Northern Ireland Assembly, 21 June 2010

294 contributions from 62 members. The official report.

Matters of the Day

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Mr Raymond McCartney has sought leave to make a statement on a matter that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. I will call Mr McCartney to speak on the subject for up to three minutes. I will then call representatives from each of the other parties, as agreed with the Whips. Those Members will also have three minutes in which to speak on the matter. There will be no opportunity for interventions, questions or a vote on the matter. I will not take any points of order until the item of business has been concluded. If that is clear, we will proceed.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I want to extend our continuing solidarity and support to the Bloody Sunday families and to all those who seek truth and justice. Tony Doherty, whose father, Patrick, was one of those murdered, said on the steps of the Guildhall last Tuesday that he had been waiting 38 years to hear the words “unjustified and unjustifiable”. The truth had finally come home. He spoke on behalf of the families, of all those who marched on Bloody Sunday and of all those who campaigned to have the truth set free. The Saville report lays bare the great lie of Bloody Sunday, when the British military, political and judicial establishment came together to turn those without blame into the accused and to exalt and honour those responsible for murder and perjury.

Last Tuesday, without equivocation, the dead and the wounded were exonerated, their innocence declared. Those responsible, the British Parachute Regiment and its masters, were deemed guilty and dishonoured. Those of us in the Guildhall and in Guildhall Square witnessed and shared in the triumph of justice over injustice. We stood in admiration of those families as they displayed great generosity in moments of great emotion. That generosity was epitomised by their response to the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, who had apologised without equivocation for the British Government and state. Their generosity was reciprocated by Bishop Ken Good, the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church, Norman Hamilton, and the President of the Methodist Church, Paul Kingston, when they met the families at the Bloody Sunday monument on Wednesday morning. Many others, including the First Minister, may have held a different viewpoint but now accept the findings of Saville, and that is how is should be.

The Saville report concluded that those who marched for justice and civil rights on 30 January 1972 were vindicated. The closing words of Tony Doherty’s address echoed the words on one of the panels in the Museum of Free Derry that tells the story of Bloody Sunday:

“No one who struggles for justice is a stranger here. No one who dies in the struggle for justice is forgotten here.”

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The events of 30 January 1972 were, undoubtedly, a tragedy for those who lost their lives and their families. Several months ago, before the Saville report had been published, I expressed that position during an Adjournment debate. That was the one point of unanimity that spanned the political spectrum. For many years, some of us have questioned the wisdom of setting up the Saville Inquiry to investigate an incident of some 30 years’ vintage. The fact that it cost nearly £200 million is deplorable and scandalous. Unfortunately, Saville did not lay out in detail why troops were on the ground that day — Saville did not, but we will.

There are those, some of whom are in the Chamber today, who are trying to rewrite history. They try to suggest that the violence that lasted for some 30 years started with Bloody Sunday. They do so in an attempt to confer some form of bogus legitimacy on their campaign of murder, which preceded that day and continued long thereafter. We will continue to ensure that the truth is told about the violence that engulfed our country for so long.

The truth is that murder, mayhem and terror were rife before 30 January 1972. In the two and a half years that preceded that day, one hundred people were murdered across Northern Ireland. In the four weeks before that day, in Londonderry alone, violence was carried out by the various factions of the IRA. There were nine separate bomb attacks on commercial and security force premises, six separate shooting incidents, including an 80-minute gun battle, and a number of gelignite and nail bomb attacks. Much of the city lay in ruins; we did not need Saville to tell us that.

There was also the despicable and cowardly murder of two policemen. One of the weapons used that night was a sub-machine gun. I have repeatedly said — it remains the case more than 30 years later — that we will probably never know the truth of all that transpired on that day. Long before the Saville Inquiry, one participant sought refuge in not answering questions and did so again while in the witness box. Almost all of us want to move on and put the past behind us, and we must do that. However, some people seem unable to own up to the many bloody days of their past.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

Last week’s publication of the Saville report was ultimately about the families who lost their loved ones on 30 January 1972. The conclusions reached by Saville will, I hope, bring closure to those families after 38 years. It should also bring closure to wider society. Those who have sought to use those events to justify terrorism were refuted by Saville’s findings, above all by his judgement that neither the Westminster Government nor the Stormont Government intended the Army to use lethal force on that day.

The bloodiest year in the history of the Troubles was 1972, when 496 people lost their life. Behind that statistic, sobering as it is, are many hundreds of families whose lives were cruelly shattered by the violence that was unleashed on our society. Without detracting from the loss of the Bloody Sunday families, it would be an injustice for the House not to acknowledge that many more families in Northern Ireland carry the scars of their loss, and, in recent days, they have felt abandoned and forgotten.

The response in some quarters to Saville has resulted in difficult questions being posed for us as a society. Any proposal of a truth recovery exercise has been utterly compromised by the response of the deputy First Minister and the republican movement. The cherry-picking and the inability to accept key findings of Saville suggest that republicans are still incapable of coming to terms with or providing an honest account of their role in the Troubles. They campaign for more inquiries in order to provide justification for their terrorism. I do not hear them campaigning for an inquiry into the events of 27 and 28 June 1970, when the IRA killed two innocent men — Jimmy McCurrie and Bobby Neill — on the Newtownards Road in Belfast.

Last week, the Prime Minister said that there will be no more open-ended and costly inquiries into the past. I entirely endorse that view. A grievance-factory approach to the past will undermine any prospect of a shared future. Acknowledging the loss experienced by too many families during our Troubles, while paying particular gratitude for the sacrifices made by the RUC and the Army and leaving questions about the past to the Historical Enquiries Team (HET), it is time for us to move forward to build our shared future. However, that will not be done if people persist in trying to manufacture inquiries purely to justify their terrorism over 38 years. There is no justification for it; there was no justification for it; and, as far as I am concerned, I hope and pray that our Government will not concede to those further demands.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

It is appropriate that we take time in this Chamber to mark the very significant publication of the Saville report and the clear, unequivocal apology that was given by David Cameron, the British Prime Minister. It is important that we do so in this Chamber, Mr Deputy Speaker, because, on 1 February 1972, this Chamber heard other words about Bloody Sunday, of which I have some samples. One Member said:

“I think the security forces were justified in taking strong action against these gunmen and these bombers and others who were out to make trouble in Londonderry on Sunday.”

Another Member said:

“The paratroopers went in to make arrests after the parade ban had been defied, after the people taking part had been turned away from the barricade, after a cap had been knocked off a policeman, and they had been fired upon.”

Another Member said:

“I cannot help but say that no matter what the law had been last Sunday … it would have ended in violence and disorder because those who are behind this campaign sought disorder and were prepared to see their own supporters die.”

He also said:

“While one should not prejudge the results of the inquiry that is unfortunately now to take place, nevertheless it can be said with some confidence that a number of those who died on Sunday were the victims of I.R.A gunmen.”

The Chamber also heard a Member say:

“I am glad that the Prime Minister and all his supporters are behind the men of the Parachute Regiment who went in to arrest the stone-throwers”.

That Member also said of the soldiers:

“They were ordered to fire only at those who were armed or were throwing bombs, and they obeyed their orders. It gives me great pleasure—that is, if there can be any pleasure in such circumstances—to realise that the men who have been blamed throughout the world are being cleared by this House.”

It is important that this House now clears the name of those whom this House blamed on Bloody Sunday. I know that it was a different House then, but it was in speeches within the walls of this Chamber that the people who organised the march were being blamed and the people on the march — the victims — were being blamed, while the people who carried out those killings, who now stand condemned by Saville, were being praised and cleared by this House.

It is important to recognise that this is a huge achievement for the families of Bloody Sunday and all who have supported them. It is also an achievement for the wounded who fought the battle to prove their innocence. Last week was a step towards justice, but it was also a step towards reconciliation, and we saw that by the very welcome actions of the three Protestant church leaders the following day. That gesture of reconciliation, of acknowledgement of innocence finally vindicated and of reaching to a future should inspire all of us in this House, but —

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

We should do that mindful of all the innocent victims that there have been in these Troubles, not just victims on Bloody Sunday but the many victims that there have been from Bloody Sunday.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

There is absolutely no doubt that the events of last Tuesday were hugely significant. There was significance in the publication of the Saville report, which, as an official British government report, clearly stated that those who died or were injured in Derry on Bloody Sunday were innocent. The report may not have used that word, but it was entirely appropriate that the relatives chose to use it.

Last Tuesday was also significant because the present Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was prepared to acknowledge the wrong that was done, and he spoke in very generous terms, which I believe can help to promote the partnership and reconciliation that this society so badly needs. His comments were unlike the quotations that Mr Durkan just gave us. In a democracy, it is absolutely right that state organisations should be judged by the highest standards. Indulging in “whataboutery” does nothing to help that situation.

It is welcome that we have seen the difference that 38 years have made and what is happening in this Chamber to cement that difference into practice. Nonetheless, even as we seek to establish a different way of working in this Building, we know that, in the wake of the Saville report, other families are still suffering; they do not have the comfort that the relatives of those who died in Derry on Bloody Sunday now have as a result of a full inquiry and exoneration. The practical reality is that we will never be able to give a full process of inquiry to all those who suffered and to the relatives of all those who died. That sense of loss will not be diminished by the knowledge that others received justice.

In the wake of the Saville report, there is a clear need for us to begin to address a range of legacy issues in a way that, up to now, we have not done. That is a task for the Assembly, which represents the entire community; for civic society, in particular the churches, and in recent days we have seen signs of that being done by the churches; and for the UK Government, who retain aspects of responsibility for dealing with the past.

Last year’s report by the Consultative Group on the Past set out proposals that afford us some opportunity to deal with outstanding issues. The report focused a great deal on reconciliation and information recovery, and it is a great pity that those who took offence at a particular aspect of the report have been unable to look at it in the round and at the possibilities it contains, because, in the absence of the report, the Historical Enquiries Team, which is the only body that we currently have, is incapable of meeting the needs of all victims. It is time that society, together, engaged in the process of reconciliation and building a new way forward.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Lord Morrow has sought leave to make a statement on a matter that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. I shall call Lord Morrow to speak for up to three minutes on the subject. I shall then call a representative of each of the other political parties, as agreed with the Whips. Those Members will also have three minutes in which to speak on the matter. There will be no opportunity for interventions, questions or a vote on the matter, and I will not take any points of order until the item of business has been concluded. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As someone who was born a small number of miles from Aughnacloy, I look on the area as my neighbourhood. Those responsible for the assault against the forces of law and order are, to say the least, beneath contempt. They want to drag Northern Ireland backwards into death and bloodshed, and I know that the whole community in Aughnacloy and, indeed, throughout this part of the United Kingdom is determined that they will not succeed. They want to plunge Northern Ireland back into misery and suffering, so, for the sake of this generation, everyone in the House must ensure that that is not allowed to happen.

A 300 lb bomb in Aughnacloy had the potential to kill and maim many innocent people, including police officers, and to destroy many homes and businesses. I am in no doubt that that is what the criminals wanted. Fortunately, due to the professionalism of the police and the Army, they failed. I publicly pay tribute to the community in Aughnacloy for how it dealt with the attack. In particular, I pay tribute to the local churches, the Red Cross and the Loyal Orders for opening their facilities to those who had to vacate their home in the middle of the night. That was a real demonstration of community spirit.

The DUP will continue to support the police as they work to put those criminals out of business. Everyone in this House must join together in that fight. No one wants to return to the days of crowds walking behind the coffins of innocent people murdered by terrorists. I strongly appeal to the House today to show unequivocal support to the forces and agencies of law and order. Let there be no ambiguity in anything that anyone says here today that would give those terrorists some comfort in the fact that they are now allegedly fighting a war.

We know who taught those people their skills. We know where they got their skills from. It is time for this House to stand up united and say that enough is enough. We now look to the Minister of Justice for new measures to ensure that the cancer of terrorism does not take over, as it has done for the past 35 years.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I apologise to the House for not being here at the beginning of Lord Morrow’s contribution. It is breastfeeding awareness week, and I was at an event in Dungannon.

I put on record my condemnation of the attempted bomb attack in Aughnacloy last week. As Lord Morrow said, there has been huge disruption. A lot of people have been affected, including elderly people who were put through the trauma of being evacuated from their home and had to spend the night in temporary facilities and parents of young children who were in bed sleeping when the call came to get out. I know one family whose children had a school trip the next day. They did not have time to get anything organised or gathered up. It really was a huge disruption.

I am extremely glad that nobody was injured or killed in the attempt to blow up Aughnacloy barracks last week. I am very grateful that it was not successful. It shows that there is still certainly a difficulty in areas like Aughnacloy and others. I assure the House that there is no equivocation in my condemnation of that event. Maurice Morrow made a comment about people being taught their skills. The past decade and more has shown that we have been leading the way politically in trying to ensure that attacks like this do not happen in the future. There is an onus on all of us to make politics work and ensure that politics is seen to be working.

I will continue, like others in Sinn Féin, to play my part in moving us towards a peaceful society. The people who carried out this attack have no support in our community. I hope that it is the last attempt of its kind that we see. Everybody in Aughnacloy deserves praise for the way in which they handled what happened. They dealt with it with good grace. I am extremely glad, as MP for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, that the attempt was unsuccessful. I unreservedly condemn it.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank Lord Morrow for raising this matter in the House this morning. I put on record the Ulster Unionist Party’s condemnation of those who, last Thursday evening, went about an attempt to murder and create destruction in the town of Aughnacloy. Thankfully for everybody in this society, they did not succeed.

It was an absolute disgrace that the local residents had to spend so much time out of their homes because of the attempt. Lord Morrow and I spent quite a long time in Aughnacloy on Friday with those residents. I pay tribute to them for how they dealt with the matter. They were put under extreme pressure, and, like Lord Morrow, I thank the community associations, the churches and the Loyal Orders for making their premises available. It was also a disgrace to see young children — I spent some time with one who was only a couple of weeks old — who were out of their houses for almost 24 hours because of the situation.

It is time that these people woke up to the reality of this society. The people who tried to do this are failures to their own community and to the entire community. It is time that they recognised that. I will go slightly further and say that there are people in that dissident republican organisation who have former colleagues in this House — in Sinn Féin, to be absolutely clear. It is time that the House went further than condemnation: it is time that those former colleagues started giving appropriate and useful information to the security services in the Province to allow them to deal effectively, once and for all, with those republican terrorists, who are not wanted in this society. I say again: they are a failure, we do not want them, and it is time that they got offside.

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

In joining in my party’s condemnation of the incident, I express my sympathy to the people who had the frightening experience of learning that there was a bomb in the area. Those people, who included very young children and some elderly members of the population, had the distressing episode of having to leave their home for about 24 hours. Also during that 24-hour period, many hundreds of people who travel daily to and fro through Aughnacloy going either north or south to their work were inconvenienced.

Abandoning such an explosive device was an act of madness and completely irresponsible behaviour. Had it not been for good fortune and divine intervention, lives would have been lost. This kind of violence is pointless and futile. We all know that it has been rejected by the vast majority and by all the elected representatives in the Assembly. Those carrying out such actions still claim that it is the means to achieve a united Ireland, but their tactics and methods will never achieve a united Ireland. We must all use the democratic process to build a new Ireland that will accommodate all our different identities, cultures and nationalities.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank Lord Morrow for bringing the matter to the Floor of the Assembly. I do not represent the Fermanagh and South Tyrone constituency, although it is an area that I know well. I want to make the wider point that these attacks can occur and have occurred right across Northern Ireland. Recently, there was a bomb attack on Palace Barracks in Holywood in my constituency.

In responding to these incidents, we must acknowledge that they are indiscriminate and have the potential to cause massive damage and considerable loss of life. I acknowledge that there is great solidarity in the face of adversity in those communities across Northern Ireland, not least in Aughnacloy, which is backed up by their local representatives. We can take great pride in that. It was a similar type of pride that kept this community going through the darkest days of the Troubles that we hope are, mainly, behind us.

There are three types of response that society needs to show the dissident republicans. First, we need a political response, which is best seen through a unity of purpose in the Chamber, in ensuring that politics works and can make a difference in this society. In doing that, we suck away any oxygen of grievance that those people can cling to in trying to build up their support in communities.

Secondly, we need a policing and security response. We must ensure that we give the police their rightful place as the lead force for taking those people on. We must ensure that the proper resources are available to the Chief Constable, on the basis of his professional judgement of what is effective and what works, and that there is an intelligent and smart approach to tackling these dissident republicans.

Thirdly, we need a civic and community response. We must encourage our communities to show solidarity and to rally round and lead those who are being led astray back to the correct course and towards supporting the rule of law, democracy and human rights. We must be aware of when young people in particular are being exploited and be prepared to intervene to show them the error of their ways. They must not be allowed to fall under the spell of people who want to lead them into a life of misery and to bring further misery to our community.

Gerry McHugh (Independent, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Like all the other Members from Fermanagh and South Tyrone who have spoken, I condemn this incident out of hand. Similar events have taken place, and the misguided individuals who are using the bomb and bullet must realise that those tactics have now passed and there is now a new direction. All sides of the community no longer want any one particular winner; they want to move forward through politics, and there are enough political representatives in all areas to do that. The vast majority of the population wants that and does not support such attacks.

My heart goes out to the parents, children and elderly people who had to leave their homes for a long time as a result of the bomb alert. It caused a particular problem as this is a holiday time, and, because things have moved so far forward, the children who were affected did not understand why it had happened.

