, which is, of course, quite acceptable, at my party’s position on policing and the different stance that it took on the devolution of policing and justice. His point was just that: many people do not understand the difference. My party sees policing as an operational matter that is under the control of the Policing Board, with the Chief Constable having sole responsibility for operational matters.

However, the Assembly is now looking at how it will change the Budget in order to find additional resources for the areas that need them. The issue of access to the national reserve has been raised. Of course, that will be subject to negotiations at the time. It will depend on the emergency and the case that the Assembly makes.

Although my party does not expect the Government to turn down resources that are needed badly, it is unsure about whether the Assembly is able to make a difference yet and show Northern Ireland’s people what devolution enables it to do. However, on that basis, and with those caveats, my party will aid the Assembly in its deliberations and will support the motion.

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

I want to raise a certain number of issues and questions for the Minister about the Supply resolution. In his opening remarks, the Minister said, fairly, that the Executive will review the budget for the devolution of policing and justice in the context of strategic priorities and will consider whether there is merit in ring-fencing the budget for 2010-11. Those are critical issues. In order to convey how critical they are, I want to raise certain matters with the Minister.

The Minister will know from his days on the Policing Board that delay and doubts about the building of a police college continue to endure to a certain degree. However, the stage has been reached at which definitive decisions, for want of a better term, must be made. Planning applications are about to be lodged. A much more significant amount of money will have to be spent than the £3 million that has been spent to date if the police college is to proceed.

Given that those decisions are imminent, as are many other capital decisions, will the Minister indicate his Department’s thinking on going to the Executive, following the devolution of justice and policing, to decide whether those matters are to be progressed. Time is very short; decisions on whether projects such as the police college and the prison are to proceed must be made in a matter of weeks. It is only fair that given that the Minister has raised those matters, he share with the Assembly his thinking on how projects on the capital side, including the police college — never mind all the wider capital projects across Departments — will be managed immediately after the devolution of justice and policing.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that the Health Department needs to come to a very speedy conclusion on its contribution to any future college at Desertcreat?

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

I thank the Member for that intervention. The reason why I raised that point is that given the uncertainty about the £300 million from the Health Department, and given that the police college project will not proceed unless that money is forthcoming, we need to know today not just what money is coming across, but how the Minister plans to manage that money and how the Executive plan to manage the capital budget generally. That must be considered in the context of the Minister having advised the Assembly a number of weeks ago that he anticipates a 6% to 7% cut in capital spend and in the capital budget following the election.

I agree with Mr McNarry about provision for the Attorney General. In the grand scheme of things, a budget of £1 million a year is not excessive, given that the devolution of justice budget will be £1·4 billion. Nonetheless, is the Minister satisfied that six months after the Attorney General-designate passed a paper to OFMDFM, nobody in this Building who has a right to see that paper — be it the OFMDFM Committee, which is to provide the money, or the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, which has to make certain decisions around that office — has seen that paper?

Minister, that is six months, 180 days, and given that the devolution debate is scheduled for 12 April, 20 days before the Attorney General-designate takes up his post, and we still do not know why £1 million has to be spent on the Attorney General’s office. We do not know why 20 staff may have to be employed or why five of those staff will be grade 5 and above. We do not know why the Attorney General believes that he should have offices in the city centre and only a touchdown office up here in the Assembly.

Given the Minister’s commitment to efficiency, effectiveness and proper spending of the budget, does he believe that it is efficient and effective that all of us are unsighted in relation to that detail? It may be necessary to employ 20 people, spend £1 million or have facilities downtown so that the Attorney General is in his comfort zone around the Bar library and the courts of justice. However, we have a right to that information, to have that detail and to know whether the plan is efficient and effective.

As the Minister will be aware, under devolution, it will be DFP — his Department — that will fund the PPS. The SDLP does not agree with that; we believe that the Justice Department was the natural, organic place for funding. That arrangement raises all sorts of potential tensions and conflicts, given that responsibility for administration and finance may fall to the Committee for Finance and Personnel, the wider power of the Assembly in respect of any other matter that the PPS handles, and given the protocol on the Public Prosecution Service, drafted by the British Government —

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

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

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

That protocol basically creates all sorts of arm’s-length arrangements between the Assembly, the Finance and Personnel Ministry, the Justice Ministry and the PPS office, which, in my view, are excessive.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

As others have said, the fact that we are, for the first time, debating a Supply resolution related to justice issues means that there is a significant opportunity for scrutiny by this Assembly. However, as has also been said, the position in which the Justice Department and the justice agencies are in is exactly the same position that every other Department and the other public agencies were in three years ago. Having been presented with it by the Minister, what we are effectively looking at is a rollover budget from the NIO days.

The matter will have to be followed through in some greater detail by the Assembly, whether by a Justice Committee, the Finance and Personnel Committee or the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, which may continue to have a role as we examine how the budget should move forward in the coming years.

As has been highlighted, there is no doubt that by the standards of current British Treasury operations, we have an extremely generous package for dealing with the past, which would have been lost had we not taken the opportunity to devolve justice powers at this stage. However, the package deals only with the past. It is not, in any sense, one that goes generously towards the future.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

If money had not been found for police officers’ hearing loss, how would it have been dealt with, given that dealing with it is a legal requirement?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

It is absolutely clear from what has been said by Ministers in this place, Ministers in Westminster and others that money had to be found to deal with hearing loss. There was no special arrangement. Therefore, it would have been deducted from the existing budget, with all the effects that that would have had, including a potential reduction in the large number of police officers required to serve the current needs of the people of Northern Ireland. The Minister has outlined that point, and I endorse it. We would clearly have been in major difficulties if that package had not gone through at this stage.

Although the package deals with some of those past issues, such as hearing loss, equal pay and addressing legal aid in the short term, it will not, in any sense, provide an easy road for the future. We have the addition of a modest sum to the baseline expenditure, which, if we are not careful, could easily be taken up by the pressures on the legal aid system, never mind anything else, and that is not a large section of the overall justice budget. Therefore, we need to ensure that the budget that is carried through now is administered effectively and efficiently. Given the difficulties that will arise in the first year of devolution, a lot will have to be done to deal with that.

There are several issues around at the moment. A major issue is the large section of the justice budget that will immediately be swallowed up by the Police Service and, as other Members have highlighted, commitments on salaries and pensions, which allow no opportunity for free money. In particular, the Police Service, despite what the Chief Constable and others might wish, is bound to a particular number of officers at this stage, which may or may not be the necessary number as we move into the future. Difficult issues will have to be tackled there. MLAs and other public representatives need to face the fact that keeping a police station open in every village is not a good use of public resources, given the pressures that we now face. There are real issues about what contributes to making a safer society, rather than maintaining the previous and ongoing patterns.

The number of people in prison in Northern Ireland is a major challenge. Each year, our prisoner costs are significantly higher than those of any other jurisdiction in these islands, yet there is a historical legacy that has not, so far, proven to be easy to tackle and which may continue to be a difficulty, depending on the number and type of prisoners that the Prison Service has to continue to deal with. There is an issue around legal aid, which has shown a temporary and short-term easing of the burden. However, if action is not taken urgently, and if it is not recognised that that action has to be taken urgently, the Assembly will be in serious difficulties in two or three years’ time.

As Alex Attwood highlighted, there are major issues around capital schemes, including IT schemes that may be of a lesser scale than the scheme that he highlighted, the new college at Desertcreat. That college is sometimes referred to as the police college, but it will also be used by the Prison Service and the Fire Service, which tends to be forgotten. Those issues lead to the whole question of the necessity of partnership working between those Departments and agencies that have been devolved for the past three years and the new Justice Department and the justice agencies that we hope to see devolved on 12 April. Whatever may have been done by one wing of the Ulster Conservatives and Unionists — New Force (UCUNF) in this Building a few weeks ago, we may take it that the other wing of UCUNF will be ensuring that justice will be devolved in a vote today in Westminster.

That will lead to real questions as to how every Minister in this place participates in the necessary partnership, because providing a safer community in Northern Ireland is much more than the job of the formal justice agencies. A lot more needs to be done on partnership working and ensuring that other agencies, such as those dealing with mental health or the Youth Service, are fully engaged with the aspects of the criminal justice system where there is major impact and where we need much greater working together to maximise the use of the relatively limited resources that are outlined in the Supply resolution.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank all Members who took part in this short debate. Many of the points that were made will probably raise their heads again several times today and tomorrow. I am sure that it will be an environmentally friendly debate with recycled points.