The misguided individuals who were responsible may have some notion of republican rebellion, but that no longer counts. That approach has gone with the wind, and the only way that they can help is to drop it entirely. There is no room for it any more or any possibility that anything like it will progress us one millimetre towards a united Ireland. Anyone who analyses the situation will see that that is the case.

These attacks affect tourism, jobs and future investment; they do nothing to help us. There have been problems with the attributing of blame for other attacks such as that which took place in Armagh earlier this year. I hope that no one will try to make political gain from these attacks.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member should bring his remarks to a close.

Gerry McHugh (Independent, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I will.

The time that it takes to bring the place back to normal is very important to people. I condemn the incident outright.

Assembly Business

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I wish to advise Members that the Speaker has been informed by the Chief Electoral Officer that Mr Paul Frew has been returned as a Member of the Assembly for the North Antrim constituency to fill the vacancy resulting from the resignation of Mr Ian Paisley Jnr. Mr Frew signed the Roll of Membership in the presence of the Speaker and the Clerk/Director General in the Speaker’s Office this morning, Monday 21 June 2010, and entered his designation. Mr Frew has now taken his seat and is welcome.

Executive Committee Business

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I beg to move

That Standing Orders 10(2) and 10(4) be suspended for 21 June 2010.

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 Standing Orders 10(2) and 10(4) be suspended for 21 June 2010.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The motion has been agreed and today’s sitting may go beyond 7.00 pm if required.

Ministerial Statement

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

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

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the review of the conditions of detention, management and oversight of all prisons. As the House will be aware, the review is an action that was identified in the Hillsborough agreement of 5 February 2010 for inclusion in the addendum to the Programme for Government. Although I gave the Committee for Justice a summary of my intentions in regard to the review when I appeared before it, it is right that I should report its composition and terms of reference in the Chamber.

Although I am open to suggestions from the review team on the modification of the terms of reference, the terms as I will present them to that team are as follows:

“To conduct a rolling review, in line with the agreement at Hillsborough Castle of 5 February 2010, encompassing the conditions of detention, management and oversight of all prisons. The review is to report to the Minister of Justice.

It is envisaged that the review will consist of several stages. The first will include a review of the regime at Maghaberry Prison. That will take account of: recent reports on Maghaberry (including the Criminal Justice Inspectorate Northern Ireland /Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons inspection and the two Pearson reports); developments in both the integrated and the separated regimes already in place and previous reviews of the regime; the development plans already in hand by the Governor of Maghaberry, in consultation with Prison Service management; and NIPS management’s programme for Workforce Reform and associated projects.

Second, the review will cover the remaining matters identified in the Hillsborough Agreement, building on the work achieved in the first stage. It is envisaged this stage may be in two strands. One strand would include: issues specific to Magilligan Prison, including particularly the replacement of the prison recognising that much of the accommodation and infrastructure is not fit for purpose; and issues at Hydebank Wood relating in particular to the development of the strategy for women offenders including the scope for a discrete facility, and developments in relation to juvenile offenders at Hydebank Wood in liaison with the Youth Justice Agency.

The second strand would consider wider issues affecting the future development of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, including its future composition and its culture and ethos.

The Review Team will draw on the extensive body of work that has been undertaken by the Criminal Justice Inspectorate in its consideration of the current issues facing the Prison Service. The Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice will also act as an adviser to the Review on these issues, including the current review of governance.

In all its work, the Review Team will wish to take the views of the full range of stakeholders, including prison management, staff, trades unions, prisoner fora and other prisoner representative groups, and the Assembly Justice Committee. It will also be informed by developments in Prison Services across these islands.

It is envisaged that the first stage of the review should be reported to the Minister by autumn 2010 and the second stage by early 2011.”

I have sought to ensure that the review team has expertise and input from across these islands. The review is an opportunity to examine the issues innovatively and to draw on best practice more widely. Accordingly, I am delighted that Dame Anne Owers has agreed to chair the review team. For the past nine years, Dame Anne has served as HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, and she will commence her new role when she steps down from that position shortly. She brings to the review a wealth of relevant experience, not only as Chief Inspector of Prisons but from the range of other positions that she has held.

Dame Anne Owers will be joined by Mr Phil Wheatley, who is the recently retired director general of the National Offender Management Service. Prior to holding that position, Mr Wheatley was director general of HM Prison Service, following an extensive career in that service.

Professor Fergus McNeill, who is a professor of criminology and social work at Glasgow University, has also agreed to serve on the review team. He brings to the team his distinguished experience as an academic and as a practitioner in the arena of offending and criminal justice.

Paul Leighton, who retired as Deputy Chief Constable of the PSNI last year, will also join the team, bringing his experience of the Northern Ireland criminal justice system and of the change programme that our policing service has undergone.

The final member of the review team is Ms Clodach McGrory, who recently completed 12 years as a sentence review commissioner. Ms McGrory is a parole commissioner. Previously, she practised at the Northern Ireland Bar, and she has served as a member of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and the Irish Human Rights Commission.

Although I have announced the team today, it will not formally start its work until July. As you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is an impressive team with a very important and wide-ranging remit. I know that the team will want to take the views of as wide a range of interested parties as possible, not just from those in Northern Ireland. I have, however, asked the team to deliver the product in two stages, as I am keen to maintain the momentum. I trust that the work of those experts will enable us all to achieve a new consensus on the role of custody and its management as the Prison Service and the wider system emerge from the legacy of the past.

Let me emphasise a few key points. First, I am not announcing today a review that will specifically focus on separated conditions of detention. It is important that the issues that are represented by only 5% of the total prison population are considered in the wider context of all those who are in custody. Secondly, I agree with the director general of the Prison Service that the current arrangements for women at Hydebank Wood are not appropriate for the longer term. It will be important for us all, guided by the review ream, to think creatively to find ways to improve the current arrangements within the likely available financial envelope. Thirdly, it remains essential for Prison Service management and the Prison Officers’ Association (POA) to work together to progress the development of the service while the review is ongoing. I will not allow the review to distract the Prison Service’s attention from the many pressing actions that already await implementation following previous reports by, for example, the Criminal Justice Inspectorate and the Police Ombudsman.

Finally, I emphasise my earlier point that the review is an opportunity to enable us all, including all of us in the Assembly, to achieve a new consensus on how our Prison Service should develop for the future. I have described the devolution of justice powers as an opportunity to reshape the justice system to meet the needs of Northern Ireland for the decades that lie ahead. This review is part of that project. Therefore, I encourage everyone with an interest in ensuring that we make the most of that opportunity to engage with the review and with the issues for which we in the Chamber have now been given responsibility.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his statement. The question of prisons is one of the Committee for Justice’s key priorities, and we recently visited Maghaberry prison to see and hear about some of the issues that it faces. Given the number of reviews, inspections and reports on the Prison Service, particularly on Maghaberry prison, that have resulted in over 1,300 recommendations, many of which I understand have not yet been implemented, will the Minister explain the rationale for yet another review? Surely the issues are already clear, and surely it is now time to take action to address the problems. I suspect that we do not need another review.

The Minister appears to have recognised the need for action by emphasising that, while the review is ongoing, the Prison Service will press ahead to implement the actions that were recommended in previous reports. How does the instigation of another review sit comfortably with that position? Furthermore, will the Minister outline the expected cost of the review and clarify whether it will be funded from the Department of Justice’s existing budget? Finally, will he be more precise about the timescale? When exactly in the autumn is the report on the first stage of the review due?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Lord Morrow for his welcome of the statement, even if he subsequently asked some difficult questions.

The simple answer to the question of why another review is necessary is because, at Hillsborough at the beginning of the year, we recognised the need to bring together in a comprehensive way a range of reviews that have been carried out and the need to look in a wider and more inclusive way at how we implement the necessary reforms to the Prison Service. I sought to establish as broad a review team as possible to bring together a range of expertise and different experiences to ensure that we could learn lessons from some existing reviews and, as Lord Morrow correctly said, at the same time ensure that outstanding matters from the previous reviews were implemented.

The review will bring together, in an overarching way, some of the existing recommendations. The review will be considered in the new light of the context of devolution and the opportunities that that presents, as well as in the light of our current difficult financial circumstances. In response to Lord Morrow’s final question, I cannot provide the cost, but I assure him that it will be met within the Department’s existing budget. I am afraid that I cannot give him a precise indication of what we mean by autumn 2010 to early 2011, but, from my brief conversation this morning with the members of the review team with whom I will engage in more detail later this afternoon, I am certain that they are committed to ensuring that the review is not dragged out and that it meets the correct balance between doing a thorough job and doing a speedy job.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Before I call the next Member to speak, I remind Members that the flexibility that is given to the Chairperson does not extend to the rest of the Members.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

That is disappointing.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an ráiteas sin.

I, too, welcome the review and the fact that the first stage of it will centre on Maghaberry prison. Notwithstanding that, there are issues in other prisons, but the reports on Maghaberry require immediate attention. In saying that, I understand the third bullet point in the ministerial statement.

What steps will the Minister take to ensure that when the review is taking place, it is not seen as a break from dealing with the already pressing issues that exist in Maghaberry and, in particular, in Roe House?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr McCartney for his kind words. He raised an entirely valid point regarding how we ensure that the necessary reform work is done while the review is being carried out. The Prison Service was already engaged in work in conjunction with various partners to ensure that some of the necessary reforms from previous recommendations, particularly the response from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) to the Criminal Justice Inspectorate, were carried through. It is my intention to ensure that that work continues.

The Member highlighted the difficulties at Roe House. As he is well aware, there has been significant engagement in an attempt to resolve the outstanding difficulties with republican separated prisoners, but I regret that, to date, those efforts have not resulted in the suspension of action by prisoners and the restoration of the normal regime. However, I assure Mr McCartney and the House that Prison Service management is determined to ensure that those matters are resolved as speedily as possible.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Does he agree that we all owe prison officers a huge debt of gratitude for the work that they have carried out for this society, sometimes in the midst of a threat to their lives and that of their families? Furthermore, what significant points will we get out of the review, given that there has been a number of other reviews in the Prison Service over the years? What will be different about this review?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I agree with Mr Elliott that we all owe a debt of gratitude to the prison officers who served this society in the past, along with a range of other public servants. We should not underestimate the difficult circumstances that some of them are working under at the moment, given that threats to certain named prison officers are continuing from small groups of prisoners and some of their associates outside. Therefore, we must recognise that that is part of the reality in which they work. We also need to recognise that prisons have a task of rehabilitating offenders and reducing offending in the future by ensuring that recidivism rates are reduced significantly.

There is a real challenge for all prison staff to ensure that they meet the needs of society in the different circumstances in which they find themselves now from that in which many of them were recruited in the 1970s and 1980s when there was a different task to be performed. Therefore, although we recognise the work that prison officers do, it does not mean that they do not face the same challenge as many others connected with the criminal justice system face in adjusting to the new realities, issues and demands of this society.

Mr Elliott asked me what significant points will come out of the review. I set up the review to find out the recommendations from a body of experts, and it would be foolish to second-guess the outcome before they have commenced work.

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

Does the Minister accept that it is time to fundamentally review not only what prisons do today but what they should do in the future and the role that they play? Does he agree that the review that he announced today is neither fundamental nor sufficiently deep to be able to meet either of those two objectives and that it will not go beyond addressing some of the immediate problems that exist in all our prisons, when, in fact, it needs to do the opposite and address the fundamental relationship between us, as a region, our prisons and the people who run them?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr McDevitt has to acknowledge that we are seeking, at this stage, to make some significant steps forward in the Prison Service, while recognising that there are more fundamental issues. However, when we start talking about fundamental reviews, we are in danger of suggesting that the Prison Service could have a Patten done to it, for example, as was done to the policing service. That is not an option in the financial resources that we have available.

I accept the Member’s point that the functions of prisons and of the entire criminal justice system in promoting reform and public protection are real issues for this society, but, frankly, they are issues for every part of these islands and for every part of western society. It is not something that I expect the review team, which was set up with a specific remit to look at the management and operation of the Prison Service in Northern Ireland, to achieve within a period of less than a year.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I invite the Minister to join me in paying tribute to the work of Robin Masefield, who has announced his intention to step down as director general of the Northern Ireland Prison Service. Will the Minister set out how a reformed prison service fits into his wider vision for the criminal justice system, particularly with regard to a more effective way of dealing with the management of offenders and with note taken of Phil Wheatley’s background in the national offender management service?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank my friend for his complimentary remarks; I would expect nothing less. Unfortunately, I fear that he wants me to write his next PhD thesis on the role of a reformed prison service.

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

Not another one.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Not another one, as Mr McDevitt says.

It is entirely right that I should pay tribute to the work of Robin Masefield as director general of the Prison Service. Robin publicly announced his pending retirement last week. He was not pushed; he announced to me two or three weeks ago that he was proposing to go. Towards the end of his Civil Service career, he was appointed to a four-year post as director general of the Prison Service. He agreed to do a fifth year and, subsequently, to do a sixth year to carry the Prison Service through the process of devolution. To suggest that a man of retirement age who is leaving his position, having done two extra years, is somehow being pushed is, I think, somewhat twisting the position.

With regard to the Prison Service’s role within the criminal justice system in promoting wider reforms, it is clear that, due to the historical background of the Prison Service, we have significant costs associated with the management of prisons and significant difficulties in the prison estate, because some buildings are legacies of the past and need to be replaced. We have to balance all that against the financial resources that are available, as we seek to ensure that those who enter prisons come out reformed and not likely to re-engage in crime at the rate in which, unfortunately, they currently do. Those are massive challenges for the criminal justice system.

There is no doubt that the cost per prisoner place, at £77,000 a year, is way ahead of any other region of these islands, and there is no doubt in my mind that we need to ensure that we get the best possible value for money out of that. That said, having visited Hydebank Wood and Maghaberry, I have seen the positive and constructive work that is being done to engage with offenders in prison to seek to promote rehabilitation. In Maghaberry, for instance, the REACH landing, in seeking to work with the most vulnerable of prisoners, is to be commended against any other prison on these islands.

In the youth justice system, work is also being done to recognise that although some young offenders go to Hydebank Wood rather than to the juvenile justice centre, opportunities are available to work with them in a different way. The work being done in the women’s unit in Hydebank Wood, Ash House, is another example of extremely good and positive rehabilitation work. We should not underestimate progress that is being made, but, at the same time, we must recognise that much more needs to be done.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Will the Minister join me in acknowledging the significant work that the men and women of our Prison Service have done to date, in difficult circumstances, with courage and commitment to their vocation? Will he also assure us that the review of prisons will build on the progress that has already been made, as has been outlined, on the issue of women offenders and, in particular, by the youth justice system, which has made significant progress in reducing reoffending? Furthermore, does he agree that the review should particularly target prisons that house young offenders to ensure that, as far as possible, once those prisoners leave, they do not go back again?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr Bell for his good wishes. If he wishes me to repeat the tribute that I paid to prison staff when I responded to Mr Elliott’s question, I will happily do so.

He asked specific questions about building on the work being done with women and young offenders. He is absolutely right: some very positive work has been done in those areas. When I spoke in the House about my first week in office, I mentioned my visit to the Inspire Women’s Project in Belfast, which has links with Ash House and works to promote rehabilitation and to reduce reoffending by women prisoners. There is no doubt that good work is being done there. There are issues that need to be addressed around the possibilities for capital for the development of a dedicated women’s prison, but the work is being done as best it can be within the facilities that we have.

Mr Bell also mentioned youth offending. We are seeing circumstances now in which the vast majority of young offenders are accommodated in the juvenile justice centre. There are those who, for various reasons, require the stricter regime in Hydebank Wood. However, I hope to make an announcement fairly soon about the increased involvement of the Youth Justice Agency so that the best possible conditions are put in place to ensure that when people are in custody, they are put onto the path of not reoffending when they are released.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the review, which is timely. Some of the questions that I wanted to ask have already been answered, but I want to ask one of them for the record. The Minister said that prisoner forums will have an opportunity to feed into the consultation on the review. What shape will that input take? Will each house, for example, in Maghaberry, be represented? The Minister mentioned the people who are involved in the REACH landing programme in Lagan House. How will they be facilitated throughout the review process?

Last week, the Health Minister responded to a question from the Minister’s colleague Stephen Farry by accusing him of putting prisoners’ concerns to the forefront rather than those of patients. For the record, I want the Minister to make it clear that prisoners can also be patients, and that prisoners who are recipients of healthcare should not be treated in an arbitrary fashion, as has been the case in the past.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I welcome Ms Ní Chuilín’s comments. There is absolutely no doubt that some very positive work is being done on prison healthcare by the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust, which is the responsible agency. When I visited Maghaberry, I was able to meet some of the people from the South Eastern Trust who provide that healthcare. It is absolutely vital that prisoners, like everyone else in society, get proper healthcare. There is still work to be done, particularly on mental health, which is not being addressed as well as we hoped it might be. I have no doubt that that issue will feed into the review, but progress has been made in recent years in that regard.

I was not in the Chamber to hear the exchange between Stephen Farry and the Health Minister. If it was in anything like the terms in which Ms Ní Chuilín described, I will align myself with Stephen Farry, which is no great surprise.

Ms Ní Chuilín also asked a specific question about the operation of prisoner forums. As I understand it, there is a prisoner forum in each unit in Maghaberry. It is the intention that those forums should have the opportunity to feed into the review. However, I will write to Ms Ní Chuilín outlining the precise details of the operation of those forums, because I do not have them in front of me.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I add my name to those who have paid tribute to prison officers for their work over many difficult years and in the most horrible of circumstances.

During the Justice Committee’s trip to Maghaberry, I was struck by the fact that many of the education and skills workshops were not in operation that day because of staff shortages.

Does the Minister agree that it is not only the level of sickness among staff in the prison that needs to be addressed, but the fact that so many prisoners refuse to enter into educational workshops or skills workshops, and by doing so are making it more difficult for themselves to reintegrate into society and get a good start and make progress in life by finding a job when they get out of prison again?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr Ross for his good wishes. Do I need to repeat my tribute to prison officers every time a unionist asks me questions? I will happily do so if they wish me to. The Member referred to staff shortages and sickness rates, as well as the issue of prisoners refusing opportunities for education. It is deeply sad if the opportunities that are made available in prison for prisoners to better themselves are not fully taken up. There are reasons at times why staff shortages prevent prisoners from moving around the prison properly. Those need to be addressed, and we need to move in a way that ensures the best possible use of all of those rehabilitation opportunities.

There is no doubt that those who take opportunities provided for education are less likely to reoffend when they come out of prison, and are more likely to make the transition to civil society without difficulties. At this stage I cannot go into the precise details as to how individuals do not get there on particular days, but as a general principle we need to ensure that that working system is improved so that every prisoner who wishes to avail himself or herself of education and other facilities gets that opportunity, and that the maximum possible efforts are made to encourage them to take it up.

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

My question is on education. Given that more than 60% of inmates have serious problems with literacy and numeracy, can the Minister reassure the House that the review will look closely at the programmes and levels of education that are available? Secondly, the report mentions the replacement of Magilligan Prison — does that also include a review of the location of it?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr Dallat for his question. The answer is that the review is of the conditions of detention, management and oversight of all prisons. That will include every aspect of the management of prisons, including education services. The Member is absolutely right about the major difficulties that we suffer because of the low educational achievement of many prisoners. There are real issues about ensuring that they take the opportunity to better themselves and to use the education classes that are there. I am quite sure that the review team will be looking at that as part of its overall work.

The Member also talked about the issue of a replacement for Magilligan. That is currently under consideration by the Prison Service management. There will be business cases looking at possible alternatives as to how Magilligan is replaced, because DFP rules require that every possible opportunity be considered. That work is currently under way, and will be reported alongside the work of the review team on dealing with the management of prisons.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I too welcome the Minister’s statement and wish him every success as the review progresses. What attention will be given to reviewing mental health services within the Prison Service?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank my colleague for his further good wishes. He has highlighted — in a way that I perhaps should have emphasised more to Cáral Ní Chuilín — the fact that mental health services are a vitally important part of the health services provided in prisons. Not only do we know that in many cases prisoners have very low educational achievements, but there is also a very high rate of mental health problems and personality disorders in prisons. We will not ensure that we protect society by enabling people to go on the right path when they leave prison if we do not provide the mental health services that are needed in prison.

Good work has already started since the South Eastern Trust took over responsibility. That work is currently being reviewed, but there is no doubt whatsoever that there will need to be a greater investment in prison healthcare, especially mental health, if we are to ensure the best possible services to protect the wider community and promote rehabilitation.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I welcome the review and thank the Minister for his statement. I am particularly interested in the team’s remit for reviewing issues at Hydebank relating to the development of the strategy for women offenders. Will the Minister assure me that the team will look at the problems in Hydebank relating to mental health and alcohol and drug addiction, as well as at training opportunities for prisoners to prevent them from reoffending?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Ms Lo for her good wishes. The review team will look at every aspect of Hydebank Wood. The first phase of the review will concentrate on Maghaberry prison; the second will look at Magilligan prison and Hydebank Wood.

There is no doubt that the women prisoners in Hydebank Wood have particular needs. The management needs of women prisoners tend to be very different from those of male prisoners; therefore, considerable work will have to be done to ensure that the best possible regime is in place for them. Although only a small number of women prisoners — between 30 and 50 — is there at any one time, it is nonetheless a significant group with particular needs. I am, therefore, determined to ensure that we provide the best possible facilities for them.

As I said earlier, the director general had wished to see movement on a purpose-built facility specifically for women, and although that is not possible at this stage, it must be kept under consideration. I have seen the work that has been done in Ash House, and there is no doubt that the best possible work must continue to be done in whatever buildings are provided.

Executive Committee Business

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to introduce the Welfare of Animals Bill [NIA 28/09], which is a Bill to make provision about animal welfare.

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.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to introduce the Transport Bill [NIA 29/09], which is a Bill to make provision relating to public passenger transport and ancillary services; and for connected purposes.

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)

I have received notice from the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment that she will not be available this afternoon but that the Minister of Finance and Personnel will introduce the Bill.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I beg to introduce the Tourism (Amendment) Bill [NIA 30/09], which is a Bill to increase the period between statutory inspections of certified tourist establishments; to provide for reviews in respect of such establishments between statutory inspections; to confer power on the Northern Ireland Tourist Board to provide financial assistance for the provision or improvement of tourist accommodation; to amend the procedure for appointing the chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board; and for connected purposes.

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)

I call the Minister of Finance and Personnel to move the Consideration Stage of the Budget (No. 3) Bill.

Moved. — [The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr S Wilson).]

Notice taken that 10 Members were not present.

House counted, and there being fewer than 10 Members present, the Deputy Speaker ordered the Division Bells to be rung.

Upon 10 Members being present —

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

No amendments have been tabled to the Bill. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to group clauses 1 to 8 of the Bill for the Question on stand part. I will then put the Question that the four schedules be agreed, followed by the Question that the long title be agreed.

Clauses 1 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Budget (No. 3) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Employment (No. 2) Bill [NIA 24/09] be agreed.

The Bill builds on the outcomes of a comprehensive review of the current statutory dispute resolution procedures and represents the starting point for the introduction of a package of legislative and non-legislative measures that are designed to change the way in which workplace disputes in Northern Ireland are resolved.

During the conduct of the review, employers and employer representative bodies expressed, in very clear terms, their concerns about existing arrangements. Employers consistently argued for change that would reduce the financial and opportunity costs associated with the resolution of disputes that escalate beyond the workplace. The Bill, and the other planned measures, will generate substantive improvements to the efficiency and effectiveness of the current systems for resolving disputes and will further support our drive for increased competitiveness. Similarly, employee representative groups argued for improvements that would provide less formal alternatives to the tribunal system, while preserving citizens’ fundamental right to access the justice system. Again, the Bill, and the other planned measures, will go a long way to achieving those objectives.

Before dealing with the Bill’s main provisions, it is important to set the context in which the review was conducted and to acknowledge the role of stakeholders in ensuring that the public consultation generated informed debate around how the existing system should be improved. In Great Britain, following the Gibbons review, a decision was made to repeal the full statutory procedures governing workplace disputes. There was always the temptation for Northern Ireland to default to the GB position. However, I took the view that it was important to explore other delivery options to provide the necessary assurance that the needs of the Northern Ireland economy and citizens’ rights were being properly considered.

I do not need to rehearse in detail the arguments about the heavy concentration of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Northern Ireland. However, it is worth restating that a recurring theme throughout the consultation process was the challenges that SMEs face in dealing with the complexity of employment law.

To ensure that the review was fit for purpose, it was vital to seek the views of what is a very diverse stakeholder community. Therefore, at the outset, I decided to establish a consultation steering group with representation from the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (NICICTU), the Equality Commission and the Labour Relations Agency (LRA). I put on record my appreciation of the excellent work that the steering group has undertaken on behalf of the Department and, more importantly, Northern Ireland plc.

The steering group was charged with the responsibility for overseeing every aspect of the public consultation process and, at all times, acted corporately in ensuring that the consultation process was comprehensive and inclusive. Not only did the steering group offer insightful and measured advice and direction, but it was instrumental in ensuring that the consultation process garnered the views of practitioners and interest groups through the establishment of a series of expert user panels. That unique partnership approach to public consultation has shown the clear benefits of working closely with key stakeholders to develop regional solutions that address, equitably, the needs of Northern Ireland’s citizens and businesses.

I commend the work of the Committee for Employment and Learning, which further underscored the importance of developing systems that encourage the prevention and early resolution of workplace disputes. During the public consultation, the Committee commissioned its own study, taking evidence from a wide range of stakeholders. The Committee’s measured report offered a series of conclusions that I found particularly helpful when I was considering policy options. I know that the Committee will be equally assiduous in its consideration of the Bill.

At an early stage of the policy review, the consultation steering group established a set of guiding principles that I was more than happy to endorse. Those principles included the promotion of good employment relations that encouraged competitiveness; the provision of strong employment rights to preserve citizen access to the justice system; effective mechanisms to prevent and resolve workplace disputes; the availability of non-adversarial alternatives to the tribunal system; and an efficient and effective tribunal system. Those principles are the template that has guided the policy proposals that underpin the provisions in the Bill.

I will now outline what the Bill is designed to achieve. It contains 18 clauses and four schedules that will: establish a less legalistic framework for raising workplace grievances while leaving intact a minimum legal standard for disciplinary and dismissal situations; repeal the confusing provisions that link grievance and disciplinary processes with industrial tribunal and fair employment tribunal time limits; enable the Labour Relations Agency (LRA) to exercise greater discretion in offering its assistance to resolve disputes while removing time restrictions for LRA conciliation; amend industrial tribunals’ powers to reach a determination without a hearing where the parties consent; modify industrial tribunals’ powers to restrict publicity in sensitive cases; provide for the enforcement of tribunal awards without the need for a court order and make similar provisions for conciliated settlements that have been achieved with the support of the Labour Relations Agency; enable the Fair Employment Tribunal to hear aspects of cases that currently require a separate industrial tribunal hearing; and introduce the legislative framework for the right to request time to train.

I will now expand on each area covered by the Bill. First, I will address procedures for resolving disputes in the workplace. Employers and employees are currently required to follow statutory minimum procedures when a formal dispute arises in the workplace. The procedures apply to both employee grievances and disciplinary or dismissal actions taken by an employer. Unreasonable failure to follow those procedures has implications for any subsequent tribunal proceedings. Following my Department’s review, I propose to retain the statutory proceedings that relate to disciplinary and dismissal situations. However, at the same time, I will be seeking to repeal the statutory procedures associated with workplace grievances. Repealing the statutory minimum grievance procedures will afford employers and employees more flexibility in dealing with disputes, reduce unnecessary formality and remove regulatory burdens from business, including costs of around £1·5 million per annum that are associated with operating the statutory grievance procedures.

The consensus from the public consultation was that the statutory grievance procedures, although well intentioned, militated against the early and informal resolution of grievances. Although it is appropriate to bring forward that repeal, it is equally appropriate to retain the statutory minimum process for disciplinary and dismissal situations. It is important that employers, especially the large number of micro-employers and SMEs in Northern Ireland that do not have dedicated HR specialists, clearly understand their obligations in those very serious circumstances when an employee’s dismissal is being contemplated or has taken place.

Having in place a minimum legal standard protects not only the employee from unfair action but the employer from the legal consequences of such action. The retention of the disciplinary and dismissal element of the statutory procedures and the repeal of the statutory grievance element offers the best accommodation of the two principles established by the consultation steering groups; namely, the provision of strong employment rights and the promotion of good employment relations.

As regards grievances, a revised Labour Relations Agency code of practice will replace the statutory process with a good practice standard, which will remove much of the complexity and undue formality of the current system.

I am pleased to note that stakeholders have commended the work of the Labour Relations Agency on the matter of pre-claim conciliation. However, they have called for a more proactive approach to early interventions designed to resolve disputes. Skilled agency conciliators can help to avert unnecessary legal proceedings by helping those facing a dispute to find common ground and mutually acceptable solutions. To that end, the Bill contains minor legislative amendments that will provide the agency with greater flexibility, thus freeing conciliation officers to target help where it will be most effective. Those provisions, along with a range of non-legislative measures, including an enhanced helpline, will strengthen the agency’s ability to help parties to resolve disputes before they reach a tribunal.

I turn now to post-claim conciliation. Once a tribunal claim is lodged, there are, in many cases, time limits on the period during which the Labour Relations Agency has a duty to offer conciliation. The review has shown that those time limits have not been effective, and the Bill seeks to remove them. That will strengthen the agency’s remit in offering its services throughout the lifetime of a dispute. The agency will also be encouraged to target those disputes that are likely to be amendable to conciliation at that later stage.

I now turn to industrial tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal. Currently, it is not possible for a fair employment case that also involves certain industrial tribunal jurisdictions to be consolidated and heard by the Fair Employment Tribunal. As a result, a separate industrial tribunal must be convened to hear those residual issues, even though that hearing will, essentially, deal with the same set of facts. That duplication places additional time and resource pressures on the tribunal system and the parties involved in the case. The Bill seeks to widen the powers of the Fair Employment Tribunal so that the fair employment and all other aspects of a claim can be heard by the same tribunal as part of the same proceedings.

The dispute resolution review also produced evidence of the need for a range of additional efficiency measures designed to improve the operation of the tribunal system. Therefore, in the Bill, I have included measures to simplify time limits for lodging a tribunal claim; introduce a more efficient process for enforcing unpaid tribunal awards; allow for restricted reporting of sensitive cases; and, where the parties agree, allow simple cases to be determined in writing.

The Bill seeks to establish a legislative framework that would allow for the subsequent introduction of a right to request time to train. That proposed new right, which has already been introduced in Great Britain, would give employees with the requisite length of service a statutory entitlement to make a formal request to their employer for time to undertake work-related training.

The right, modelled on the well-established and successful flexible working arrangements, would place a duty on employers to consider a request seriously but with the facility to turn it down on one or more of a specified list of business grounds. Although reaction to the right has been essentially positive, I am acutely aware of concerns in the business community about the introduction of the right at this time of economic hardship.

The Bill seeks to establish only the enabling power that will allow for the subsequent introduction of a right to request time to train. There will still be the requirement to make subordinate legislation before that new right can be introduced. I assure Members that I will take no further action to effect its subsequent introduction until economic conditions are sufficiently favourable, taking account of factors such as unemployment rates and current and projected economic growth rates.

I also intend the new right to be introduced on a phased basis. In the first year of operation, it will apply only to firms that employ 50 or more employees. It will be extended to cover all employees in the following year. The correlation between a well-trained workforce and competitiveness is well established, and that will be the primary focus of the proposed new right. Many employers already facilitate requests to train. The new right will provide a public endorsement of that good practice and help to promote the value of training to organisations in which a learning culture does not exist.

The Bill contains a range of measures to which the Assembly will wish to give careful consideration. It will allow for a less legalistic approach to workplace grievances by repealing the current statutory grievance procedures. It will provide greater flexibility for the Labour Relations Agency to deliver an enhanced conciliation service. It will introduce a range of efficiency measures to improve the operation of the current tribunal system, and it will establish a framework for a new right to request time to train.

The Finance Minister, in his response to the proposed new right to request time to train, indicated his expectation that any associated costs will be met from within existing and future allocations. I am supportive of the Minister’s position and want to assure the House that costs relating not just to the right to request time to train but to the wider dispute-resolution measures will be accommodated within existing and future departmental allocations. On the subject of finance, it is worth mentioning again that the proposed deregulation of the current statutory grievance procedures will mean an annual saving of £1·5 million.

As I have already indicated, the policy review, in addition to the provisions that are set out in the Bill, has identified a range of non-legislative measures that will bring substantial improvements to the way in which disputes are dealt with in Northern Ireland. Those legislative measures include the establishment of an inter-agency employment relations information forum; an agreed code of practice for all information providers; the development of an employment relations good-practice model; and accredited professional development programmes in employment relations for general management disciplines.

I look forward to listening to Members’ comments in today’s debate, and I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

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

I apologise for my delayed arrival. As Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Bill. The Minister has gone into the provisions of the Bill in some detail, and the Committee has done extensive pre-legislative work in close partnership with the relevant stakeholders and the Department. Once again, the Committee has led the way in partnership working with the Department and stakeholders, and the results are plain to see.

As Members are aware, the First Stage took place on 25 May, and the Committee Stage will begin tomorrow, Tuesday 22 June. The Committee began taking briefings on workplace dispute resolution and alternative dispute resolution in November 2008, following the Department’s public consultation on the issue. The Committee immediately began to take evidence from key stakeholders, which it drew together with its conclusions in a Committee report on workplace dispute resolution. The Committee issued that report towards the end of the last session.

Departmental officials have been in constant contact with the Committee and have briefed members on a number of occasions. The Minister’s commitment to working in partnership was clear from the beginning of the process. His indication that he had no preconceived ideas on how the work should turn out allowed the Committee and key stakeholders truly significant input to the Bill. I commend the Minister and his officials for adopting that thoroughly practical and sensible approach. It is a useful approach that other Departments could adopt and learn from. I also thank Committee staff, past and present, for their considerable efforts to support the Committee in its work over the last 18 months.