As Mr McNarry said, this is the end of the internal debate on whether policing and justice powers should be devolved. Now we are beginning the process of dealing with the powers that we have voted to be devolved here in Northern Ireland. We are, at least, starting off on a more sound financial footing than would have been the case had the negotiations with the Prime Minister not taken place. At the time, some people criticised my party leader for the length of time that those negotiations took, but the work that was done last autumn provided a firm foundation.

That does not mean — to draw on Mr Ford’s point — that we should be complacent about the issues that face policing and justice in the future, but we are at least starting off on a more sound financial footing because we wanted to get it right rather than get it done quickly. We wanted to get it done so that we were on a sure-footing, rather than simply listening to the siren voices telling us to do it no matter what the consequences were. We are seeing the result of that work today.

I will turn to some of the points that were raised by various Members. The Chairman of the Committee for Finance and Personnel indicated the Committee’s support, which, as far as I understand, was unanimous. I do not know whether some of the points that were raised by Members during the debate were raised at Committee level, but I welcome the fact that the Committee accepted the Main Estimates and the request for accelerated passage of the Budget Bill.

The Chairman also raised the issue of the George Cross museum. The figure relating to that is not included in the Main Estimates. That work is ongoing, and once it is completed, the Estimate cover will be taken at a later date. The Secretary of State included the transfer for the police museum in the figures that he presented to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee in February 2010.

Mr Shannon raised the issue of protecting front line services. It is important that we ensure that there are sufficient police officers on the streets. The job of protecting front line services is, of course, an operational decision for the Chief Constable, and I do not wish to tell him how to do his job, though he is committed to increasing the resources for front line services, and he is bringing forward plans to the Policing Board as to how he intends to achieve that in the next year.

Mr McNarry spoke about the key issues that have not been resolved. Again, it is disappointing that Mr McNarry is not here, but even if there are key issues — and I will deal with them in a moment or two — we would have been in a far worse position on the issue had we listened to the Ulster Unionist Party, first during the debate on the funding of policing last autumn, and, secondly, in the debate that we had in the House a couple of weeks ago because, had we refused to accept the devolution of policing and justice, the financial package would not have been in place. Indeed, the Chief Constable said that the impact on his budget for next year would have amounted to around £68 million.

I dispute Mr McNarry’s lament that key issues have not been dealt with. Far more key issues would not have been dealt with if we had gone down the road that the Ulster Unionist Party wanted to take us on 9 March.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Is it not the case that had we not done what we have done and had we lost that money, we may have had to consider making several thousand police officers redundant?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

That was the point that I was making when I talked about the budget shortfall that the Chief Constable had drawn to our attention as a potential consequence of the devolution of policing and justice not going through.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Minister give way?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I will give way in a moment or two. Perhaps the Member will wish to come back to me after I have dealt with the point about the key issues.

Mr McNarry said that there are three key issues. The first of those is the question of how much money would have to be drawn down for the Attorney General’s office. The Member was present for the start of the debate, and if he had listened, he would have heard me say that the money that is required for OFMDFM is not included in this. That money was voted for in the Budget, which we discussed ad nauseam in the House some weeks ago. The figure was included in the Budget. As far as I understand, as part of that Budget, his party voted for £1 million to be available for the Attorney General’s office.

Mr Attwood asked whether that was really needed and why the paper from OFMDFM on the powers and location of the Attorney General had not been brought forward. That is not my responsibility. Questions to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister are scheduled for later this afternoon, and I am sure that he will have the opportunity to put that to the First Minister and deputy First Minister. The Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister can hold OFMDFM to account, and questions can be asked in the House at Question Time. The Member is better to direct his questions to the Ministers who are responsible. I think that there should be transparency in all those issues, and there should be efficiency of spending on those issues. Once a budget is allocated to a Department, it is up to that Department to decide how to manage it.

Mr McNarry’s second issue was that the cost of the North/South justice arrangements is unknown. I do not know where Mr McNarry got that point from. The devolution arrangements define the areas of North/South co-operation, for which there are North/South Ministerial Council meetings. I am not aware of any North/South arrangements that deal with the issue of policing and justice. Perhaps that is part of Mr McNarry’s imagination. I do not know what he was referring to, and he has not had the courtesy to stay in the Chamber to come back to me on that. He asked how much the North/South arrangements will cost. They will not cost anything, because there is no North/South arrangement in that area. Perhaps a North/South arrangement is on his wish list, but there is none at present.

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

I certainly want to have a lot more North/South ministerial arrangements. The Minister happens to be in error on the matter, because there is a North/South justice arrangement between the British Government and the Irish Government that, on devolution, will become part of the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive and Dublin. Consequently, a whole lot of money is being spent on North/South justice arrangements, contrary to what the Minister indicated.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Mr McNarry mentioned specifically North/South ministerial arrangements. The Member knows very well that any such arrangements will probably involve one or two officials. No massive budget for that is coming down the road.

Mr McNarry’s last point was on whether access to the reserve was copper fastened. Mention has been made of the fact that negotiations took place not only with the Prime Minister but with the Leader of the Opposition, who gave his assurance that he would stand by the arrangements that had been agreed with the Prime Minister. The claims on the reserve associated with legal aid are not repayable. That part is copper fastened, and the Prime Minister has made it clear that the other claims on the reserve in exceptional circumstances will not be repayable. We, therefore, have assurances on that issue.

I wish to address Mr O’Loan’s points. Mr O’Loan is increasingly becoming the Jeremiah of the Assembly. By his own definition, he is pessimistic. I think that he said that twice, and I was listening closely to hear whether he said it a third time. Mr O’Loan is the Northern Ireland Assembly’s prophet of doom. He said that he is pessimistic because we are simply inheriting spending plans that are not our own. However, that situation is not unusual. The next Government at Westminster will inherit the spending plans of the current Government, and they will live with those plans until such times as they can change them. When the Assembly was set up, it had to live with the spending plans that had been set by the previous direct rule Administration until such times as it was able to change them.

I made it clear in my speech that the budget for policing is an interim arrangement and that the Executive, the Assembly and the Justice Minister will have the opportunity to consider whether to change the spending plans. I pointed out that the Executive will have to decide quickly about whether to ring-fence the spending plans for 2010-11 in order to provide some certainty for the forthcoming year at least. That is a reasonable request. After that, the Assembly will, of course, want to have its fingerprints on the spending plans.

Mr Farry and Mr Attwood were among the Members who raised a question about ring-fencing the budget. Some Members said that they did not think that any Department’s budget should be ring-fenced for ever, because that would prevent it from considering different options. For example, are there other ways of delivering justice? Could the Department of Education or the Health Department help to keep people out of prison or deal with drug addicts who get into trouble and finish up prison, which costs us money? Those types of debates are possible only if budgets are not ring-fenced. Of course, ring-fencing any budget is likely to fossilise the way in which money is spent by a Department rather than to encourage people to look for efficiencies.

Mr O’Loan also made a point about the link with other budgets. He made his usual complaints about the CSI strategy and the parades issue, neither of which has anything to do with this debate. The parades legislation will go out for consultation shortly, and Mr O’Loan will have ample opportunity then to read it and respond to it. Given that the legislation must pass through the Assembly, he should not be so pessimistic about the future and about being closed out of the process.

I think that I have already dealt with Mr Farry’s point about ring-fencing the budget. He pointed out that the budget must be used wisely. It will be up to the Executive to decide whether the policing budget should be ring-fenced for this year. I think that it was Mr O’Loan who asked whether money can be moved among the different heads of the Department through the in-year monitoring process. If the budget is ring-fenced, any reduced requirements will be available within the budget for that year. If the Executive decide to ring-fence the budget, I think that it will be possible to move money within the Department for that year at least, unless there is a dramatic change in how that money is spent. For example, the Department’s decision to stop doing something could have an impact on its budget.