The objective of the Committee’s report was to collate and consider the opinions and views of relevant stakeholder organisations on a way forward for workplace dispute resolution in Northern Ireland. Based on the evidence that was received and taking on board members’ views, the Committee realised that there is a need to develop and promote a culture of early dispute resolution as the most appropriate approach, as opposed to people seeking legal redress through the tribunal system.

The Committee also agreed that there is a need to reform the current statutory procedures, ensuring that any revised system is properly thought through and that it represents a synergy of the best of the current system with the best of the options for change. In short, the new system should ensure the protection of individuals’ and employers’ rights and their access to justice. The Bill largely represents the outcome of that process, and members are, therefore, generally content with its provisions.

The Committee agreed fully with those who gave evidence to the effect that alternative dispute resolution should be promoted as the most appropriate alternative to tribunals to protect the privacy of those involved and to ensure the pursuit of a faster, more flexible and more cost-effective means of settling a grievance, especially given the current economic climate. That is worth noting.

The Committee also agreed with a number of witnesses who stated that the role of the Labour Relations Agency should be extended to cover a wider range of advice and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services and that there is a need for the LRA’s resources to be refocused so that it can provide such extended services. Again, it can be seen that the Bill reflects those views.

The Committee agreed with the witnesses who identified the importance of the tribunal system, but it also took on board the concerns that employers and employees have about that system. Members felt that there is a need to ensure that dispute resolution is made simpler and less bureaucratic for both employer and employee and that a revised system does not simply replace one set of complex and confusing rules and regulations with another that is not user-friendly. It is hoped that the Bill will facilitate that, and that appears to be the case. However, the Committee will bottom out those issues during the Committee Stage.

The Committee strongly believes that the provision of more accessible information and the promotion of a clearer understanding of employer and employee rights and obligations by all those involved are central to the success of any revised system. Lack of accurate information and clear instructions for those participating in the current structures, particularly SMEs, was a recurring theme that all those who gave evidence raised. That issue needs to be addressed for the revised system to be meaningful.

The Committee is of the opinion that the public sector plays an extremely important role in the process, first, by ensuring that it leads the way in developing best practice models, and secondly, by leading by example through implementing those models.

The Committee took evidence from the Department, the Labour Relations Agency, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Equality Commission, the Confederation of British Industry, the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Law Centre Northern Ireland. Based on the evidence received and on members’ own views, the Committee agrees that there is a need to develop and promote a culture of early dispute resolution, as opposed to seeking legal redress through the tribunal system. Much work will be needed to change the current mindset.

As part of its evidence gathering, the Committee saw and heard about the benefits and drawbacks of implementing a rights commissioner system, and it feels that such a system is not currently an option that should be pursued.

It is important to have a timely and early dispute resolution system. It must be implemented; it is not enough to have it as an objective, and there has to be some means of tracking it to ensure that it is being implemented. The public sector needs to step up to the mark on that, because I know of several cases that have taken a very long time to be resolved, and some have even taken a long time to be just looked at informally.

The part of the Bill that the Committee did not examine in its investigation is the time to train provision. Members have previously discussed the issues about workers getting new skills and upgrading existing skills, and that is something that members support. It is important that employers are encouraged to upskill their workers. England, Scotland and Wales have adopted that provision, and we believe that, if used properly, it has considerable potential.

There were some concerns raised via the Department’s consultation. The Committee’s greatest concern is the opposition of the Federation of Small Businesses to the time to train provision. Members understand the concerns that SMEs have about workers taking time off to train, but reskilling and upskilling are probably the best ways for SMEs to evolve and grow. However, the Committee believes that that provision must be monitored and reviewed and that support and information for SMEs must be readily accessible.

The process for workplace dispute resolution was introduced on 3 April 2005 and gave new rights and responsibilities to employers and employees in Northern Ireland; however, it has proved problematic. Gibbons’s review of the system in GB was followed by a consultation and a decision was made to pursue reform.

The Bill will reform the workplace dispute resolution process and introduce the right to request time to train by: leaving intact the statutory regime for disciplinary and dismissal situations while moving to a less legalistic framework, for the reason of workplace grievances involving voluntary compliance with the appropriate Labour Relations Agency code of conduct; repealing provisions linking grievance and disciplinary or dismissal process with industrial tribunal and Fair Employment Tribunal time limits; enabling the Labour Relations Agency to exercise greater discretion in offering its assistance to resolve disputes; repealing time restrictions on the period of Labour Relations Agency conciliation; amending industrial tribunals’ powers to reach a determination without a hearing; modifying industrial tribunals’ powers to restrict publicity; providing that tribunal awards, once registered, are enforceable without the need to obtain a court order and make similar provision in relation to conciliated settlements reached with the assistance of the Labour Relations Agency; enabling the Fair Employment Tribunal to hear aspects of fair employment cases that would previously have necessitated a separate industrial tribunal hearing; and introducing a legislative framework for a right to request a time to train.

The Bill contains 18 clauses and three schedules. As the Minister has outlined those extensively, I merely remind Members what they are. Clause 1 provides for repeal of statutory grievance procedures. Clause 2 makes provision for statutory dispute resolution procedures with respect to their effect on contracts of employment. Clause 3 makes provision for statutory dispute resolution procedures with respect to consequential adjustments of time limits.

Clause 4 deals with non-compliance with statutory codes of practice. Clause 5 deals with the determinations of industrial tribunal proceedings without hearing. Clause 6 makes provision for the restriction of publicity with regard to industrial tribunals. Clause 7 deals with the enforcement of sums payable with respect to awards payable made by industrial tribunals. Clause 8 makes provision for conciliation before the bringing of proceedings to tribunal. Clause 9 makes provision for conciliation after the bringing of proceedings to tribunal.

Clause 10 deals with the recovery of sums payable under compromises involving the Labour Relations Agency. Clause 11 makes provision for the powers of the Fair Employment Tribunal in relation to matters within the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals. Clause 12 deals with conciliation before the bringing of proceedings to tribunal. Clause 13 deals with conciliation after the bringing of proceedings to tribunal. Clause 14 deals with the recovery of sums payable under compromises involving the Labour Relations Agency. Clause 15 provides for workers to have time off for study or training. Clause 16 deals with the repeals made necessary by the Bill. Clause 17 deals with commencement. Clause 18 is the short title.

The Committee notes that the repeal of the statutory grievance procedures will result in savings of £25,000 per annum to the Office of Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal as a result of the reduced complexity of claims and pre-acceptance procedures. The Committee also notes that the increased emphasis on pre-claim conciliation should generate savings of about £11,000 per annum for government, due to the resolution of greater numbers of disputes without the need for tribunal hearings.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that the introduction of a more straightforward procedure for the resolution of simple claims should save government £10,000 per annum in tribunal resources. The Committee is content with those savings, as they are consistent with the moves to reform the wider tribunal system. There may also be savings in staff morale and improvements in how organisations function. There may be such qualitative outcomes that we do not yet see but which will play a large part.

The Committee also notes that the right to request time to train will cost government some £6∙7 million per annum in respect of tuition at levels 2 and 3, arising from successful requests. The Committee highlights that that is a considerable cost, and it hopes that the Department will be able to sustain it in the financially straitened times to come.

The Committee accepts that the provisions in the Bill are not deemed to have implications for human rights. With regard to the equality impact assessment, the Committee accepts that the provisions in the Bill will generally have modest positive benefits for all the groupings listed in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. However, the Committee takes a positive view of the Department’s identification that some policy proposals will generate greater benefits for particular groups. Such groups include single parents who, due to family commitments and their less favourable economic position, do not have the time or resources to become involved in lengthy or complex legal processes; individuals with disabilities, particularly mental health disabilities associated with or exacerbated by stress; racial, ethnic, national or religious groups employed as migrant workers whose first language is not English; and persons bringing a tribunal claim relating to their sexual orientation or to political or religious discrimination. It is hoped that, through the Bill, all those groups will benefit from enhanced information and advice, access to a wider range of ADR services, and modifications to tribunal processes.

The Committee is also positive about the benefits that some groups will gain from the time to train provision, including dependants. That right will allow individuals who care for a dependant greater flexibility to arrange training at more suitable times. The provision will also benefit women, who are more likely than men to take on the main responsibility for childcare or to act as carers and who will, therefore, benefit disproportionately as people with dependants. Lone parents are likely to benefit from a successful request for time to train, given the particular difficulties that they are likely to have in timetabling training outside working hours. The right will also enhance opportunities for older people to retrain and update knowledge in order to meet the challenges of changing working practices and skills requirements.

The Committee notes the Minister’s legislative competence to make the Bill. Overall, the Committee is pleased with how the Bill deals with issues that have been raised about workplace dispute resolution. Members look forward to undertaking a thorough scrutiny of the Bill when it comes before the Committee. On behalf of the Committee, I support the principles of the Bill, which will now proceed to further scrutiny at Committee Stage.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I will keep my remarks brief. I was ready to step into the breach, but the Chairperson arrived, so Members will be spared the 11-page speech that I was going to make.

I welcome the Bill, and I also welcome what I understand to have been a fairly productive working relationship with the Department in arriving at this stage. I will not deal with the range of issues that the Chairperson so thoroughly covered, but I will make some points.

As regards industrial tribunals, it appears that a sensible approach has been taken towards achieving balance between the right of people to pursue legal redress and the promotion of alternative dispute resolution. That is certainly not premature in its inception. When I was training for the Bar nearly 20 years ago, I remember the buzz about this new thing to come called the alternative dispute resolution. It seems that, in certain regards, we may have been a little slow in moving forward on it.

It may be wrong for me to speculate, but it would seem that, if many of the issues were in the hands of lawyers, further promotion of alternative dispute resolution would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. I do not know if I will be on some kind of lawyers’ hit list for supporting the provisions. If we can promote a less formal, swifter and less costly resolution to disputes in the workplace by way of ADR, particularly in the current economic circumstances, everyone, with the possible exception of some lawyers, would see that as a win-win situation.

The problem is less about the exact structures or regulations and more about promoting a culture of alternative dispute resolution, which is equally as important as the information before us. The widening of the role of the Labour Relations Agency in ADR is also to be welcomed. It would also make sense to ensure that there is no duplication as regards the Fair Employment Tribunal’s ability to deal with aspects of cases that, in other circumstances, would be dealt with through a separate industrial tribunal.

I add one caveat or note of caution because I gather that the Committee looked at and produced a report on workplace dispute resolution, which the Minister has taken on board. We will want to consider the right to request time to train in reasonable detail because it is a fresh suggestion. It is important to get that right. Members of the Committee will understand the rationale behind that and the reasons to promote it. However, we must exercise a degree of caution. For example, there are estimates that the cost of granting the right to train could run to several million pounds: £6 million or £7 million has been suggested. In our current financial situation, we must look at whether that is the right way forward. The Federation of Small Businesses and others have flagged up concerns about that issue. Therefore, we want to ensure that whatever is put in place is practicable because we must bear in mind the potential impact on our SMEs.

Particularly in the current economic circumstances, we must balance those concerns with the need and desire for people to be trained to a better standard and higher level that they are at present. We must realise that that will partly involve not simply the formal mechanisms of schemes such as apprenticeships or qualifications, but how training can be introduced to people who are already in employment. Therefore, the right to request time to train has much merit; it is a question of ensuring that we get it right.

I and other members of the Committee look forward to progressing such issues. The Bill is very sensible. We will want to drill down into the detail to make sure that it is got right. I welcome the Bill and support its Second Stage.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Employment (No. 2) Bill. Like the Member who has just spoken, I do not propose to go into as much detail as did the Minister or the Chairperson of the Committee. I will just say that I look forward to the Bill’s Committee Stage. I also look forward to the further involvement of stakeholders and interested parties, which the Minister and Chairperson touched on. To date, there has been a sensible working relationship between all with an interest in the Bill, including the Committee, the Department, stakeholders and others. It is important that we continue that sensible working relationship because we all want to reach the same place, and there is no point in daily battles between the Committee and the Department.

Members who spoke before me referred to last year’s Committee’s report into workplace dispute resolution. Many of the issues that were raised then are addressed in the Bill, which highlights the importance of the Committee and its relationship with stakeholders and others in the community who want to be involved in such matters. We were able to raise those issues with the Department, which, in its turn, did the same with the Minister, who, in fairness, always said that his approach would be open minded. As a result, we are not criticising each other about the Bill: everybody is addressing it wisely and correctly because we all want to see it achieve the outcomes that we want. That shows the positive side of working with the Committees.

I also want to take the opportunity to thank our Committee staff for their hard work, advice and guidance on the Bill. I particularly want to mention the departmental officials who were available when we needed any information. Based on evidence that we heard, on which the Minister has touched, a method of early dispute resolution must be developed. As the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee said, that process must come before lawyers get involved, which can add to and cause problems.

However, I also agree that we need to look at ways of extending the role of the Labour Relations Agency. A key issue of concern raised last year was that the advice issued by the Labour Relations Agency sometimes differs depending on the case and who made contact. We cannot go into specific details on that, but we need to make sure that, from the outset, employers and employees have access to the relevant, up-to-date information. Bad information will entrench people when it comes to resolving issues. The Labour Relations Agency does and will continue to do good work, but it is important that we ensure that as much information as possible is available because, from both their points of view, information is key to the rights of employers and employees.

The Minister and the Chairperson went into detail about the Bill, which contains 18 clauses and three schedules, and it is important to have that detail on record. I look forward to teasing out some of the issues in Committee. Concerns, including a genuine one that the Federation of Small Businesses raised about time to train, need to be drawn out. Our people are a key factor in coming out of the recession; if they are being made redundant as a result of the economic downturn, in order to get jobs in other sectors, we must ensure that they are reskilled and upskilled.

A sizeable percentage of industry here consists of small and medium-sized enterprises. We spend £6·2 million to retrain people, but that does not take account of those who used to have small businesses. As part of the big picture, we must work collectively to produce a resolution that takes on board the concerns of the Federation of Small Businesses. A piece of that jigsaw may emerge as a result the Bill.

I look forward to the Bill coming before the Committee, and I look forward to the good working relationship between the Department, the Minister and the Committee continuing. Perhaps because we have dealt with the matter through an alternative dispute resolution process, other Departments might take those methods on board and engage in mediation with their respective Committees. I commend the Minister for approaching the matter with an open mind. Go raibh maith agat.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I commend the Minister for bringing forward this important piece of legislation. The first two of the four parts represent a common-sense revision of existing legislation, and the Bill is an acceptance that several statutory provisions that have been made in the area of employment in the past 15 years or so have not had the intended consequences. The Minister is to be congratulated on such a frank review of the legislation, and the Bill will make the statutory dispute resolution process much more fit for purpose.

Clauses 1 to 4 focus on repealing statutory dispute resolution provisions. In 2005, direct rule Ministers implemented legally enforceable guidelines on dispute resolution, whereby if employers and employees fail to meet minimum standards, the tribunal can increase or decrease awards that might be made. Such provisions lead inevitably to a box-ticking approach to compliance and dispute resolution rather than to genuine efforts to resolve the issues at hand. Furthermore, it is not proper for the state to become so intimately involved in the minute detail of such matters. As other Members suggested, a one-size-fits-all approach will not deal with every issue. Since workplace disputes have varying degrees of severity, statutory guidelines would have to be so flexible as to be unenforceable and pointless. Therefore, I welcome the Minister’s decision to repeal those provisions.

Part 2 relates to the operation of industrial tribunals and to the duties of the Labour Relations Agency. Clause 5 creates a new, fast-track approach to some minor cases that come before a tribunal, in which the facts are not in dispute and to which both parties agree in writing. That is a very sensible approach, making such cases less expensive for the state, employers and employees alike. That is to be welcomed.

The Bill also drops the provision that limits tribunals to granting anonymity in cases that involve sexual misconduct. Assuming that that wider power is used responsibly, by further removing any perceived impediments to making complaints and by protecting employers from spurious complaints with malicious intent, it can only increase confidence in the system.

The third part of the Bill relates to the powers of the fair employment tribunal. Currently, the tribunal has limited powers to hear complaints: one complaint may have several aspects to it, but the tribunal cannot hear aspects that relate to, for example, unpaid wages. Clearly, it is costly to have two concurrent legal cases running on what is basically the same case, and it is an unnecessary division of powers. It is right that the Bill should empower the president or vice president of the tribunal to decide that a single case should have its entire body adjudicated on by the tribunal, rather than be artificially split into component parts.

Clause 12 and clause 13 repeal aspects of previous legislation that have not had the intended consequences. They transform a duty of the Labour Relations Agency into a power to conciliate so that the agency can better manage and prioritise its resources. Clause 13 removes the provision for the conciliation process to be time limited. That is welcome, as some cases will not fit into a box that is created by legislation and require more time to be processed. The amendment in clause 12 will protect the agency’s resources from never-ending processes that it cannot escape from.

The final part of the Bill creates a new right to time off for study and training. It is important that that right be placed on the statute book. All good employers will already have in place established practices to deal with continuing professional development. All businesses, as other Members have mentioned, benefit from training, and we all want to see much more of it. I welcome the Minister’s comments in that regard. I understand that it is to be phased in so that SMEs can prepare properly for its introduction and judge when the economic conditions are right in Northern Ireland.