Mr Weir made a point about pensions and the fact that, without the more flexible arrangements that we have now, there would be a potential deficit in pensions of £100 million because of the way in which actuaries make decisions on a year-to-year basis. As that would be part of the departmental expenditure limit, that would have meant an immediate hit, rather than taking the longer-term view of changes in the computation of the budget. That would have been one impact. The addition of £20 million to the legal aid budget has been guaranteed until 2012, after which that figure will go down to an extra £14 million. Mr Weir also asked how we can be sure about the national reserve, but I have already dealt with that.

Mr Basil McCrea indicated that he had reservations about a number of issues, including the funding of hearing loss claims, which has a potential liability of up to £400 million. The package provides that the Department of Justice will address the first £12 million a year of hearing loss claims. However, it can also draw on reserves for any claims above £12 million. In addition, money from the sale of capital assets will be available for the Department of Justice to pay out even its first £12 million.

I know what Mr McCrea’s next question will be. He will try to intervene to ask what will happen if those capital assets cannot be sold. I see that he is poised to jump up and ask the question. However, even in that case, arrangements have been made whereby it will be possible to use the fact that we have assets to gain flexibility in funding if the £12 million cannot be realised in the necessary year because of the way that asset values are going. Therefore, the Executive will have cover. I hope that I am giving the Member some assurances around hearing loss claims. It is an area in which there was the potential for a huge demand on the Executive, but it has been dealt with. However, I see that he still wants to intervene.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I had the benefit of meeting the Minister’s party leader and the deputy First Minister when the arrangements around hearing loss claims, which even he would agree are rather complicated, were explained. Therefore, I know the various caveats that are involved. However, my next question seeks to put the issue to bed. I may have misheard the Minister, so perhaps he can provide clarity. In an earlier exchange, he seemed to indicate that, if we had not got this package and had, instead, to bear the full brunt of hearing loss claims from existing resources, the £400 million liability would have resulted in the redundancy of perhaps — as I think he said — several thousands of officers. Given the level of dissident threat, would the Minister seriously expect any Member of Her Majesty’s Government, from the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, or any other party, to put that through? It is not a credible suggestion.

My final question to the Minister, again for clarity, is in response to something that was brought up by Mr Ford. My understanding is that the Chief Constable has already indicated that he is no longer tied to the Patten numbers of 7,500 officers and that he will reduce the number of officers to achieve more efficient expenditure. His argument is that that will get more officers on the streets, albeit with fewer officers in total. Is the Minister aware of the Chief Constable’s proposition that we will have to reduce to enhance?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I do not think that it was I who said that there would be “several thousands” of redundancies in relation to hearing loss claims. That may have been said in an intervention by another Member. However, I did point out that the Chief Constable has indicated that, without the package, there would have been a hit on the budget of £68 million this year because of pensions and other changes.

As the Member will know from his involvement on the Policing Board, that would have some implications for the number of officers that could be employed, because employment and staff costs form the biggest part of the police budget.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Minister should bring his remarks to a close.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I will. The Member also asked whether any Government would allow such a running down of officer numbers. We are seeking to ensure that that will not happen.

Other points were made during the debate that I have not managed to respond to. However, I am not too concerned by that because I am sure that the same points will be made during the debate on the Second Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill. I will have the opportunity to respond to those points at that stage.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

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 this Assembly approves that a sum, not exceeding £1,432,778,000, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund, for or towards defraying the charges for the Department of Justice, the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2011 and that resources, not exceeding £1,369, 871,000, be authorised for use by the Department of Justice, the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2011 as summarised for each Department or other public body in columns 4(b) and 4(a) of table 1.3 in the volume of the Northern Ireland Estimates 2010-11 that was laid before the Assembly on 15 March 2010.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I beg to introduce the Budget (No. 2) Bill [NIA 11/09], which is a Bill to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of certain sums for the service of the year ending 31st March 2011; to appropriate those sums for specified purposes; to authorise the use for the public service of certain resources for the year ending 31st March 2011.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I wish to inform Members that written notification has been received from the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, confirming that the Committee is satisfied that, in accordance with Standing Order 42(2), there has been appropriate consultation with the Committee on the public expenditure proposals contained in the Budget (No. 2) Bill, and that it can, therefore, proceed under accelerated passage. The Second Stage of the Bill will be brought before the House later today.

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

I beg to move

That the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2010 be affirmed.

The regulations are made under the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers’ Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, and increase the compensation payable under the Order to people who satisfy the conditions of entitlement on or after 1 April 2010. The increase in the amounts payable under the Order maintains parity with the corresponding scheme that operates in Britain.

I will briefly explain the Order’s purpose. An employer can be sued by someone who suffers from an industrial disease when that disease was contracted as a result of working for that employer. However, the diseases that are covered by the Order can take a long time to develop and may not be diagnosed for 20, 40 or even more years after exposure to dust. By that time, the employer or employers that are responsible may no longer exist. Consequently, sufferers and their dependants can experience great difficulty in obtaining compensation.

The scheme was introduced in 1979 to help people who had no realistic chance of success in suing through the courts because their employers were no longer in business. It provides for a lump sum payment to sufferers. Payments are additional to any award of weekly industrial injuries disablement benefit for the same disease. A claim can also be made by dependants after a sufferer’s death.

In order to receive a payment under the 1979 scheme, a person must have been awarded industrial injuries disablement benefit.

Two further conditions have to be met before any payment can be made. First, there must be no relevant employer who can be sued. Secondly, court action must not have been brought or compensation received in respect of any of the diseases in respect of which a person is claiming.

The scheme covers five respiratory diseases, most of which are directly related to asbestos exposure. Those diseases are diffuse mesothelioma, diffuse pleural thickening, primary carcinoma of the lung, byssinosis and pneumoconiosis, which includes asbestosis.

Some people who suffer from mesothelioma are not entitled to any payment under the 1979 scheme, because they were not exposed to asbestos in the workplace. However, since October 2008, the new mesothelioma scheme, which I introduced, provides for lump sum payments to sufferers of mesothelioma, regardless of whether they were employees, self-employed or had never worked, provided that they have not received compensation from another source.

The amount to be paid under the regulations is based on a simple calculation, which cross-references the age of a sufferer and the level of disability. Higher amounts are paid to people who have higher levels of disability and whose disability arises at an early age. From April 2010, the maximum amount that can be paid is just over £75,000 for a person aged 37 or under at the time of diagnosis. Lower amounts are payable to dependants who claim after the sufferer has passed on. The amounts payable under the scheme have been increased by 1·5%, in line with this year’s uprating of industrial injuries benefit.

In addition, to reduce the differential in the payments made to sufferers and those made to dependants, all amounts payable to dependants have been increased. That means that most dependants will receive an additional payment of up to £5,000, subject to the amount not exceeding what would have been paid to the sufferer had he or she received a payment before passing on. In those circumstances, the amount payable will be increased to at least equal the amount that would have been paid to the sufferer in life.

The regulations help to ensure that the compensation provided under the Order maintains its value and, in the case of dependants, significantly increases the amount payable. I am sure that Members across the Assembly will warmly welcome that and support the regulations.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Committee for Social Development considered the proposal to introduce the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2010 at our meeting on 18 February 2009, and we considered the statutory rule on 4 March 2009. I will try to limit the number of times I say “pneumoconiosis” in the debate.

As the Minister said, the regulations will increase the amounts that are payable to the sufferers of certain dust-related diseases — or their dependants — who have been unable to claim damages from the relevant employer because that employer is no longer in business. Dust-related diseases can take a long time to develop and may not be diagnosed until a considerable number of years after exposure. Therefore, a scenario in which an employer that is responsible for the dust exposure is no longer in business by the time that claims arise can be quite common.

Although no amount of money could compensate for the misery and suffering that is caused by diseases such as pneumoconiosis, the amounts that are payable will offer some assistance to sufferers and their dependants. It is important that the compensation increases and that those amounts keep pace with inflation. In conclusion, the Committee recommends that the regulations be affirmed by the Assembly.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the regulations and I thank the Minister for bringing them to the House.

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

I am pleased with the consensus of support, spoken and non-spoken, across the Assembly for the regulations. I thank the Chairperson of the Social Development Committee and its members for the positive way in which they dealt with the regulations, both in its meeting on 12 March 2009, when they gave the regulations assent, and in the Chamber today. In my initial speech, I trust that I dealt with all the issues that Members may have.

If I have inadvertently failed to do so, I will write to the Chairperson and to Mrs Bradley.

I am certain that we all want to ensure that the value of compensation under the 1979 Order is not eroded by inflation. The regulations will ensure that that does not happen. In addition, I am particularly pleased to be able to introduce significantly increased compensation for dependants. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2010 be affirmed.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I suggest that the House take its ease until we move to the next item of business.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I beg to move

That Standing Orders 31(d), 37, 39(1) and 42(5) be suspended in respect of the passage of the Budget (No.2) Bill.

I apologise for my absence from the House. When I left, the Minister for Social Development was struggling through words that I do not know how to spell, let alone say. I thought that I had plenty of time to make a phone call. The Members on the speaking list must have decided not to speak for too long.

I have brought the motion to the House today to ensure that the Assembly can consider all the stages of the Budget (No.2) Bill before the Easter recess. That will allow the Bill to be enacted before powers are devolved to the future Department of Justice on Monday 12 April. As Members will be aware, accelerated passage is the normal procedure for Budget Bills because they require Royal Assent within a very short timescale. Indeed, as is normal with Budget Bills, the Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee has written to the Speaker to signal the Committee’s agreement to the Bill’s accelerated passage. However, on this occasion, I am seeking the Assembly’s approval of my proposal for additional acceleration. For that to happen, I ask Members to support the motion on the suspension of Standing Orders 31(d), 37, 39(1) and 42(5) in respect of the passage of the Budget (No.2) Bill.

The suspension of those Standing Orders removes the need for the Further Consideration Stage and the minimum 10-day time period for the passage of a Bill through the Assembly. This will mean that the Bill can pass through the Assembly in two days ― today and tomorrow. Those exceptional arrangements are unavoidable because, until the Assembly resolution was passed on 9 March, we could not be sure that those powers would be devolved. However, Members will have the normal opportunities to scrutinise the Bill during its Second Stage, Consideration Stage and Final Stage, albeit in a more restrictive timetable. Although the Further Consideration Stage will be omitted, that stage has been a formality for previous Budget Bills.

It is essential that the Bill passes its Final Stage tomorrow as that is the final scheduled date for Assembly plenary business before the Easter recess. Moreover, its passage will ensure that the new Department of Justice, the Public Prosecution Service and additional functions in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister have statutory cover for the use of resources and cash in discharging those new responsibilities for the year ending 31 March 2011.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That Standing Orders 31(d), 37, 39(1) and 42(5) be suspended in respect of the passage of the Budget (No.2) Bill.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill [NIA 11/09] be agreed.

This debate follows the Bill’s First Stage, which took place earlier today, and the Supply resolution, which was subsequently debated at length and approved. The Budget (No. 2) Bill provides the authority to use cash and resources to enable the delivery of services relating to policing and justice in 2010-11, as currently planned, after the devolution of those new responsibilities on 12 April 2010.

The Assembly is well rehearsed on the logistical reasons for accelerated passage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill. On this occasion, I also sought a suspension of Standing Orders relating to the Bill’s Further Consideration Stage and the 10-day rule. As I explained earlier, those are required to ensure that the Bill receives Royal Assent by 12 April. The Committee for Finance and Personnel and the OFMDFM Committee played an important role in ensuring the Bill’s accelerated passage. I am grateful that the Committee for Finance and Personnel confirmed that, in line with Standing Order 42, it is satisfied that there has been appropriate consultation with it on the public expenditure proposals in the Bill. Once again, I welcome and appreciate the Committee’s assistance in ensuring adherence to the legislative timetable for the Bill. The Committee was assisted by the OFMDFM Committee in its scrutiny of that Department’s Estimates, which underpin the Bill.

For the benefit of Members, and in accordance with the nature of Second Stage debates as envisaged under Standing Order 32, I shall briefly draw attention to a few key points and the general principles of the Bill. Although this is the first Budget Bill to include policing and justice matters, the format and layout of the Budget (No. 2) Bill and the Estimates will be familiar to Members from the passage of other Budget Bills through the Assembly.

The principle of the Bill is to authorise the issue of £1,432,778,000 from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund and the use of resources totalling £1,369,871,000 for the Department of Justice, the Public Prosecution Service and additional expenditure by OFMDFM. The sums to be issued from the Consolidated Fund are to be apportioned by each Department or public body for services as detailed in column 1 of schedule 1 to the Bill, and the resources are to be used for the purposes specified in column 1 of schedule 2 to the Bill. I ask Members to bear in mind that those sums are inherited financial allocations for 2010-11, which were set by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Court Service prior to the devolution of policing and justice matters.

As I said earlier, the Assembly’s adoption of those plans represents a sensible way of ensuring the continuation of valuable policing and justice services. In addition, the Bill sets out for 2010-11 the limit on the amount of accruing resources that may be directed by my Department to be used for the purposes as set out in column 1 of schedule 2. That limit includes both operating and non-operating accruing resources. Under section 8 of the Government Resources and Accounts Act (Northern Ireland) 2001, a direction on the actual use of the accruing resources will be provided by way of a DFP minute, which will be laid before the Assembly after the Bill has received Royal Assent.

I remind Members to bear in mind the relevance of the Budget (No. 2) Bill on the path to ensuring the full devolution of policing and justice powers by 12 April 2010. The Bill reflects the cash and resources that are required to facilitate the detailed spending plans of the Department of Justice, the Public Prosecution Service and other additional expenditure by OFMDFM, which will be incurred as a consequence of devolution of policing and justice for the financial year ending 31 March 2011. The detailed spending plans are set out in the 2010-11 Main Estimates.

The spending plans that are reflected in the Budget (No. 2) Bill were debated and approved by the House earlier. Therefore, I do not propose to spend any more time on the detail of the Bill. Question Time is coming up, and you are getting nervous, Mr Speaker. However, I am happy to take questions afterwards. I commend the Budget (No. 2) Bill to the Assembly.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I suggest that the House takes its ease until Question Time.

The debate stood suspended.

Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

1. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline the recommendations of the parades working group and the responses to date of the parading organisations to the proposals. (AQO 974/10)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

As part of the agreement that was reached at Hillsborough Castle on 5 February 2010, the deputy First Minister and I established a working group and appointed six members who had experience of dealing with parading issues. The working group has been involved in a period of intensive work to fulfil its task. That has included a series of meetings with elected representatives and a range of stakeholders including representatives of residents’ groups.

The working group has presented its report to the deputy First Minister and me, and work progresses to prepare a draft Bill that will implement the working group’s agreed outcomes. In line with the timetable that was set out in the Hillsborough agreement, we are committed to the completion of a draft Bill by late March or early April, at which point full consultation will be undertaken. Pending that full consultation on the draft Bill, we consider that it would be inappropriate to provide details of the responses from stakeholders’ submissions and premature to outline the recommendations of the parades working group.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the First Minister for his reply. When does he expect the recommendations of the parades working group to be tabled at the Executive to enable a more inclusive, all-party approach to this important issue? Will the First Minister also confirm whether the Loyal Orders will be consulted on an ongoing basis as the proposals emerge?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

We discussed the parades working group at the last meeting of the Executive. Indeed, we reported on all the working groups that were set up as a result of the Hillsborough agreement.

The working group has not completed its work, but it provided a framework that is being put into the form of a draft Bill. The draftsmen have already been coming back with detailed elements and technical issues. As soon as that is completed, the draft Bill will go to the Executive, after which it will go out for public consultation. The public consultation will probably last about 12 weeks. As the Member will know, we intend to provide the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister with the detail of the responses to that consultation. The Committee will carry out its own hearings or inquiry as best suits.

As far as the Loyal Orders are concerned, we have received useful assistance and advice from Rev Mervyn Gibson. As the Member will be aware, Rev Mervyn Gibson was a member of the Ashdown strategic review body. His input has been very helpful. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that we could not have done without it. He and my colleagues have spoken to the institution about the broad framework and will continue to provide updates as and when required.

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

Does the First Minister accept that the fact that many members of the Loyal Orders have been briefed about the working group on a number of occasions does not instil confidence among the wider community and, in particular, residents’ groups? Furthermore, the fact that two political parties have been excluded —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I ask the Member to come to her question.