Like other Members, I support the Bill. Although I am not a member of the Committee for Employment and Learning, I will certainly tell the Committees of which I am a member about the encouraging working relationship between the Minister and his Committee.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I support the principles of the Bill. As the former head of a voluntary organisation for 10 years with responsibility for HR, and as a founding commissioner of the Equality Commission, I have experiences of dealing with workplace disputes. They can be lengthy, bureaucratic and stressful for all those involved. Therefore, I welcome the Bill, which seeks to introduce a less legalistic approach to dealing with workplace grievances by repealing the three-step grievance procedure. That will make it easier for employers and employees to raise and deal with grievances by using non-legislative processes to ensure that attempts are made to effectively address disputes as early as possible.

The Bill also seeks to simplify and provide consistency to the time limits for industrial tribunals and fair employment tribunals which take place in relation to dismissal and disciplinary situations. Removing the confusion around the current processes for extending time limits in those hearings will ensure that the process overall is easier to access and understand for all parties involved. Furthermore, I welcome the additional powers for industrial tribunals to reach a decision without necessitating a hearing if all parties agree in writing. That introduces a simple, timely and cost-effective way of dealing with and resolving simple disputes without having to resort to a full hearing or case.

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

Modification of the powers of tribunals to reduce publicity is of obvious benefit to those who are deterred from going to tribunals due to the potential disclosure of sensitive information. That benefits claimants and all parties involved that may be affected by such disclosures.

It is important to recognise that many people may be discouraged from raising a grievance because the issue may be sensitive; for example, racial or sexual harassment. I welcome the fact that the Bill seeks to overcome that problem.

The Bill also sets out plans to ensure that awards made through conciliated settlements or tribunals are enforceable, as though they were a court order, thereby ensuring that those who are granted an award are not forced to go to court to ensure that they receive it, which, again, will save time, effort and the additional cost of going to court to retrieve an award or settlement.

Granting additional powers to fair employment tribunals by allowing them to hear aspects of cases that would previously have necessitated a separate industrial tribunal will, again, save time, effort and cost and simplify the process for all involved. That should be welcomed.

I welcome the freedom that the Bill proposes to give to the Labour Relations Agency in that the agency may or may not participate in pretrial conciliation without having to justify the reasons for becoming or not becoming involved. That freedom will allow the Labour Relations Agency to prioritise cases when its resources are overstretched; and its resources are often overstretched. It also allows the agency to save resources by not participating in cases where it is clear that conciliation will not be successful.

I welcome the introduction of a legislative framework for an employee to have the right to request time to train, with the proviso that the time must be used for study or training to improve an employee’s effectiveness at work and be of benefit to the performance of the employer’s business. Safeguards are built into the Bill to ensure that businesses are not adversely affected by granting time off for training or study. It is a good step towards ensuring that Northern Ireland has an effective, successful and highly skilled workforce.

The Minister has said that many organisations provide training for their staff as a matter of course. When I was director of the organisation that I referred to earlier, it always had a work plan for staff development at any staff appraisal, which included the type of course that staff would attend and the costs involved. It is a good incentive for staff self-development and staff retention. If staff are valued, trained and upskilled, they will be a great asset to the organisation and will stay with it. However, at this time of economic recovery, we must be mindful of placing the burden of extra legislation and administration on businesses, as we were warned by the Federation of Small Businesses.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I welcome the opportunity to comment on the Bill’s Second Stage. Owing to the time allocated, I will be brief.

It is welcome that the Committee for Employment and Learning has been a positive driver of the Bill. It has been fully involved and will continue to be fully involved in the process. The Committee got the message loud and clear from local businesses that the workplace dispute resolution requirements needed to be reviewed and altered, not simply as a mirror image of changes in other parts of the UK but as a bespoke set of arrangements specific to Northern Ireland and based on wide-ranging consultation.

Employment law is viewed widely by those in all sectors of business as complicated, difficult to interpret and expensive to implement when required. That has, in turn, led to many businesses being placed in difficult situations that have been expensive to resolve and harmful to workplace relations. We want to arrive at a situation where employers feel confident in managing their employees and handling workplace disputes. As a Committee member, I believe that we are moving in the right direction.

There is much more that I could say but, conscious of time, I will conclude by offering my support to the Bill at Second Stage. There is no doubt that, when the Bill reaches Committee, Members will welcome the opportunity to comb through the detail to improve and enhance the situation for local employers and employees. Our devolved Administration sometimes unduly gets a hard press. However, it is good to see that the Assembly is getting to grips with the real issues and that it will provide resolution to concerns and issues that are specific to Northern Ireland.

Claire McGill (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the fact that employment law is being addressed by the Assembly. When giving evidence to the Committee, a departmental official said something that underpins the difficulties when there is a grievance and when a working relationship in an organisation breaks down. The previous Member to speak referred to the complexities and difficulties experienced by employers and employees. That departmental official said:

“There must be a cultural change in the way that employment relations are arranged in Northern Ireland; that is, the way that employees raise their grievances and how employers deal with those.”

That neatly encapsulates what this Bill, when it is enacted, should put in place.

There is employment law, but it is accepted that it does not work. The current processes for workplace dispute resolution have been in place since 2005, but it was accepted that there were difficulties with those processes, and the Gibbons report formalised that acceptance. Aside from that formal recognition, we, as elected Members, have had examples of difficulties brought to us.

The Chairperson of the Committee and others referred to the public sector, which has a vital role to play as an employer and in acting for those whom it employs. I have had some dealings with the Labour Relations Agency, and the little experience that I have in this area indicates that it can be difficult for employees to bring grievances in some circumstances. There are problems with how some grievances are dealt with. There are questions about whether the employee knows about the Labour Relations Agency, what role it plays, how it can be contacted and whether the employee will get the information that he or she needs. It is important that the information that the employee receives is relevant to the difficulties that the employee may have. Therefore, I agree with the Chairperson’s view that the public sector must be a role model in these matters and has a part to play in establishing relevant legislation. Indeed, putting in place legislation is key.

There has been no shortage of consultation on the issue. The Committee produced a report on workplace dispute resolution which included evidence taken from key stakeholders and organisations. However, the issue still comes down to what occurs when there is a dispute between an employer and an employee. Therefore, given the complexities, difficulties, stresses and anxieties that both sides experience during a dispute, it is vital that legislation makes the process of resolution easier and more meaningful for all involved.

I fully support the Bill, and I repeat that, as with all such matters, the detail of the legislation and, specifically, how it will eventually be implemented are crucial. I join other Members in commending the Minister and his Department on the extensive nature of the consultation. Perhaps that highlights the fact that we routinely go out to consultation and produce documents. The key point is that, in the final analysis, the implementation of the Bill will be important.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Members who contributed to the debate, and I will try to deal with some of their remarks. The Bill seeks to deliver substantively on all of the core principles that I outlined, which are the product of a positive engagement with stakeholders, to which a number of Members referred. As I said in my opening remarks, the policy review also identified non-legislative measures that focus specifically on wider employment relations practice: the agreement of a code of practice for all information providers; training for managers in employment relations; the establishment of good practice models for employment relations; and so forth.

I turn to the issues raised by the Committee for Employment and Learning and by individual Members during the debate. I thank the Chairperson for her positive and supportive comments on the way in which the Department took forward the policy review and on the policy intent behind the Bill. The policy review demonstrated what can be achieved through joint working, and I assure the House that my Department will continue to support the Committee as it scrutinises the Bill.

I am pleased that the Committee identified the need to embed a culture in which the early resolution of workplace disputes should be the norm, while ensuring that citizens’ access to the justice system is preserved. The need for a cultural shift away from formal legal mechanisms was echoed by the vast majority of stakeholders during the public consultation, and I am pleased that a number of Members, including the Deputy Chairman, Mrs McGill and others mentioned that. I shall spend a moment on the cultural shift required, because the ultimate aim behind the Bill is to resolve disputes. If they can be resolved informally, that is infinitely better than people having to go through an expensive and time-consuming form of litigation.

Mr Weir feared that his legal colleagues would take umbrage at his not supporting them. We all need the law, and it is essential that we have access to it, not only for the resolution of disputes but in other areas of activity. However, in that particular area of life and business, the process has become more important than the outcome. When people are overly focused on maintaining a process-driven approach to disputes, they spend less energy on the cause of the dispute. In addition, small businesses, which make up the vast majority of businesses in Northern Ireland, do not have dedicated HR professionals. It is easy for people who are not up to speed on all the details to make an error in process or procedure and thereby prejudice their case, irrespective of the rights or wrongs of the issue.

I endorse the Committee’s comments that it is important for employees and employers to have access to information on their rights and responsibilities, and I am pleased that the Committee has drawn attention to the challenges that SMEs face when trying to meet their employer responsibilities. However, that goes beyond the Bill’s provision, which, helpfully, allows me to refer to some of the non-legislative proposals that my Department and key stakeholders will take forward in partnership to improve information provision. We intend to establish an interagency information forum to develop a coherent and consistent approach to providing information on employment rights. In partnership with other government and non-government partners, we will look at mechanisms for improving the support available to SMEs.

A number of Members commented on the Federation of Small Businesses. I know that that organisation has been briefing and lobbying Members. A survey that the FSB conducted some time ago highlighted the issues that its members found most challenging. For example, 75% found it difficult to keep up with changes, and 84·6% struggled with the number of different regulations and requirements. Furthermore, 73% experienced uncertainty over whether they had got it right, and almost 60% had difficulty understanding what is required of them. It is clear from those figures that there is a widespread view among small businesses that dispute resolution procedures are over their head and that they find them difficult and complicated. Therefore, we hope that the provision of information will inform and help, thereby underpinning and leading to the resolution of disputes.

The Committee called on the public sector to be a leader in the development of good employment relations. My Department recently established an employment relations pilot in partnership with the trade unions, and I intend to promote across the public sector any good practice that emerges.

The Committee also indicated that it has not had the opportunity to examine the provisions that deal with the right to request time to train but it is generally supportive of an initiative that will enhance Northern Ireland’s skill base. As I said in my opening address, those provisions are designed to achieve the enabling powers that will allow for the subsequent introduction of that new right. The FSB has lobbied Members on the matter and has set out clearly what it believes to be one of the key areas. Its document ‘Regulatory Reform – a route to economic recovery’ states, and I quote:

“To boost the chances of job creation during the period of economic recovery, all new business regulation should be halted for the period of recession and first 18 months of economic recovery”.

I will not put specific times on it, but I ask the Assembly to provide for the enabling power, after which we can introduce processes if we want to introduce the right to train.

I accept that, through the GB proposals, employers will still have the right to refuse in designated circumstances. However, we do not want to get into a situation in which there are disputes about that. We feel that, in the current economic circumstances, it is essential not to proceed with implementation now. However, it is wise to take the power to do so, in order that we can trigger it at a later stage. We all want people to be trained. That is one of the driving forces behind what we have all been trying to do over the past number of years. Equally, where there is a right to do it, that could even be a source of dispute itself. Therefore, having listened to people’s views, we feel that, on balance, now is not the most opportune moment to introduce the power. A cost is attached, and the Department reckons that, if enough people take the training, that cost will be around £6·7 million a year. Any costs that add to our difficult financial circumstances are best avoided at this stage. If we were debating this issue this time tomorrow, we might have some sense of what that might be, but I believe that we should leave the matter in abeyance at the moment, pass the enabling power and leave it for subsequent implementation.

Sue Ramsey asked about stakeholders. As a former Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning, she focused on a range of the Committee’s work. I will seek to reconstitute the steering group as an implementation group. In addition, the Department will continue to seek the expert involvement of stakeholders on a range of implementation projects that emerge from the review, and we must not forget that we wish to introduce some non-legislative changes. If the stakeholder group agrees, its views will be transferred into implementation mode so that we can, I hope, roll the process out.

In recent years, every attempt to improve that area of our economic life has been well intentioned, but, over time, lawyers got at it and turned it into a more confrontational and judicially based approach. ACAS in Great Britain, for example, includes the word “conciliation” in the title, and the LRA, which is our nearest equivalent, has the words “labour relations” in its title. In other words, the thrust is to improve relationships, but, over time, we got ourselves into trench warfare. Many of the cases are protracted, distract management and employees from the rest of their work and are extremely expensive and debilitating. In some cases, vexatious claimants managed to take a series of companies to court over various issues. Therefore, we tried to get the balance right between the ultimate right of a citizen to have access to a legal process, if and when an employee feels that he or she has been badly treated, and the need to be practical and reach solutions. We felt that the introduction of formal grievance processes at a very early stage militated against conciliation. Altering the position of the Labour Relations Agency, making it more open to undertake other matters and removing some arbitrary time limits on process would allow it to be active to the end of a dispute. The agency would be involved as far as tribunal stage, because, as Members will be aware, disputes in all walks of life, particularly legal disputes, are often settled on the steps of the court. Unfortunately, the Labour Relations Agency was being closed out at a much earlier stage.

I thank the Members who contributed to the debate. Today represents an important milestone in the development of employment relations in Northern Ireland. Throughout the review, employers and employer representative bodies expressed concern about the existing dispute resolution systems. They have consistently argued for changes that will reduce the financial and opportunity costs associated with disputes that escalate beyond the workplace. Employee representative groups also argued for improve­ments that provide less formal alternatives to the tribunal system while preserving citizens’ fundamental right to access to the justice system. Therefore, I hope that we achieved that balance.

The Committee will want to scrutinise the Bill and, as they say, drill down. The word “culture” has been much used. The Bill will lead to a change in culture, but we must ensure that the implementation of those changes is driven through in a way that reinforces that and that people begin to see the benefits of it. I hope that that, combined with the reduced financial burden, will be a positive development.

I also take this opportunity to thank departmental officials for their consistent efforts. I know that they have put a lot of work into this. I have already told the Committee Chairperson that the officials will be available to help the Committee at any time during the Bill’s Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Employment (No. 2) Bill [NIA 24/09] be agreed.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Order. As Question Time begins at 2.30 pm, I suggest that the House takes its ease until that time.

Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I remind Members who wish to ask supplementary questions that they must be rising or on their feet to be called.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

1. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the development of the Maze/Long Kesh site. (AQO 1439/10)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On 8 April 2009, the deputy First Minister and I announced that a development corporation would be established to take forward the regeneration of the former prison and Army base at Maze/Long Kesh. A draft statutory rule has been prepared to create the Maze/Long Kesh development corporation, and we hope to schedule the Assembly debate on that issue before the summer recess. In parallel, the Maze/Long Kesh programme delivery unit continues to prepare the site for potential future development. Maze/Long Kesh presents us with a unique and viable redevelopment opportunity. In the current economic climate, opportunities of that type are rare, and it is important that we exploit that potential to the full.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raith maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Does the First Minister believe that we have a story to tell about our own conflict transformation process that can strike a positive note on the international stage and bring investment in from all over the world?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The site presents a number of opportunities. The Royal Ulster Agricultural Society (RUAS) has expressed some interest, and discussions are taking place with that organisation. There is an opportunity for economic investment on the site, and I believe that the European Union can be persuaded to help fund a conflict resolution centre, whatever it may finally be called. The retained buildings can be incorporated into the overall site.

Northern Ireland has a significant and historic conflict resolution story to tell to the world. I do not take the view that any two problem situations across the world are identical, but people can learn from our experience, as did we from others. However, it is important that that story is told in a balanced way. The deputy First Minister and I agree that the site should not become a shrine, in any form, to any paramilitary organisation.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

In the First Minister’s original response, he said that he hoped to table a motion in the Assembly dealing with the creation of a development corporation. Were the Assembly to give its consent to that motion before the summer recess, when could that corporation be established?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Whether the Assembly gives its approval before or after the summer recess, the corporation will be established six months after the Assembly’s support is given.

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

Will the First Minister tell us when he will instruct officials in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) to prepare a business case for the conflict transformation centre? Where will it be located?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Those issues are being examined, and propositions have been considered by the Department. As I said in my earlier answer, I believe that, were we to submit an application in relation to the site, the European Union would support it and would make a significant contribution. The project is in the final stages of consideration, but it must be brought about in a way that can gain the support of the whole community and become something that encourages bonding in society rather than being divisive.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I declare an interest as a member of the RUAS.

Does the First Minister agree that, if agreement can be reached with the RUAS to move items to the Maze site, that that can go ahead and not be held back while waiting on everything to be agreed, and that we can see some progress on the site after so many years of delay?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Since all those matters will be subject to the approval of the Executive, I can only speak for myself. We are keen that if agreement can be reached with the RUAS, it will move ahead; however, I think that others in the Executive would be keen to see the overall shape of the site before giving approval to any one part of it.

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

2. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister what progress has been made in the establishment of the racial equality panel and its subgroups and to outline the panel’s terms of reference. (AQO 1440/10)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

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

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for his question, which is important, given the economic climate; it may become even more important in future. To better focus the business of the Racial Equality Forum, members were asked to self-nominate to join the racial equality panel. The panel is being established to drive the work of the forum. By the deadline, we had received and accepted nine nominations.

Those appointed represent the views of the wider minority ethnic sector. The panel will also include representatives from relevant Departments, faith-based organisations and the Equality Commission, among others. Apart from forum meetings, it is planned for the panel to meet twice a year. Consequently, panel members are required to consult widely with the minority ethnic sector and to advise it on panel proceedings.

The forum’s subgroup on immigration has met twice and is making significant progress on recommendations on those who find themselves destitute through no fault of their own. A first meeting of the panel is planned for late July when the terms of reference will be given careful, detailed and active consideration. There will also be discussion of establishing additional subgroups, although those subgroups have resource implications that need to be taken into consideration.