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

My question relates to the fact that two political parties have been excluded and the Loyal Orders have been briefed but the wider community and nationalist groups, in particular, have not.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

My understanding is that residents’ groups met the working group and that political parties were also present. If people want to speak to elected representatives about the relevant issues, they can do so. This will probably be the most consulted-on legislation that this Assembly or its predecessors have ever produced. As I said, there will be a 12-week consultation period on the draft Bill. Furthermore, when the deputy First Minister and I seek the transfer of that legislation to the Assembly, it will face the scrutiny that comes under the auspices of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the various stages of debate in the Assembly. Therefore, everyone will have plenty of opportunity to talk about the legislation in detail.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I commend the efforts that the working group has made to date, especially those that involved taking evidence from residents’ groups, such as those from the Garvaghy Road, the Ormeau Road and other parts of the North.

The First Minister has already answered my question on the next steps that are to be taken in this process. What progress is being made on the absence of dialogue, which is a key issue for a number of residents’ groups, including that at Rasharkin? Has any progress been made on this year’s marching season?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

There is an obligation on the deputy First Minister and me to proceed with the other aspect of the parades issue, which is recognising that a number of parades have been intrinsically difficult and cannot be dealt with simply by having a meeting a few weeks prior to the date when the parade is due. Therefore, we looked at getting in place the kind of dialogue that the Member is talking about.

From my experience last year in attempting to get dialogue going on the Garvaghy Road, I know that that is not always easy to accomplish. However, I am pretty sure that it is on my agenda and that of the deputy First Minister to try to get things moving on all those parades that we recognise as being legacy parades with difficulties attached to them.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the First Minister for his responses to questions this afternoon.

Parading is a very big issue. The level of interest shown by everyone in the Chamber is clear from the questions that are being asked. What would happen if parading was not concluded through the Hillsborough Castle Agreement? If no agreement were reached, where would we be?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Hillsborough Castle Agreement has given us the opportunity to tackle an issue that has caused massive problems. There has been both community division and a financial cost as a consequence of those problems. If some believe that we can just continue with the Parades Commission, they would be taking the option of doing nothing. In my view, the Parades Commission has become part of the problem and needs to be replaced. We need what a Member who spoke previously referred to as a dialogue-centred process. Such a process would be fairer, more transparent and would clearly provide a better form of adjudication than exists for those of us who have been frustrated with the Parades Commission. More of the same awaits us if we do not resolve this issue. Ours is a divided society, and this is one of the issues that lies at the heart of that division. If we want to heal our society and to have a shared society, we must tackle such issues and not run away from them.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

2. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the efforts being made to help savers within the Presbyterian Mutual Society. (AQO 975/10)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The frequency with which we are asked for updates about the situation of the Presbyterian Mutual Society (PMS) illustrates the concern that Members right across the Assembly feel for the fate of PMS savers.

The deputy First Minister and I share that concern. We are acutely aware that the impact of prevailing circumstances has led to difficulty and hardship for a significant number of local people. We have said in the past that remedies to the PMS situation are complex, but I readily acknowledge that that is cold comfort to those who are dealing with daily anxiety about their savings.

Although this is a matter for Westminster in the first instance, Members of the Assembly will know that officials have been looking at a number of options for dealing with the crisis. A final report is to be presented shortly to the ministerial working group that was set up to examine options for helping PMS members. Thereafter, we hope to be in a position to share details.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for his reply. This is an issue that causes, and has caused, grave concern to a large number of people. Unfortunately, we have gone through a number of moderators since this issue has been brought to the fore, but there is still no conclusion. Will the First Minister tell us if and when the various options for the PMS will be published?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am sure that the deputy First Minister and I have forgotten how many times we have spoken to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State about this issue. Along with the Minister of Finance and Personnel and the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, we have attended joint ministerial meetings to examine the various options that are open to us.

We all agree that by far the best option would be for a bank to show an interest and to take over the responsibilities. In the absence of that, we are considering an option that is being worked up by our officials, under our direction. I hope that the Treasury would be prepared to accept that option, which meets its criteria. The Executive would decide whether they wish to move forward with that option. However, that option would come second to the commercial or banking option, which has not been ruled out.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat. Does the First Minister believe that in light of the Financial Services Authority’s conclusion that the Presbyterian Mutual Society was conducting regulated activities without authorisation or exemption, it is time for the PMS directors to apologise publicly to those who had savings in that organisation?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I will be very careful about that matter. If there are legal issues, a decision will have to be taken at some stage about whether any action should be taken. I am sure that the Member will agree with me that the people who invested money are blameless. All Members have a responsibility, in so far as it lies with us, to take whatever steps we can to ensure that the savings that PMS members deposited are recovered.

The PMS grew exponentially and at such a pace that regulation was bypassed because of the difference between registration and regulation. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment was responsible for registration but not for regulation. The regulation should have come from elsewhere. Given that gap, Her Majesty’s Government have a responsibility, which is why we have been pressing the Government to assist us to deal with the savers.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for his concern about the suffering of many of the savers. Older people seem to be suffering more than others. Are there any plans to help them in their present need?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member will be aware that the administrator received a judgement from the courts that indicated how any funds that are available to him will have to be shared out. Unfortunately, many of the people to whom the Member refers fall into the category of those with savings of less than £20,000. Under PMS rules, they are the last to receive a payment.

The deputy First Minister and I are concerned about that and are considering ways to ensure that we deal with those who are in severe hardship. Those are not just elderly people, although they constitute a large element. There are disabled people in my constituency whose funds for care are in the PMS, and they cannot access them. They are relying on the generosity of family members, which puts considerable strain on those family members. There is much hardship and anxiety, which means that we must find a solution to this affair very quickly. People cannot hang on for much longer.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

3. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the proposed reorganisation of staff in their Department. (AQO 976/10)

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ceist uimhir a trí. Question 3.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

In the Budget for 2008-2011, the Executive agreed that Departments would deliver 5% per annum administrative efficiency savings over 2008-09 to 2010-11. The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) is required to deliver £2 million in efficiency savings across the three years. Those measures will result in a reduction of approximately 51 full-time equivalent posts. The objective is to have that completed, as far as possible, by 1 April 2010 through redeployment in the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the suppression of vacancies.

To date, we have been able to implement around half of the required reductions, and we are hopeful that the remainder will be achieved within the required time frame. The Department is engaging with trade union side to take the work forward.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

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

Will the First Minister assure the Assembly that there will be no reduction in services for children and young people, victims and survivors and older people as a result of the proposed reorganisation?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I understand that there are concerns, particularly among groups with an interest in children and young people, that removing the various units, or silos, in the policy directorate will mean that the concentration and focus on those interests will be reduced. I would suggest that the opposite is probably true. By removing silos, we can ensure that staff time is concentrated on working where it is needed. I do not envisage any reduction in services as a result of the changes that we are making. Some units dealt exclusively with one group, and when their workload was completed or low, they sat there until more work came along. Under the new arrangements, everybody will be working at full tilt on the issues that are before them, so I do not envisage any reduction in services. As the process goes on, the deputy First Minister and I will continue to monitor it.

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

As part of the reorganisation in his Department, the victims’ unit is to be abolished. Does he accept that that has created anxiety in the minds of victims and survivors, particularly in light of the absence of a decision on a proposed victims’ service? Indeed, should he not reinstate the victims’ unit?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I shall be very clear about the matter. There is an assumption that we have done away with the gender and sexual orientation unit, the victims’ unit, the children and young people’s unit and the disability unit. What we have done is remove the silos to ensure that units do not work individually. Instead, the policy directorate as a whole will deal with all the work under its ambit. Consequently, under the system as it now exists, there will be no reduction in the importance and priority that is given to victims, and they can be certain that if work is required to be done, it will be done within the Department and without any lessening of output.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

How do OFMDFM staffing levels compare with those during the previous period of devolution?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am sure that I have an answer somewhere, but, off the top of my head, I recollect that we started with about 420 members of staff and when the process is completed, we will be down to about 350 members of staff. Those are the rough statistics. We are reducing staffing levels by redeploying people within the Civil Service and by not filling vacancies, so it will be done as painlessly as possible.

There was an occasion when some colleagues in the Chamber indicated that the number of staff in OFMDFM is comparable to that in the White House. Statistically, they got even that wrong. Only a handful of staff deals with First Minister and deputy First Minister private office business. The difference with our office is that ours is a Department with departmental responsibilities and not just a private office for two Ministers.

William McCrea (DUP, South Antrim)

4. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister what progress has been made by the ministerial subcommittee on children and young people to enhance provision for children with special educational needs in special schools, including provision for the transition to adulthood. (AQO 977/10)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I shall ask junior Minister Robin Newton to answer that question.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for South Antrim for his question, which is an important one. In general, he will be aware that the ministerial subcommittee on children and young people agreed six key priorities, one of which was provision for children with special educational needs in mainstream and special schools, including the transition to adulthood and the provision of appropriate health and social care interventions.

Cross-departmental subgroups have been established to take those priorities forward, and the subgroup that is progressing the work on special educational needs is led by the Department of Education. Each subgroup has developed action plans, which, with the exception of the child poverty action plan, have been agreed by the ministerial subcommittee. However, as the action plans have not been formally agreed by the Executive, it would not be appropriate to share the content of the special educational needs plan. I can confirm that that subgroup has agreed that it will not cover work being taken forward by other groups. In order to make a real difference, it will, instead, focus on a single issue.

Therefore, work to date and planned work will focus on the area of transitions. Each of the Departments has received a copy of the action plan. As of this morning, two responses were outstanding; this afternoon, there is only one, which shows that the Departments are taking the matter seriously. Those action plans were provided only in February. We hope to seek formal Executive agreement to the plans very soon, possibly even this week. I will be able to provide more detailed information after the Executive meeting.

William McCrea (DUP, South Antrim)

Although I welcome the junior Minister’s answer, how can he seek to encourage greater co-operation between the Departments that share responsibility in providing for the future of young people with special needs?

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

That is an important question that does not just relate to the subject raised by Mr McCrea. It falls into the area of concern that others have about our unique system of government that is based on, and developed for, addressing our political problems. Indeed, because of our political problems, we have a complex system and considerable effort has been put into trying to get Departments to work more closely together on issues such as this. We set up the ministerial subcommittees precisely for that reason.

Those subcommittees bring together the key Ministers with a team of officials to work on identified priority actions. Many important issues do not lie firmly within the boundaries of just one Department, so it is critical that we find ways in which to work effectively, and across boundaries, to identify solutions and to ensure that the subcommittees produce joined-up action plans.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

What assurances can the junior Minister give to the ICAN Centre based in Ballynahinch Primary School? The centre is concerned that lack of funding and support may curtail its excellent work.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for his question. I am not extremely familiar with that case. However, I will have some research done and happily come back to the Member on the matter.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the junior Minister for his answer, which touched slightly on my question. Will he confirm whether the ministerial subcommittee on children and young people has considered the Minister of Education’s proposals on special educational needs provision, and the potential impact that that will have on the provision in special schools and mainstream education?

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for his question. The ‘Report of the Promoting Social Inclusion Working Group on Disability’, presented to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister in December 2009, made several recommendations about the educational needs of children and young people with disabilities. The report is published on the OFMDFM website. Its recommendations include:

“Children and young people with disabilities should be offered the same opportunities as other young people in respect of education and training”

and:

“The inter-departmental task group should conduct an audit of services to disabled young people aged 14-25 years, identifying the gaps between services”.

The review of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 and the associated guidance will establish a clear responsibility for the early assessment of the needs of disabled young persons who leave education. A strategic plan on transitions will be developed that will clearly set out a comprehensive person-centred transitions process for all young people with disabilities.

An Executive response to the working group’s report is being developed. It will set out how the Executive intend to take forward the recommendations of the report. The Executive intend to consult fully on the proposals. The educational needs of children and young people with disabilities will also be considered in work to implement and monitor the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

5. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister what investment opportunities were identified on their recent trip to Chicago and Washington. (AQO 978/10)

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

6. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on new emerging investment opportunities from the USA. (AQO 979/10)

Allan Bresland (DUP, West Tyrone)

10. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an assessment of their recent visit to the USA. (AQO 983/10)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will take questions 5, 6 and 10 together.

Last week’s visit to the US was, without doubt, the most successful visit that the deputy First Minister and I have made since we took office. The week-long programme was aimed specifically at promoting the Northern Ireland economy in all of its forms. I am pleased to inform the Assembly that we used our time to promote not only inward investment opportunities but trade development and tourism.

We began our itinerary in Chicago, where we met existing investors and the chief executive officers of several leading US companies that are potential investors. We also addressed an audience of some 200 leading business figures in Chicago and outlined the benefits of establishing a business in Northern Ireland. We were pleased to receive Mayor Richard Daley’s personal endorsement of the work that we are doing to strengthen the local economy. Mayor Daley welcomed us to City Hall, where we had the opportunity to learn about the work that he commissioned to improve services to voters and how he introduced measures to address falling city government revenues.

In Washington DC, we continued to promote our economic development objective at a Northern Ireland business round table, which was organised on our behalf by the United States Economic Envoy, Declan Kelly. That event included members of some of Northern Ireland’s most successful companies, who were in Washington as part of a strategic trade mission that was organised by Invest Northern Ireland.

Later, we had a private meeting with the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, which we used to discuss opportunities for securing further support from the Obama Administration for economic development initiatives here. Also in Washington, we joined Executive colleagues Arlene Foster, Sir Reg Empey and Margaret Ritchie at the Northern Ireland Bureau breakfast, where we presented, I hope, a united front to an audience of some 350 politicians, senior officials in the Obama Administration and members of the local business community. Minister Foster presented a very compelling multi-screen video of the five signature projects and encouraged all those in attendance to visit and to experience our world-class tourist product.

The highlight of our visit to Washington was our meeting with President Obama at the White House. We were delighted that despite the enormous pressure on the President with regard to the healthcare Bill, which at that stage was going through Congress, he gave us 30 minutes of his time to talk about Northern Ireland. The President was joined at the meeting by the Vice President, Joe Biden, the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and General Jones, the director of the National Security Council. That level of engagement by the four top office bearers in the United States Administration was unprecedented. It was a clear indication to the American people of the importance that the US Government place on supporting economic growth and political stability here.

Most significantly, in Washington, the deputy First Minister and I were able to engage directly with the Secretary of State, President Obama and several Members of Congress to seek their support for an economic conference in Washington in the autumn of this year. Although that event is at the very early stages of development, I can confirm that it will be a focused event that will be targeted at a limited number of very senior executives who will be specially selected with the help of Declan Kelly and Invest Northern Ireland. The event will be hosted by Secretary of State Clinton and supported by President Obama. In addition, we managed to secure the support of President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and Members of Congress for the continuation of the International Fund for Ireland.

In New York, the deputy First Minister met the New York City Comptroller, the New York State Comptroller and several leading figures in the Irish-American business community. I went to Houston, Texas, accompanied by Minister Foster and the Invest NI chief executive officer, to meet the executive management of Baker Hughes to discuss its decision to close its Belfast plant and to explore how the Executive could support the retention of work in Northern Ireland.

Last week provided the deputy First Minister and me with unparalleled access to some of the most senior decision-makers in corporate America. We met current and prospective investors, as well as a range of senior business and political leaders who can influence investment decisions here. I record our appreciation to Declan Kelly, whose contribution to our itinerary was vital.

Employment and Learning

Allan Bresland (DUP, West Tyrone)

1. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning what he expects to achieve from the forthcoming Northern Ireland skills conference. (AQO 960/10)

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Department’s annual skills conference is now in its fifth year. It brings together leading policymakers, educationalists, training providers, employers, industry represent­atives and business leaders. It encourages debate on key issues, linking skills development with enhanced productivity and competitiveness of the Northern Ireland economy. Each year, the conference focuses on a key aspect of the Department’s skills agenda. Research by Oxford Economics and McKinsey indicates that managerial practices and the structure of the Northern Ireland economy need to be strengthened.