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

I thank the junior Minister for his comprehensive answer; progress is certainly being made. It is important in the economic downturn that the rights of racial minorities be fully protected, and the panel is one way of doing that. Will the junior Minister assure the House that he will continue that valuable work in order to protect ethnic minorities?

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

Yes. The point is well made by the Member. Racial equality is a highly emotive issue that has received considerable press coverage. We are aware of a young lady in Coleraine who lost her legs as a result of becoming homeless and destitute; that is a matter of concern. The Member will know that we are working within a UK framework on the issue, and it is something that we will continue to work on.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Will the junior Minister outline what funding provision is available for support and help in ethnic minority communities?

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

The point that I have already made is tied closely to the point made by the Member because if people find themselves in difficulty, we expect the ethnic minority organisations to provide them with support. No one, whatever their racial background, should feel that they cannot approach an organisation in Northern Ireland for support. OFMDFM is fully committed to building a cohesive, shared and integrated society. Those words will trip off the tongue very easily in the next number of months as we develop the strategy.

The OFMDFM minority ethnic development fund provides vital support to those groups, enabling them to build up capacity and providing the practical support and advice needed in our communities. The fund will be worth £1·1 million in 2010-11.

As a part of the 2010-11 minority ethnic funding scheme, more than £949,000 of development funding has been allocated to 22 organisations and £160,296 of project funding has been awarded to 12 organisations. We expect all those organisations to provide the necessary support to various ethnic minority groups.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh míle maith agat. Given that migrant workers and their families have made a vital contribution to our society and economy and that many of them do not have recourse to public funding, what measures and steps is the Department taking to assist them at this time? I am conscious of what the Minister said about the funding that is available for groups and organisations. However, I am referring particularly to those workers and families who are no longer in work here.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for her question. We are seeing a pattern emerge, because the issues that those questions raise are interwoven.

One of our difficulties is that immigration is not a devolved matter; responsibility for policy issues remains with the Westminster Government. Although we are sometimes constrained by UK-wide legislation, we are determined to examine what support we can give to people facing genuine crises. The Executive’s primary focus is on economic growth to build a better future for all people here, including new arrivals. We expect the groups funded by OFMDFM to provide practical help and support to those people who fall on economic hardship and who are suffering. I have no reason to doubt that we will continue to fund those groups during the course of the year. The budgets are already set, and I do not anticipate any interference with them.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

3. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister what discussions they have had with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State regarding the devolution of further powers to Northern Ireland. (AQO 1441/10)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member will be aware that the devolution of policing and justice powers to this Administration took place on 12 April, and we proposed that responsibility for, and the power to legislate on, all matters relating to public assembly in Northern Ireland will also be transferred on a date to be determined. As far as the devolution of any further powers is concerned, the deputy First Minister and I met the Prime Minister, David Cameron, on 20 May and the Secretary of State, Owen Paterson, on 14 May to share our views on the key priorities for the years ahead. We also met the Prime Minister at the Joint Ministerial Committee plenary meeting on 8 June.

Members will be aware that the possibility of differential rates of corporation tax across the United Kingdom was raised with us in those discussions. The UK Government intend to consider how the transfer of corporation tax-varying powers to Northern Ireland might be achieved. However, at this early stage, all the implications of such a step remain to be thoroughly explored. The issue of devolving any other reserved powers to this Administration will be kept under review.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the First Minister for his reply. On the eve of what is likely to be a very important and crucial Budget announcement by the Chancellor, not only in national terms but in Northern Ireland terms, does the First Minister agree that it is vital that we grow our private sector given that public spending looks set to be tightened across the UK? Will he tell the House what level of agreement exists in the Northern Ireland Executive and what discussions they have had about the possible devolution of corporation tax-varying powers?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I agree entirely with the Member that we are likely to face some fairly stringent cuts in public expenditure. One of the Executive’s priorities will be to ensure that the cuts protect, in as far as they can, public services, particularly front line services, and the economic growth that, I believe, Northern Ireland can substantially enjoy. We need to look at ways of getting greater growth into the economy. Obviously, the Northern Ireland Administration would be in a strong position if it had a fiscal lever to reduce corporation tax.

As the coalition Government have not yet brought forward that paper, we are not in a position to consider either it or its possible implications at Executive level. If its implications are that public expenditure will be cut elsewhere to reduce the block grant to an equivalent amount, one set of considerations would have to be put in place. However, if the paper permits us to look at the reduction of corporation tax for various sectors, rather than for the whole of our economy, a different set of considerations would come into play. Until we get the full detail of the paper from the Government, we cannot have that discussion.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I call Mr Stephen Bell for a supplementary question. I am sorry; Mr Jonathan Bell.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

On a weekend of success for Northern Ireland, with Graeme McDowell’s historic US Open win, what is the First Minister’s assessment of how successful it would be for Northern Ireland to be able, as has been said, to set its own rate of corporation tax? Will the First Minister continue to impress that on the UK Government and find out when they will be able to make a further announcement on the matter?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I congratulate the Member for his ingenuity in getting in a question that refers to the triumph of a Northern Ireland golfer. From Thursday right through to Monday morning, I think I watched almost every shot that Graeme McDowell played. His win was a tremendous achievement and good news for Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland would benefit substantially from a reduction in corporation tax. We have a very good product at our disposal, even under present circumstances. However, investors, particularly those who are involved in foreign direct investment, often look at the bottom line, and, very often, they look at the trendy aspect, which is the rate of corporation tax. Therefore, a reduction would help us considerably.

Unlike other parts of the United Kingdom, this part has a land frontier with a European partner that has a substantially lower rate of corporation tax. Therefore, it is very important that we deal with the matter in a way that allows us to compete on the island with a country that has one of the lowest available corporation tax rates in the European Community.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I call Dr Stephen — not Jonathan — Farry for a supplementary question.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

It is a pleasure to be morphed with Jonathan Bell. I cannot think of a finer person for that.

Does the First Minister think that, ahead of the autumn investment conference in Washington, there would be a strong advantage in the British Government giving at least a positive indication on corporation tax? That could be seen in the context of American companies facing the prospect of taxation on foreign profits. Therefore, a lower rate of corporation tax may be a very good way of contravening that trend.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It would certainly be helpful if a lower rate were available for that period of time. However, I raised the issue with the Prime Minister, who indicated that it was more likely that we would receive the paper, rather than its outcome, by the time of the conference. We need to be careful that we do not raise expectations on this issue to too high a level. The deputy First Minister and I attended a meeting with a Treasury Minister, and his view was slightly less helpful than that of the Northern Ireland Secretary of State. Therefore, different views will come forward from the Treasury. However, we know that the Treasury frowned on this matter the previous occasion that it was considered.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

4. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister what steps they are taking to protect public services and to grow the economy in light of anticipated Budget cuts. (AQO 1442/10)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The deputy First Minister and I continue to liaise with the Prime Minister, David Cameron, and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the likely impact of Budget cuts here. We are well aware of the financial challenges that lie ahead for everyone. The size of our block grant is a key issue and of fundamental importance to our ability to continue to deliver public services and support to local businesses and people. Last month, the funding available for local public services was cut by £127 million per annum, which was the Executive’s share of the £6 billion reduction in UK public expenditure in 2010-11. In addition, there are expected to be further real-term reductions in funding over the four-year period from 2011-12 until 2014-15, as part of the 2010 spending review, which will take place in the autumn. Further details on that are expected in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s emergency Budget statement tomorrow.

The result of that reduction in funding from the Treasury is that local Departments will need to make savings in the coming years to address cost pressures and fund improvements in public services. Although those savings should come from reductions in bureaucracy and administration costs in the first instance, front line services will also need to become more efficient. However, the scale of the challenge means that a fundamental assessment of the services provided by the Executive and the best form of delivery will also be required.

The Executive have taken a number of important steps to support the local economy during the recession and in its immediate aftermath. For example, to support the labour market at this critical time, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment helped to safeguard over 2,200 jobs between April 2009 and March 2010. Furthermore, over the same period, Invest Northern Ireland also assisted in the promotion of over 4,300 jobs.

The Executive also recently established a subcommittee chaired by Minister Foster to prioritise and co-ordinate action on the economy. The subcommittee is currently working to develop an economic strategy for Northern Ireland that will set our priorities, actions and targets for the short, medium and longer term.

Overall, the best approach for the Executive is to support companies as they seek to improve their competitiveness in the global market place so that there is less reliance on public sector spending in the future.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for that very detailed and helpful answer. There was so much detail in it that I look forward to seeing the Official Report to take in all of the information that he imparted.

From the First Minister’s remarks, can I take it that he is firmly of the view that further savings can be identified without impacting on public services?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Yes, of course. Identifying areas in which public savings can be made is one issue, and I have no doubt that there are further savings that can be made. Ask any member of the public, and he or she will be able to identify areas where the Government should be cutting back and where there is waste. However, we need to get agreement in the Executive on areas to make savings. Therefore, a consensus is required, which can sometimes be difficult.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Will the First Minister give an assurance that when there are inward investment conferences and investors looking at Northern Ireland, particularly when there is a dependence in the economy on tourism, excellent golf courses, such as the one that produced our US Open winner, Graeme McDowell, will be promoted actively to ensure that visitors come here in their tens of thousands?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Ingenuity knows no bounds, Mr Deputy Speaker. You would be the last one to call any Member to order on this issue.

Northern Ireland has tremendous golf courses, and the Tourist Board are well aware of that. Within the past few days, the deputy First Minister and I met a delegation of Americans who had enjoyed the use of those golf courses. I met a group of American trial lawyers who were in Northern Ireland, almost on a tour of the golf courses.

For the first time in 40 years, a European has won the US Open, and the fact that he is from Northern Ireland will draw attention to the talent that we have and to the assets in Northern Ireland that have formed that talent.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Although I recognise that the Executive have placed a priority on growing the economy, does the First Minister agree that developing the green economy must be a priority now? For example, Harland and Wolff has taken advantage and developed wind turbines.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Harland and Wolff has been instrumental in manufacturing the tidal version as well.

There is a tremendous opportunity to develop the green economy, and it is something that the Enterprise Minister is very much in favour of pushing forward. Again, when we were in the United States, the deputy First Minister and I met one of the companies that are very keen to be involved with wind turbines in Northern Ireland, so developing that is clearly beneficial.

However, we need to recognise that the best way to get economic growth is through businesses that bring export potential. Ultimately, we have to encourage those businesses, not only by encouraging foreign direct investment but also by looking at our own indigenous businesses to see how they can be expanded and can grow and where they can export their products.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

5. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the recent Joint Ministerial Committee meeting. (AQO 1443/10)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The deputy First Minister and I attended a meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee in London on 8 June 2010. The meeting, which was chaired by the Prime Minister, was the first since the formation of the new Government and was an early opportunity for the devolved Administrations to reinforce the importance of the institution of the Joint Ministerial Committee and to seek the commitment of the UK Government to participation at the highest levels.

The agenda consisted of three items: the Government’s programme, the economy and finance, and intergovernmental relations. The meeting also discussed the Respect agenda and how the four Administrations could work together to make that a reality. The greater part of the discussion was devoted to the economy. We stressed to the Prime Minister the differential structures of our respective economies and the implications of any sudden and drastic reduction in public expenditure for our local economy, which is still emerging from recession.

There was unanimity among the devolved Administrations in impressing upon the Prime Minister the need for a fresh approach to negotiations between the Treasury and the devolved Administrations on all issues of public finance, including the need for greater flexibilities and the need to ensure that our shared commitment to protecting the economy is governed by the principles of responsible management of the public finances. We explored and identified areas of shared interest in encouraging sustainable economic growth and achieving the best value provision of public services along with maintaining and improving competitiveness.

The Prime Minister assured us of his commitment to effective and meaningful inter-Administration relationships and to improving the processes supporting those relationships, particularly those relating to finance. We agreed to continue and to maintain a regular dialogue on all those matters, and a programme of meetings under the auspices of the Joint Ministerial Committee (JMC) was agreed for the year ahead. The Member may wish to note that a copy of the agreed joint communiqué has been placed in the Assembly Library.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the First Minister for a detailed answer. Does the First Minister agree that the fact that the JMC meeting was chaired by the Prime Minister and attended by the Deputy Prime Minister will prove to be evidence of an enhanced role for the devolved Administrations in national Government?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On that day, we had a meeting of the JMC and of the JMCE, which is the Joint Ministerial Committee in European format. We probably met about two thirds of the Cabinet at those two meetings. That indicates that they put a very high priority on the issue. The real test, of course, is not so much about their presence; it is not even so much the fact that that was the first time such a meeting was held in Downing Street. It will be important that we see some product from those meetings, and we look forward to seeing whether the suggestions put forward by the devolved Administrations are shaped into policy decisions by the new Government.

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

Will the Minister give us some indication of the joint initiatives that he and the deputy First Minister intend to bring forward?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I assume that we are talking about the previous question, which was about the JMC. The deputy First Minister and I put proposals to the Government in relation to getting greater flexibility in our finances, particularly over the period of the next comprehensive spending review. It is important, in our view, that we have automatic access to the end-year flexibility. In our case, that is about a quarter of a billion pounds, which would assist us with the cuts that are coming. We also asked for greater flexibility in moving money from capital into resource. There are also issues arising from the statement on finance policy that was brought forward by the Labour Administration, which, I hope, the new Administration will change and on which all the devolved Administrations would seek to have improvements.

The other issue that the deputy First Minister and I are agreed on and have argued strongly for is that there should be a system of arbitration where there are disputes. For instance, the Treasury decided that although there was urban regeneration funding for the Olympics, we would not get the Barnett consequentials for it. Those would have meant additional tens of millions of pounds for Northern Ireland, which, in urban regeneration terms, would have been significant for DSD.

Everyone in the devolved Administrations agrees that there was a strong, indeed unanswerable, case that we should have received that funding. When the cuts came along, the Treasury decided that that was an area in which the Olympics should be pared back. It applied negative Barnett consequentials to us, having not given us the positive consequentials in the first place. When that was pointed out, rather than giving us the positive consequentials, the Treasury took away the £1 million or £2 million of negative consequentials.

Regional Development

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I advise Members that question 3 has been withdrawn. I further remind Members who wish to ask a supplementary question that they must be rising or on their feet to be called.

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

1. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail the total amount spent to date on contractors and consultants for the A5 and A8 road schemes. (AQO 1454/10)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Roads Service has advised that the total amount spent to date on the A5 dualling scheme between Derry and Aughnacloy is £24,715,000. The total amount spent to date on the A8 dualling scheme between Belfast and Larne is £3,135,000. Those figures include consultants’ fees, site investigations and surveys and payments to the integrated delivery teams.

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

I thank the Minister for his answer. I am conscious that the Irish Government have sustained their commitment to both projects despite the serious difficulties in the Irish economy. Will the Minister confirm that our Executive will sustain both projects in spite of any threats to our Budget?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Member is correct: the A8 and A5 schemes are being part-funded by the Irish Government. I anticipate that the remainder of the funding will be made available through the normal budgetary process.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Minister tell the House what is the expected timetable for the delivery of the A5 dualling scheme?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Subject to satisfactory progress through the statutory procedures and the availability of funds through a normal budgetary process, it is anticipated that construction could start in 2012 and be completed in 2015. It is expected that the draft vesting and direction Orders and environmental statement will be published in November 2010. It is anticipated that a public inquiry will take place in 2011. Subject to a satisfactory outcome of the public inquiry and confirmation of the availability of funding, construction work, as I said, is expected to start in 2012 and be completed in 2015.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Minister detail how the consultants were appointed? How many applications were received, and what scoring criteria were used in the process to select the consultants?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The consultants were appointed by the normal process, but I do not have details on how many applied and the scoring processes that were used. I will respond to the Member in writing at a later date.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

In view of the number of serious accidents on the A8 over the years, when does the Minister anticipate that the A8 scheme will start and be completed?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Again, subject to satisfactory progress through the statutory procedures and the availability of funds through a normal budgetary process, it is anticipated that construction could start in 2012-13 and be completed in 2015. The stage three assessment is under way, and it will progress the scheme towards the publication of the draft vesting and direction Orders and environmental statement by mid-2011.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

2. asked the Minister for Regional Development what discussions he has had with the Minister of the Environment in relation to the devolution of functions to local government. (AQO 1455/10)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Member will be aware that the devolution of functions to local government is part of the wider proposals to reform local government under the review of public administration (RPA). That includes the transfer of a range of functions from several Departments across the NICS (Northern Ireland Civil Service). As a member of the RPA’s Executive subcommittee, I am in regular contact with the Minister of the Environment, who chairs that subcommittee, as part of our role to oversee the implementation of the reforms.