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

Allan Bresland (DUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his answer. When talking to those involved in various aspects of the growing tourism industry, I get the impression that they have difficulty in finding people who have the right skills. Will the Minister indicate the extent to which the conference and the broader work of his Department will address that shortage?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I assure the Member that a group is working on hospitality in general because we recognise that tourism will be a major growth industry in the coming years. To that effect, we have been working with the sector on a number of issues. For instance, we are encouraging young people to come forward to be the chefs of the future, and a lot of young people have enrolled in a junior chefs’ academy. They are very enthusiastic, and places on the courses are heavily oversubscribed. In addition to improving the infrastructure for tourism, we have to provide the service and the capability to deliver the services in that new infrastructure. Therefore, we are extremely keen to develop that sector and we are getting good support. I assure the Member that the tourism and hospitality sectors, which we conclude are one, are receiving very high levels of attention.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for that answer. What are his views on the recent independent review of economic policy, which suggested that skills are a key driver for regional economic growth? How does he foresee those being developed?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

Oxford Economics has done work on our behalf and has produced some significant evidence. For instance, it is clear that management capability is one of the biggest drivers. If that can be improved, there will be a disproportionate improvement in productivity and earnings.

The Department is promoting and raising awareness of management and leadership proposals. For instance, we are running the Made Not Born campaign, which makes it clear that managers are made and not born. We also provide courses at 100% funding. We have had a big take-up of those and have managed to keep them fully funded throughout the year. Through that activity, the improved management of the future will be found. Oxford Economics has pointed out that management and leadership skills will have a disproportionate impact on the growth of the Northern Ireland economy. We believe that the reports from Oxford Economics and McKinsey show that by improving poor management practices, particularly in manufacturing sector, we could improve output by more than £300 million per annum.

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

In view of the large number of people in the region who are qualified to NVQ level 2, is the Minister happy that those who are re-entering the New Deal and Steps to Work programmes are being encouraged to go for higher NVQ qualifications, or does he believe that the trend is to continue to opt for the easier NVQ level 2 qualification?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I do not accept the honourable Member’s point. The drive is to raise skills, not merely keep them flat. That is the problem in this country. As the Member knows, far too many young people who do not have basic qualifications are being turned out of schools. A staggering 80% of young people are not getting up to five GCSEs, including maths and English. Therefore, the problem starts at a much earlier stage in our schooling system. It has always been a matter of absolute amazement to me that thousands of young children, who cannot read or write at the age of 10 or 11, are being transferred to secondary schools. I do not understand how we can get off the ground and improve our skills position as long as that remains the case.

I assure the Member that far from wishing to restrict skill levels, our objective is to increase them. That includes people in work and not simply those who are entering the workforce; it is a continuum. Considering the way in which the economies of the world are developing, the Member will know well that today’s skills will not necessarily be adequate to keep people going in 10 years’ time. Given that 70% of the people in today’s workforce will be in the workforce in 2020, the majority of skills improvement will have to happen to those who are in work.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the forthcoming skills conference have any messages for those who lost their jobs in the construction and engineering industries recently? Will it help them to identify new career opportunities or new pathways? My question is based on the fact that those industries are in decline, not least in County Tyrone, where, in the recent past, there have been serious job losses.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I am conscious that the Member is not alone in this House in having many constituents in the construction sector who are suffering. It is a problem across the Province. I am sad to say that one could count on the fingers of one hand the number of construction jobs advertised in our job centres. There is no evidence of an upturn in the construction sector at this stage. In fact, the situation is quite the reverse. However, through our programme-led apprenticeships, we are still providing places for the construction sector. The fact that the sector has been suffering in the past couple years is no reason not to upskill the people in it. In fact, it is one reason to do precisely the opposite, if possible. The higher the level of skills available in a company, the more efficient it will become and, therefore, the more likely that it will be to achieve work through tendering.

Although construction is a depressing panorama at this stage, we have to rely on that sector to rebuild the Province’s infrastructure over a prolonged period. The investment strategy for Northern Ireland contains a long list of infrastructure projects that we want to deliver. We will not give up on the requirement to ensure that there are highly skilled people in the construction sector in this country.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

2. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning what steps he is taking to have the chair and governors of Stranmillis College reconstituted. (AQO 961/10)

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The college’s governing body is constituted in accordance with paragraph 2 of schedule 2 to the Colleges of Education (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 and the college’s instrument of government. The term of office of a number of the current governing body members is due to expire in July of this year. However, all but one of the members have agreed to stand for a second term, as permitted in the regulations. In line with the legislation, the college is also considering the co-option of a further two members to the governing body.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Does the Minister agree that a problem exists with regard to a deficit on the board of governors of Stranmillis University College, given the fact it no longer includes transferor representatives? Will he assure the House that with regard to the co-option of members onto the board when it is reconstituted, the college’s Christian ethos will be protected? There are grave concerns that in moving forward with any merger plan, the Christian ethos that has been very much to the fore and much appreciated for many years at Stranmillis College will be diluted. Can he assure the House that that ethos will not be left behind, as opposed to the way in which other colleges are promoted?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Member will understand that when the architecture of the governing body of Stranmillis College changed — in 2006, I believe — it was changed against the will of his party and mine.

As I indicated, I must operate under the Colleges of Education (Northern Ireland) Order 2005. I anticipate that, after July 2010, there will be 13 members on the board, seven of whom will be nominated by the Department and six of whom will be nominated by the college. I understand that the college’s nominees would include two co-opted members, the appointment of whom it is considering. The issue is that, under legislation, at least half of the members must be nominated by the Department. That will be the case. However, the issue to which the Member refers has particular pertinence in view of the proposed merger. I have indicated to the House on a number of occasions that I am addressing that issue at present. I hope that that particular matter will be addressed directly during consultation on any proposals that I make.

At the end of the day, as the Member will be aware, the House will have the final say in all those matters. A number of Members have made representations to me on that very issue. As he pointed out, the automatic right of transferor representatives to seats on the board was removed by that Order, which, I suspect, both he and I opposed. I am dealing with the legislative framework for the appointment of the board. I am unable to operate outside that. However, as regards any merger proposals, we are perfectly entitled to consider proposals at that stage that would deal with the matter to which the Member refers.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

In view of the many difficulties that seem to have arisen, is there any apparent resolution of the problem of the merger at present?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The business case took far longer to resolve than I had anticipated. It has, however, been with my Department and has gone back to the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP), which, I believe, has approved it. Now, I want to bring proposals for a public consultation to the Executive. At that stage, the issues to which the Member referred will be addressed. I hope that it will not be too long coming.

Paul Butler (Sinn Féin, Lagan Valley)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Does the Minister agree that the longer that the proposed merger of Stranmillis College and Queen’s University takes, the more uncertainty that creates? Mervyn Storey’s question reflected the uncertainty that prevails in Stranmillis College. The Minister must provide the Assembly with some certainty as to what the future holds for Queen’s University and Stranmillis College with regard to a merger. The longer that that issue continues, the more uncertainty it creates, not only for the board of governors but for employees at Queen’s and Stranmillis. Can the Minister provide assurance that the issue will be fast-tracked as soon as possible?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I cannot disagree with the Member. However, as I said, the business case required so much work that its completion took much longer than expected. That was not the Department’s fault. The business case was prepared by the college together with Queen’s University; it was not prepared by the Department.

Our job is to respond to the business case. After the Department sent responses backwards and forwards to the college and the consultants who prepared the case, which required a great deal of work, the case went to DFP. The Department is now preparing a consultation document, which must go to the Executive before it can be published. I assure the Member that I am conscious of the point that he makes and that the Department will do everything as quickly as possible. However, I gave an assurance to the House that it was not my intention to try to railroad any legislation through. It will take its course. I have repeated that undertaking on a number of occasions.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Question 3 has been withdrawn.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

4. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning if any officials within his Department received performance-related bonuses in 2009-2010. (AQO 963/10)

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I can confirm that no senior official in my Department has received a performance-related bonus in 2009-2010. The 2009-2010 pay award for non-industrial civil servants below Senior Civil Service grades, which was effective from 1 August 2009, is the subject of ongoing negotiations. For some time, my Department has operated a reward and recognition scheme for staff below Senior Civil Service grade, which seeks, in a limited way, to acknowledge exceptional contributions made by individuals and teams outside normal duties. Under that scheme, 19 staff were allocated awards in 2009-2010, at a total cost of £7,150, equating to an average of £376 per person.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his response. Does he believe that it is appropriate to be awarding bonus payments in the current economic climate, given the hardship that many ordinary people face?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

As I said, in the particular case of my Department, a total of £7,000 in bonuses was spread over 19 individuals. Those bonuses have been a long-standing issue and they are for exceptional contributions made by individuals or teams of individuals. It should be borne in mind that the work that led to those bonuses was probably done in a previous period, but I accept the Member’s point.

There has been a tendency in the Civil Service in the United Kingdom as a whole to move more towards bonuses. I suspect that the Chancellor at the time, Gordon Brown, may have had a say in that. The reason for that tendency is that bonuses do not have an impact on pensions, whereas increases in basic salaries do. I suspect that the now Prime Minister may have been wishing to encourage more bonuses, in so far as they do not have an implication for pensions.

Out of my Department’s total budget of over £800 million, something in the region of £7,000 is not unreasonable. However, I accept the Member’s fundamental point, which is to question whether we should have any bonuses of any description. That matter would have to be negotiated between the Minister of Finance and Personnel and the trade unions concerned. I know that a lot of bonuses have attracted negative attention, and I understand that none has been awarded in the Senior Civil Service grades this year, which I suspect to be in accordance with public opinion.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

5. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning for his assessment of the effectiveness of the programme-led apprenticeship scheme. (AQO 964/10)

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

7. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning what consultation took place with employers and employer representative bodies before the recent changes to the programme-led apprenticeship scheme. (AQO 966/10)

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take questions 5 and 7 together.

Feedback on the programme-led apprenticeship scheme has been varied. There is an appreciation that the Department is responding to the very real problem of the lack of employment of apprentices in the economic downturn, and some sectors support the concept of the scheme. However, some sectors have concerns that the programme could discourage employers from employing apprentices.

The programme has proven to be very popular, with almost 3,000 young people participating in it. It is too soon to assess its effectiveness, but the fact that the programme is based on normal apprenticeship frameworks should help participants to progress to employed apprentice status when the economy picks up.

In the meantime, my Department is trying to address the issue of employer placements by introducing some flexibility into the placement arrangements. The proposed changes to the programme have not yet been introduced. The Department has met the Alliance of Sector Skills Councils to provide it with an opportunity to reflect employers’ views on the issue. The Department will continue to work with sector skills councils in implementing any changes to the programme.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my personal commitment to the employer-led ApprenticeshipsNI programme as the preferred model for apprenticeships in Northern Ireland. However, employers have a responsibility to make that work by employing apprentices where possible.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his response. Does the Minister agree that the ongoing impact of the recession, including the longer-term trend towards higher unemployment, is likely to have a negative effect on the initiative? Is he satisfied that the business and industry sectors and all the other employers are fully engaged in the initiative?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

There are 25 sector skills councils in Northern Ireland, and they have varying footprints according to size. They are fully engaged in the initiative, and they are the voice of the employer as far as the exercise is concerned. We have had a debate on the matter and a number of questions have been asked. I remind Members that in the summer of last year, when we were making the decision about programme-led apprenticeships, we were, in my view, forced into it because employers were not prepared to take on apprentices. Many of the key private sector groups that would normally have taken on substantial numbers of apprentices were not taking on any, and that included some of our biggest companies.

I believe that we all accept that an employer-led apprenticeship, with the apprentice being employed by an employer, is the best route. However, employers were not coming forward with placements. What were we to do with thousands of young people last September? The consequence of going down the route of programme-led apprenticeships was that that had to take place largely in the colleges. The young people have voted with their feet, as almost 3,000 of them have taken up those apprenticeships. When the scheme was introduced, I said that we would be reviewing it continuously in light of experience. I assure the Member that we have consulted all the employers, and we are about to make more flexible changes to the work placement aspect. The big problem that we have with the scheme is that only just over half of the young people have work placements. None of us can force the issue. The only way in which young people can get real hands-on experience is for employers to co-operate. We are able to produce a simulated work environment, perhaps in colleges or with a training provider, but that is not the best option.

Like the Member, I believe that an employer-led apprenticeship is the best scheme. However, what were we to do with thousands of young people in the meantime? They are better in programme-led apprenticeships than on jobseekers allowance, which is one of the alternatives.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Can the Minister give details of the number of employers or employer-representative bodies that he has consulted?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

We have consulted them all. The Alliance of Sector Skills Councils represents the 25 sector skills councils and that is the main channel of communication. The Member will know, because I am sure that he has been lobbied, that some groups are uncomfortable with us because they wanted to ensure that the employer-led scheme remained, and they felt that that was best for their long-term interests. However, if we had not introduced the programme-led scheme, there would have been nothing for thousands of young people. Although I would prefer an employer-driven and employer-led arrangement, we took the view that an emergency measure had to be brought in. I will keep it under review, but I assure the Member that the consultation that we have held though the Alliance of Sector Skills Councils is the right route. That is what the councils are there for, and they are able to feed back to us the views of employers, which we will take into account. We have been listening, and we will make alterations to the scheme to make it more flexible with regard to work placements. However, the big problem that remains is that nearly half of the young people do not have a work placement.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister touched on the issue that I wanted to raise, which is the fact that around 50% of apprentices do not achieve their placements. However, I am anxious to pursue the matter a bit further. What consultation or engagement has taken place with employers to find out what incentives they are asking for from the Department to take on young people so that those young people can complete their apprenticeships and go on to complete their NVQs?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

Members will be aware that there is already a financial incentive for an employer to take on an apprentice, and a further financial incentive is paid to the employer if that apprentice completes the course. The big problem is that, in a downturn, it is difficult for employers to make existing members of their workforce redundant and then bring in people who were not there before. The Member will understand that that is a huge difficulty.

As far as the consultation is concerned, we have a structure. That is what the sector skills councils are there for. We are contributing financially towards their work, and I believe that that is the right framework. We also have our skills adviser, Bill McGinnis, who is regularly in touch with employers about the future.

Apprentices who have work placements can get their NVQs while those who do not can get a certificate, but when they eventually get into employment, they can complete their NVQs. Therefore, the work and time are not wasted, and the young people will ultimately be able to get an NVQ when they eventually get a work placement or a job. In the meantime, they will get a certificate that is of value to them and shows that they have undergone the programme-led apprenticeship scheme. That is of advantage to them even if it is not as good as getting an NVQ. There is no barrier to them ultimately getting an NVQ.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

6. asked the Minister for Employment and Learning for an update on the new performing arts centre and technology innovation centre at the South Eastern Regional College, Bangor. (AQO 965/10)

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The proposed performing arts centre and technology innovations centre capital development project in Bangor has completed the initial stage of procurement, which identified a shortlist of five contractors. However, due to a reduction in the Department’s capital budget for 2010-11, the tendering stage has been suspended. A bid for additional resources will be made at the next available opportunity.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Minister for that answer. He will be aware that the South Eastern Regional College is already one of the top 30 colleges in the UK and has ambitions to be one of the top 20 in the world by 2020. How can the Minister give confidence that colleges, such as the South Eastern Regional College, will actually be able to deliver the skills for the future and help the step change in our economy if the Department and the Executive cannot guarantee that investment is made in basic infrastructure, such as that project?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

First of all, I am for the project. It was in my Department’s programme, and it had gone to tender stage, but when the Department of Finance and Personnel came knocking a couple of months ago, we were asked to examine the whole capital programme. That particular project was the only one for which the contracts had not been formally signed off and, therefore, for which we would not suffer a financial loss by pulling out.

The position is that the South Eastern Regional College, which is an excellent college, has received, at £52 million, the largest capital development support of any college in the past two years. It has developments in Lisburn, and those in Downpatrick — phases one and two — Ballynahinch, Newcastle and Newtownards are proceeding. It has the biggest capital building programme of any college in Northern Ireland.

If the Member looks at the further education estate in general, he will see that it has been practically rebuilt, with help from the Department, over the past few years. The Northern Regional College is the one on which there is most still to do.

I am very proud of what we have achieved. It has been achieved because we put a big effort into creating a proper environment for our young people — and not so young — to study in. The South Eastern Regional College is an excellent college. I have been to many of its events, and I look forward to going to the opening of further South Eastern Regional College campuses in the coming weeks.