Robert Coulter (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his response. Now that local government reorganisation has collapsed, will the Minister indicate whether the Minister of Finance and Personnel has expressed to him any views on the devolution of functions to the 26 councils?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

There has been a general discussion about that at the Executive over a number of meetings. Obviously, I was disappointed with the final result of the discussions, which was a decision not to proceed with the 11-council model. Ministers exchanged views across the Executive table on a wide range of matters relating to that. I have not had any specific discussions directly with the Minister of Finance and Personnel about transferring functions, but I certainly would not be supportive of the idea of transferring functions to the 26 councils, particularly given that some of the councils already abuse some of their powers. In the absence of proper governance models being introduced, I would certainly not be minded to transfer functions from the Department for Regional Development (DRD) to the 26-council model.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I am keen to ascertain whether the Minister foresees any transfer to local government of responsibility for major strategic schemes for roadways, rather than it just being responsible for minor maintenance? Has he considered that issue with the Department and, if so, does he see that happening in a rolling fashion over the next few years?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As I said in my previous response, I am not minded to transfer any functions to the 26-council model. As part of a wide-ranging discussion over a number of years, we were intending to transfer some powers, including powers relating to car parks and traffic attendants, to an 11-council model. Because road schemes, more often than not, will not be confined to any one council area, it is the intention to keep Roads Service as the statutory authority over road schemes and major works and not to transfer that power to the councils.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I call Fra McCann to ask a supplementary question.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister has, in his last two responses, answered the question that I was going to ask.

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

The Minister clearly does not intend to devolve any functions to the 26 councils in the foreseeable future. Therefore, does he accept that the RPA exercise and the way that it has been carried out to date has been an abysmal failure?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I am sure that much useful preparatory work has been done between councils. I have said publicly that I am very disappointed that the decision to move to the 11-council model was not taken at the Executive. I have made my views very clear on that. Whether anything can be picked up from that has not been put to the Executive as yet. There has been no proposition on where we go from here. With no agreement to move to an 11-council model, the default position is to stick to the 26-council model. I do not doubt that some of the work that has been done to date has proved useful in getting councils to co-operate. Whether we can revisit the issue is a decision for the Executive. I would be keen to see us move on to establishing an 11-council model, as we had agreed two years ago, but, obviously, we cannot move on that on our own.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Question 3 has been withdrawn.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

4. asked the Minister for Regional Development what steps he has taken to date to improve his Department’s oversight of the procurement processes operated by Northern Ireland Water. (AQO 1457/10)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

My written ministerial statement on 12 March and subsequent oral statement to the Assembly on 15 March set out the immediate action that I took following the publication of the independent review team’s report on procurement governance failures in NIW (Northern Ireland Water). The oral statement referred to an action plan that had been produced in response to the report findings. That was subsequently agreed as a joint DRD/NIW action plan, incorporating actions to enhance the Department’s oversight of NIW. That included taking forward a process to appoint interim board members to temporarily replace the four non-executive directors who were removed, on which I hope to make an announcement soon; DRD representation at NIW audit committee meetings since March this year; an external review of the work undertaken by NIW internal audit, which has been used to inform the internal review team’s (IRT) findings; a wider external review of the NIW internal audit function; and the requirement for the Department to be informed about any proposed single-tender actions above £30,000 on a monthly basis.

Although I am confident that the chief executive has, since his appointment and subsequent to the findings of IRT’s report, proactively raised the profile of governance throughout NIW, the director of the Department’s shareholder unit liaises closely with him on an ongoing basis to ensure that all actions are being addressed. Delivery against the action plan is a standing item at the monthly meetings between the DRD senior finance director and the chief executive.

One of NIW’s main actions was to widen the scope of the audit into procurement governance. This was described as further “deep-dive” audit work, and I agreed to keep Members informed about it as the findings become known. I can now confirm that they will be made available on the Department’s website later today.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he now satisfied that Northern Ireland Water is being run to the highest standards of corporate governance and that contracts are being tendered for properly?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

That is the point of all the actions that I have outlined, which are a consequence of the independent review team’s report and which then led to a joint action plan between the Department and NIW. That has led to a much closer working relationship and to a much greater emphasis being placed on governance and procurement. I am confident that things have improved dramatically since the matter was first brought to our attention earlier this year. I am satisfied that these arrangements are now working. Experience over time will test them properly. However, there has been a very substantial improvement in relation to governance, audit and scrutiny of the award of contracts.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Will the Minister indicate what criteria and appointment processes, which were not undertaken in the first instance, which led to the problems that the independent review identified, were undertaken this time to ensure that the interim board membership process was successfully concluded?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The problems that the independent review identified were much more extensive than the appointment process for board members, although I considered board members to be culpable in their governance and scrutiny of some of the issues that were taking place at NIW. The difference with the interim appointments is that they are described as being made on an interim basis.

We had to reach agreement with the Commissioner for Public Appointments to deviate from the normal appointments process. The selection criteria for the four interim appointments were based on business and stakeholder needs. A list of the names of potential candidates was drawn up and individuals were contacted to gauge their interest, and they were asked to submit CVs. Interviews, or conversations with a purpose, were then held by a panel that contained an independent assessor. A further interview is scheduled for later in the month, and I hope to be in a position to announce interim appointments soon.

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

With regard to all the problems that Northern Ireland Water faces, does the Minister rule out any possibility that he will re-integrate Northern Ireland Water as a corporate body directly into the Department for Regional Development?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

All options are being considered in relation to the future of NIW. It is now operating as a hybrid — between a Go-co and a non-departmental public body — as far as accountability is concerned. However, there are implications in bringing NIW back into the Department and those have to be considered. It would have an impact on the Executive’s financial situation, and there would be possible financial risks around VAT and asset valuation. There would be constraints in the public expenditure system on issues such as efficiency, customer focus and long-term planning to maximise return on investment. We are considering the course of action to take to secure the best governance of NIW, but whatever we do will have implications.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

5. asked the Minister for Regional Development what influence his Department has, through the regional development strategy, on proposals for airports and their associated transport infrastructure requirements. (AQO 1458/10)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The regional development strategy (RDS) recognises the significant role that airports have in accessing markets, encouraging inward investment and boosting tourism. The RDS is material to decisions on development proposals for local airports and their associated transport infrastructure. That means that when DOE is processing planning applications, it must give due consideration to the policies set out in the RDS.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Does the Minister agree that it would be helpful if there were greater responsibility for and greater influence on the development of airports, so that we end up with the right investment in the right place and that road and rail infrastructures are meshed appropriately? Does he also agree that there is a need for greater responsibility over a wider geographical area and that responsibility should be devolved?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

There are a number of factors involved. One is an ongoing discussion on aviation strategy. Responsibility for that lies at Westminster, and I have said that I am happy to explore and to discuss with Executive colleagues whether that is something for which we can accept responsibility. The Member should also bear in mind that airports are privately owned and decisions about investment and infrastructure are matters for the owners.

Given that we live on an island, airports are important gateways. That is reflected in the regional development strategy and will be reflected, possibly even more strongly, in the new regional development strategy that is being processed. There is a clear recognition that the infrastructure that gets people to and from the airports is important. Given our geography and the nature of our economy, access to the airports is important, and we will continue to bear that in mind.

Billy Leonard (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. When does the Minister intend to publish the revised regional development strategy?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I intend to seek Executive approval to publish the revised regional development strategy for consultation by this autumn.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Given the scope of the regional development strategy, I presume that the Department will submit the Minister’s response to the public inquiry on the proposed extension of Belfast City Airport. Will the Minister assure me that he and his Department will take into account the local residents’ ongoing opposition to that proposal?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The inquiry and the decisions that flow from it are a matter for the Department of the Environment. However, on a number of occasions, I have had the opportunity to meet with residents and with groups and, indeed, with some of the elected representatives from the areas that are affected by Belfast City Airport. I wrote to the Minister of the Environment encouraging him to hold a public inquiry before taking his decision. I am not sure that there is a formal role for DRD in that inquiry, but, nonetheless, we will be keeping an interested eye on it.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

If and when the Budget will allow such schemes to progress, will the Department examine the possibilities of having railway links and halts at Londonderry and Aldergrove airports so that a truly integrated public transport network can be achieved?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Those issues have been raised with me before. The standard benchmark for the viability of rail halts at airports is if they serve around 10 million passengers. I think that Aldergrove serves around seven million, and the City of Derry Airport does not serve numbers in that region at all. However, we will continue to keep that under review. Current and anticipated finances would not allow us to make any moves in that direction in the near future, but I will continue to listen to that argument as time goes on.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

6. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline his Department’s response to the June monitoring round. (AQO 1459/10)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

My Department submitted seven bids in the June monitoring round exercise, six of which were resource bids totalling £22·2 million and one that was a capital bid for £41 million. The bids totalled £63·2 million overall and covered a wide range of the Department’s activities.

Details of the resource bids are £12·6 million for pressures arising from environmental work and contractor disputes in NIW; £2·3 million to maintain the existing level of subsidies for concessionary fares schemes; £1·3 million to meet the increased railway public service obligation; £0·6 million to meet the increased cost of the transport funds resulting from the dial-a-lift service; £4 million to meet the costs of maintaining the street lighting stock; and £1·4 million to meet the increase in fuel duty rebate costs.

There was one capital bid for £41 million for Roads Service structural maintenance. If that bid is met, the allocation for 2010-11 would match the level recommended in the independently assessed Snaith structural maintenance funding plan. Members should also note that the backlog of structural maintenance on our roads was measured at an unprecedented £720 million in the September 2009 report. My Department also sought £4·5 million in capital funding as part of the approved integrated development fund pilot project that Ilex submitted for the A2 Broadbridge scheme.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. As regards the resource bid of £2·3 million for the concessionary fares scheme, will the Minister outline the budgetary position of the scheme and what he intends to do if no funding is available from the Department of Finance and Personnel?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Executive consider the concessionary fares scheme to be important. I certainly consider it important. The bid for £2·3 million is to maintain the existing levels of subsidy for that scheme. Fare concessions that are available to those over the age of 60 and other vulnerable groups have been successful in encouraging those groups to use public transport services frequently in preference to private transport. That shows the benefit of having affordable and accessible public transport services in achieving modal shift.

However, the scheme is demand led and inescapable pressures have arisen, which explains the bid for additional funds. At this stage of the year, that bid represents an estimate of the reimbursements required to Translink for the scheme. As I said, I consider the scheme to be important, as, I believe, do my Executive colleagues, and, therefore, I intend to secure the finances necessary to ensure that it continues.

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

Given that the Minister will be under severe financial pressures, has he any plans to seek equity release from any agencies or bodies under his control?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

There has been some discussion — I am not sure whether it was at a previous Question Time — during which the Minister of Finance and Personnel referred to equity release in relation to Belfast port. I am told that that is not possible under the terms in which it was described. Therefore, it is not something that we have considered. I do not consider myself to be under severe financial pressure. The budgets are being challenged; we will probably know more about that tomorrow. Nonetheless, the Executive need to have a mature discussion about continued investment in the infrastructure as a way to help us to endure the economic downturn and to put us in a better position to take advantage when the situation improves.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

7. asked the Minister for Regional Development when the Cairnshill park-and-ride facility will open and what measures will be put in place to facilitate public transport from the site to Belfast city centre. (AQO 1460/10)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Plans for the introduction of a new park-and-ride facility at Cairnshill are well advanced. Although the construction work on site is largely complete, the procurement of bus services, together with the introduction of further bus priority measures, must be finalised before the site becomes fully operational. I hope to be able to announce the outcome of the procurement in the autumn. In the meantime, I have asked officials to investigate opening the car park as a park-and-share site and to consider how existing Translink bus services could be used to benefit access to the city centre.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his reply. He has visited the constituency and spoken to residents’ associations and other local representatives about overall traffic management in the area. Is the Minister able to assure the House that this project will be given every priority to ensure that it and the necessary procurement are completed, so that it can make an important contribution to traffic management in that overall area?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As I said, work on the site is largely complete, and we expect it to be fully completed by the end of June, that is, within the next week or so. The site has space for 730 vehicles. Although the dedicated service has not yet been procured, there is the potential to open the site for a park-and-share scheme in the interim and to link its users with existing Translink services that pass the site.

I agree with the Member that it is an important part of traffic management for the Ormeau Road area and for the city as a whole. In the initial phases, as we give more priority to quality bus corridors in that area, private car users will feel the impact, and that may lead, initially, to their experiencing some congestion. However, the purpose of park-and-ride sites is to encourage private car users to leave their cars there and take public transport into the city. I believe that such sites will eventually be highly successful in that regard.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

The Minister will be aware of many park-and-ride facilities throughout Northern Ireland, but they are often used by people who do not get on a train or a bus. Has the Minister considered introducing controls for existing park-and-ride facilities?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I am not aware of any specific complaints about particular facilities at which people park but do not use public transport, unless that is a park-and-share facility, and some park-and-ride sites include park-and-share facilities. However, if the Member brings any specific complaints about the operation of some of the sites to our attention, my officials and I will ensure that the operators of those parks deal with the issue.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Given that the latest figures show that single occupancy journeys increased by 14 million in 2006-08, does the Minister accept that his policies are failing to get people out of their cars and into more sustainable forms of transport?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

No, I do not accept that my policies have failed. I am not sure what Mr Bradley’s policies are, but I would be interested in hearing from him about them. If he has some better ideas, I encourage him to let me hear them.

Very significant investment is going into infrastructure, such as park-and-ride schemes and the plans that are being developed for a rapid transit system around Belfast. Although private car ownership is increasing, as it is all over the world, and congestion is an ongoing issue, the correct policies are being followed, namely, to provide a better, more efficient and higher priority public transport network and to make it progressively more difficult for private cars to access urban centres. That is the policy that we are pursuing. At a time when making investments is not easy, the policy requires significant investment in public transport and more restrictive measures for private cars. I think that that is the correct policy to follow. If the Member has a better one, I would be interested to hear about it.

Gerry McHugh (Independent, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister’s comments about park-and-ride facilities and the number of people travelling into the city centre are encouraging. The quality of life of pedestrians, given the movement of buses in the city centre, is also important, and there have been some severe accidents and serious incidents. The speed and type of buses —

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Question, Mr McHugh.

Gerry McHugh (Independent, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

In relation to the control and management of buses within the city centre itself, will the Minister look to the future in relation to the type of buses, the noise that they create and, indeed, the speed and control with which they are driven? Has that been brought to the Minister’s attention?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

It has, and I recall the tragic accident in Belfast city centre that resulted in young Ciara Park being killed by a bus. Work between Departments was already ongoing, and the Member will know that the streetscape work in Belfast city centre is the responsibility of the Department for Social Development. DOE also has an interest, and there have been joint discussions and meetings about Belfast city centre’s immediate and longer-term future between the three Departments. That is an ongoing piece of work. In the long term, we intend to remove buses from the immediate city centre area. At the moment, in certain parts of the city centre, their movement is restricted to one way. Obviously, given that the area is becoming increasingly pedestrianised, the greatest attention possible is being paid to safety issues. Pedestrian usage and bus usage can lead to a conflict. There are long-term plans to progressively remove vehicles from the city centre. In the interim, a great deal of attention is being paid to pedestrian safety.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

8. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline the current position on the proposed A6 Randalstown to Castledawson road upgrade. (AQO 1461/10)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Roads Service has advised that it is continuing to develop the A6 Randalstown to Castledawson dualling scheme. It plans to make two direction orders later this year to facilitate the construction phase. It is anticipated that work will commence on site in the 2011-12 financial year, subject to the availability of finance at that time.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that information, and the fact that his budget is not under especial pressure gives us confidence that the project will proceed. Given that work on the scheme will commence in the 2011-12 financial year, when does the Minister expect it to be completed?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The dualling scheme has been procured by way of a design-and-build contract, and it will take about 24 months — two years — from the start of construction to completion.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I am disappointed by the Minister’s last answer. Given present financial constraints and public opinion about the loss of farmland, I was hoping that the Minister would tell us that the scheme will be put on the back burner for some time. Even at this late stage, will consideration be given to looking at another route or to putting the scheme off for some time?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

No. I am afraid that the intention is to go ahead with the scheme. There are landowner issues, as there are with any road scheme, big or small, particularly with respect to farmers’ access and compensation. In any major infrastructure scheme, those are all difficult issues to deal with. Nonetheless, the process is under way, and the benefits to members of the public who travel to and from the north-west, between Belfast and Derry, will be great, so the intention is to go ahead with the scheme.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

The Minister is probably aware that there is disagreement about whooper swans and the building of the new road. Are studies on the swans ongoing, and will we be supplied with up-to-date facts?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Many issues will be raised about the construction project, of which that is one. Stringent environmental guidelines are in place for any roads that are being built, and I am sure that the environmental agencies will apply strict guidelines about what can and cannot be done. I do not have a specific assessment of the ongoing examination of that issue, but I am happy to write to the Member with any details that may be available.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. What assurances can the Minister give that local contractors will be involved in the work on the proposed upgrade of the A6 from Randalstown to Castledawson?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

We must adhere to European rules on major procurements. However, we will try to ensure that, where possible, local contractors have the opportunity to tender for that type of work. Contract awards for the A5 were broken into three pieces, which perhaps made it more attractive to local contractors and not so attractive to international organisations. To date, we have had good local contractors who are capable of undertaking such work. Over the past number of years, schemes arrived on time, on budget and, in many cases, ahead of schedule. I am sure that local contractors will be aware of the potential for work. Given the difficult situation that they face, I very much hope that they are able to secure that work.

Executive Committee Business

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I beg to move

That the Budget (No. 3) Bill [NIA 26/09] do now pass.

The passing of the Budget (No. 3) Bill will set the limits on expenditure and the use of resources in 2010-11 and will enable the Assembly to hold Departments accountable for managing and controlling that spending and for the use of those resources within those limits. As the Excess Votes for 2008-09, which are in the Bill, demonstrate, any excess or excesses will be identified during the audit of the departmental resource accounts and will be reported by the Comptroller and Auditor General to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). In turn, the PAC will examine the reasons for the excess and make recommendations to the House.

I will continue in the vein of accountability to the Assembly and take this opportunity to focus the Assembly’s attention for a few moments on the issues that it is now time to address. The current financial process, which we inherited from direct rule, commenced with the Budget and went through the legislative stages of Estimates and Budget Bills, which is where we are today, to the out-turn of the departmental resource accounts. It has existed for many decades in Northern Ireland and is based on the Westminster model. Various components of the process serve different purposes and have developed over the years in individual directions. That has resulted in a significant misalignment between Budgets, Estimates and accounts. In past debates, Members commented on that misalignment, which is especially demonstrated by the different figure work in the Budget document and the Estimates. That misalignment is an area that should be reformed to improve transparency and Assembly control. In addition, the revenue stream in the form of rates legislation is taken forward as a separate process and, arguably, should be linked with the expenditure process.

One main area that requires radical reform is the lack of transparency in the publications presented to the Assembly, in particular the Estimates. In the past, Members commented that the publications did not lend themselves to the easy scrutiny and challenge of spending proposals by the Assembly. Departments’ spending proposals should be set out clearly in Budget and Estimates publications not only to be scrutinised and challenged by the Assembly but to enable accountability at a later stage for spend against those proposals. Take, for example, education and health, which are two of the biggest spending Departments. In the Budget document that was approved on 20 April and in the Estimates before us today, the majority of the spend in each Department is contained in one or two lines. An expenditure line of over £1 billion should be unacceptable to the Assembly, and it is time the Assembly demanded greater transparency, with expenditure being split over different spending programmes.

Finally, the financial process is lengthy, convoluted and repetitive — very repetitive on some occasions. I hope that it will not be repetitive today, but I suspect that it might. Consultation, scrutiny, debate and agreement of a Budget is followed by debates reopening the same Budget issues during the legislative process. I enjoy a good debate, and, while it is important in a democracy to debate the issues, especially important issues such as public expenditure, the repetitive purpose of those debates is worth examining, especially since a lot of the debate is about something that has been agreed anyway.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

At this stage of devolution, it is time to discuss, consult on and agree a process and publications that better suit the needs of the Assembly. To that end, perhaps it is time for a review of the entire financial process. We recently had a review of the Budget process in order to improve the first stage of our financial process, but should we not look at the entire financial process and at the various publications throughout that process with a view to having a process and publications that will meet the needs of our devolved Administration? The objectives of such a review could be to improve transparency and the alignment between Budgets, Estimates and accounts; radically simplify the Estimates; revise the budgetary structure of Departments in order to achieve clarity in spending proposals and programmes; and streamline the Budget, Estimates and legislative process.

Reform must be driven by the needs of the Assembly, and I cannot stress that enough. A review taken forward by DFP or by the Executive without the engagement of Members would not achieve its goals; in fact, it might be regarded with some suspicion. The Assembly should consider its needs in relation to the entire process and the publications laid before it. Extensive consultation with the Assembly on reform would be imperative. The official avenues for consultation would be the Committee for Finance and Personnel and the Public Accounts Committee. However, I welcome the constructive views of individual Members today or in the coming months on the matter. In addition, my officials would need to consult the Comptroller and Auditor General on the issues impacting on his office, on accounts and on his role as the controller of the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. I issue a challenge to the Assembly today to consider major reform of our financial process to meet the needs of the Assembly. The desire for reform must come from the Chamber, and I welcome Members’ views in that regard.

In conclusion, as we come to the final debate in this legislative process, I remind the House that the amounts of cash and resources sought in the Budget (No. 3) Bill for 2010-11 are substantial on top of the Vote on Account approved in March, bringing the total cash to more than £13 billion and the resources to more than £14 billion. However, as stated in earlier debates, the Chancellor’s announcement on 24 May has already dented those amounts, and the Executive are dealing with that as part of the June monitoring round. As we await the Chancellor’s emergency Budget tomorrow, we can be certain that the financial road ahead will be rough. However, Members have been elected to deliver high-quality public services to the people of Northern Ireland, and we must still do that within our reduced resources. That is the challenge that lies ahead, and I look forward to hearing Members’ views today in that vein.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I want to speak first as the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel and then as an MLA.

As I stated in an earlier debate on the Bill, the Committee for Finance and Personnel is aware of the potential consequences for departmental spending and front line services should the Bill not progress through the Assembly before the summer recess. In that regard, the Committee was content for the Bill to proceed under accelerated passage. However, the Committee continues to be mindful of the concerns raised by other Statutory Committees about the lack of engagement with their respective Departments throughout the latest Budget process. Therefore, I am pleased that the Minister has called on his Executive colleagues to engage early and meaningfully with their Committees as we move into the 2010 Budget process, which will establish departmental baseline expenditure for 2011-14.

Following a request for assurances about improved consultation and transparency in future Budget processes, the Minister provided the Committee with an early timetable for the 2010 Budget process, and that has been shared with the other Statutory Committees. On 30 June 2010, the Committee for Finance and Personnel will take evidence from DFP officials on their initial plans and priorities for the Budget 2010 process. I encourage other Departments to engage with their Statutory Committee at the earliest opportunity, because it is imperative that Committees are afforded adequate time to properly perform their scrutiny role. Having reiterated those key concerns, I support the motion that the Budget (No. 3) Bill do now pass.

As an MLA, I welcome the Minister’s earlier comments. There is a view that we are facing a situation in which we will have less money to spend on public services. I apologise in advance if I repeat myself a little today, but we must have the debate on how we can protect essential front line services and ensure that the families and businesses that need help from the Executive get that help. We often get caught up in the argument about where we will find new money, but that is not always what is required; it is about using the money that we have more wisely.

Sometimes I feel like a parrot because I repeat myself so much, but public procurement is one area that we can influence to ensure that all public spending in that area maximises the wider economic and social benefits to our community. I am aware that the Minister is looking at the Committee’s recommendations on public procurement, but that type of procurement must be opened up to smaller businesses and the social economy sector to enable them to access contracts in the same way as larger firms. Social clauses must also be inserted. It is essential that we look at how we can target areas of disadvantage and need and how we can ensure that companies that are awarded contracts meet the basic conditions, including providing good wages and employing apprentices and the long-term unemployed.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

A number of weeks ago, I attended a conference in County Down with the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development and other members of the Committee. At that conference, a representative from the Welsh Assembly spoke about how the Welsh have used procurement contracts to open up apprenticeships and about how social clauses were included in those contracts. The representative said that that approach has had a great impact on how things are dealt with. There still seems to be some hesitancy here about adopting those procurement ideas. Does the Member agree that, particularly in the current economic climate, we should tap into the expertise in Wales and use it here?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

That is certainly an issue that we could look into. I also hope that the Minister and the Central Procurement Directorate give weight to the 30 recommendations in the Committee’s report on public procurement.

Those recommendations will go a long way to helping the public procurement spend be used as the strategic tool that we have discussed in the Chamber.

I want to concentrate on areas in which money is already there, as opposed to looking for new money. Credit union legislation is going through Westminster. Credit unions have expressed an interest in investing in social economy enterprises in local communities. Targeting social need would generate employment and regenerate those communities. It is important that, when that legislation has passed through Westminster, the Assembly and the Executive take the necessary steps to ensure that credit unions’ financial investment powers are brought into the arena. Credit unions are currently investing their money in banks, which are coming in for criticism for not lending to businesspeople here. We need to look at banks’ failure to address their failings, because, we must remember, they were given public money. I know that we have talked about that issue before, but the banks were given that public money to try to kick-start the economy, and some businesses cannot get loans from the banks or are having loans called in by them. It is imperative for business that we look at the credit unions and at the way in which they can make financial investment in areas such as the social economy.

We need to look at all the different areas. We are facing public spending constraints, so it is essential that we consider whether we are getting the outcomes from spending that we need and that are set out in the Programme for Government. I know that an opportunity is coming for the Programme for Government to be reviewed, and it might be timely for that review to reflect the current economic climate.

Whether we choose to engage in that level of debate, we need to engage with communities. The poverty in those communities is very real. There are still 100,000 children living in poverty in the North of Ireland. It seems that, no matter what we do to deliver services, we are not bringing children out of poverty. Those children are still getting up in the morning and going to school hungry because their parents do not have the money to pay for electricity when the meter runs out at 8.00 am on a Monday. They do not have the money for electricity to provide light and heat and to cook a breakfast. Generational poverty is perpetuated, because those children are never given a fair chance in life from birth. Children who are born into a household in which two parents do not work or who are born in an area of social need should be given the same life chances as a child from a more affluent area or family. We need to take a strategic approach and put money into those families, children and schools for early intervention. We need to look at that holistically and do something for those children at a very young age to lift them out of poverty. One of the main ways to lift a child out of poverty is to give the child’s parents a job. Public procurement can be used in a way that will create employment opportunities for parents.

As I said, there are ways to spend our money more wisely. However, we need to measure that. We must also measure the outcomes. I sense that, after government money has been invested in a service, there is no measurement of whether it has worked and whether the targets have been reached. When we consider the entire budgetary process, it is essential that we build into it the cross between the Programme for Government and the Budget. We should also build in a tool to measure whether the money that we spend delivers the set priorities.

We will, I hope, be given the opportunity to discuss that issue in more detail. I hope that the Assembly and the Executive will take on board the disadvantage and need in our communities and target spend on the families, businesses and communities that need it.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

On behalf of my party, I welcome the seamless and fairly painless passage of this essential legislation. In doing so, I welcome the debate so far. The Minister’s criticism of the process is absolutely justified. We have gone through the same process time and time again. In fact, I probably could have reread a speech from the Final Stage of a previous Budget Bill, and no one would have batted an eyelid.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

How do we know that you will not do that?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I will repeat this speech next year to see whether anyone catches on. Given that the process has many failings, which I want to touch on, it allows us to have a debate. I hope that the Minister appreciates that today’s debate has been a little more mature than some previous Budget Bill debates. The debate will be even more mature given the absence of certain Members. As the Chairperson said and as the Minister mentioned in his opening remarks, the context in which we now discuss Budgets has changed from that of three years ago. We all know the context of public spending restraints, if not cuts, that we must face. That has encouraged Members to be a bit more mature and more measured in their comments.

Several Members mentioned the need to reform our entire budgetary process, and I was glad to hear the Minister’s comments on that today. It is, perhaps, typical that, during the Final Stage of a Budget Bill that could have gone through easily, the Minister threw down a challenge to Assembly Members. However, if I have read the comments from all parties in the Committee for Finance and Personnel correctly, many of us will seize that challenge with relish. The Minister is absolutely right to make those comments. There is a growing sense of dissatisfaction among Members and a feeling that the whole process is, in many respects, pointless. That is borne out of many reasons and frustrations. The Minister has spoken of his frustration at the lack of departmental engagement with Committees, the incompleteness of the information provided to Committees and, at times, the complete lack of transparency even when the information is provided. We should all be critical of our own performance and question whether we truly test the expenditure that comes before us. Even were all the available information provided in a timely way, would our testing of expenditure be thorough enough? Sadly, the answer is no. Budget Bills and monitoring rounds come around again and again, and I fear that we fall into automatic pilot when scrutinising Budgets and expenditure in the Assembly.

There is that fear or frustration that Members cannot change anything. That has got to rub off on the general public and stakeholders who may think that they cannot change anything either. Therefore, given the context of the public spending constraints that we face, there is a deep desire to change that process so that we are as thorough as possible and can walk away from every Budget process and say that we tested everything with the degree of scrutiny that was absolutely required. Therefore, the challenge that the Minister has thrown down is one that I wish to seize with relish.

Even though there is a sense of doom and gloom about Budgets in Northern Ireland, it should be noted that this Budget still allows for considerable investment in our public services, not least in ongoing record investment in our infrastructure right across Northern Ireland.

I welcome the Final Stage of the Bill. It is, at least, one Budget this week that we will all welcome; I am not too sure about the one that we will hear about tomorrow. In fact, I suspect that we will run a million miles away from it in respect of some of the pain that it will cause. Nevertheless, I welcome the Final Stage and the challenge that the Minister has thrown down to everybody in the House.

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

I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, to the House and to the Minister for missing his introductory remarks. I hope that nothing I say retrospectively steals his thunder. It might, but I will go ahead anyway.

We are at the Bill’s Final Stage. I have huge sympathy with many of Mr Hamilton’s remarks and with some of Ms McCann’s. We seem to be in a perpetual cycle of sameness, debating the same pot of money and the same sort of issues in the same sort of way. Therefore, it may be opportune to take a few moments to talk about what we might do differently during this Final Stage debate.

I suppose that it boils down to two basic questions. The first is how we raise our money. There is a little bit of what we will want to spend that we are able to raise ourselves. The second is a matter of negotiation, for those who are much better at that than me, with the powers that be in other places. However, I think that it is an opportune time, possibly in light of tomorrow’s Westminster Budget, after we come back after the summer break and think about the next Assembly, our comprehensive spending review and the heads of the new Programme for Government, to reflect on some of the big questions that we need to pose about how we raise revenue in this region.

The first question that I would like to pose is about the rating system as it stands and whether it is fit for purpose. We have ended up in a debate about water charges on the periphery of this Budget, a debate that will continue to raise its head until, somehow or other, we settle the question of that £200 million that we keep pushing down the pipe — pardon the pun — and find some mechanism for being able to fund it.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I am encouraged by the tone that the Member has taken in facing up to the reality of revenue-raising. That has not always been the case on the part of his party. In respect of the comment about pushing the issue down the pipe and the implications of that, is the SDLP, in essence, now facing up to the reality that water charges have to be introduced?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

No.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

If Mr McDevitt is also saying no, what is the point of the line of argument that he is taking?

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

Like the Minister, the SDLP says no. We do so proudly and consistently, because water charges in the current budgetary structure are not the solution. That is part of the point that I am in the process of making.

We are probably at the point where we need to ask fundamental questions about our rating system per se, because it is clear from where we are sitting that it should accommodate the cost of water. However, it is clear from where other people are sitting that it does not. It is certain that every householder and, I suspect, most of us sitting in the Chamber pay rates, but none of us feels that we get particularly good value out of what we pay. None of us gets a sense of what we are actually paying for. We do not really know or understand where our regional contribution goes, and we certainly do not know where our local government contribution goes.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I understand the point that the Member made about the regional rate. So far as the Bill goes, there will be a separation. However, as far as the district rate is concerned, most councils now detail, with quite a lot of information, exactly what the money is spent on. The regional rate does not go into pockets of money; it goes into general expenditure and is a bit more difficult to define.

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

They do so at a corporate level; the Minister is right in that regard. There is still a significant disconnect between the ratepayer or the customer of government services — be that at local government level or at regional government level — and the rate bill. It may be a time for us to take a look at what we believe falls within the rate envelope and to ask ourselves whether the bodies, structure and policies that we have around rating are suitable for that purpose.

I hear a lot of criticism, and I am sure that colleagues do too, about the rating agency and whether it is able to do its job on a day-to-day basis. I know that that matter has been debated at other times in the Chamber, so I will not dwell on it too much, but now is the time for us to start asking that first question about where our money comes from. Is it time to start a conversation about what rates are, what they should pay for and how we should formulate a policy around them?

The second matter is about thinking of smaller, imaginative innovations that could be used as revenue-raising opportunities. In the Minister’s reply, I would be most interested to hear his opinion on Mike Smyth’s suggestion of a levy on text messages, for example. We never seem to think outside the box when considering how revenue could be raised elsewhere, and I will come to that in the second part of my comments.

There is the question of asset leverage. The investment strategy sits slightly outside the Budget that we are talking about today for obvious and important reasons, but again, in that regard, we stumble along. I suppose that we can forgive ourselves for doing so over the first seven or eight years of this millennium because of the bigger politics of the situation, but we are yet to come to terms with the opportunity to leverage our asset base. There also needs to be a big conversation on the broader question of equity release. Although the Minister took a strong view during the Bill’s previous stage on the opportunities to release equity from such bodies as the Harbour Commissioners, only 20 minutes ago and 10 yards from where I stand, the Minister for Regional Development took an opposite view on whether that was possible, never mind whether it was a good idea. As an Assembly, we should have the debate about how to raise money; we owe it to ourselves and to the people who sent us here.

The second debate relates to what we do with the money and how we spend it. Ms McCann made a very important point when she talked about need and the fact that, at every level in our society — be it at the most deprived levels, where support is most needed from the state; at the level where young people are leaving school or college and looking for work with no prospects of finding any; at small businesses and their frequent argument to us that they do not feel that the region is rolling behind them; or the other government services, in which people argue that they are not being funded in the way that they should — the question of whether our Budget is about funding Departments or funding need is begging to be asked. If it is about the latter, does continuing to fund Departments in the traditional, old-fashioned way enable us to fund need or is it becoming an obstacle to it?

The SDLP has talked about my next subject in the past, but I have not, so I will indulge myself briefly. The first Executive had a mechanism called the Executive programme funds. It was abolished the minute that the first Executive fell. I know that, privately, the Minister is not averse to us returning to the idea of programmatic funding. We need to stop allowing Departments to act as gatekeepers rather than enablers, and we need to return to this place, in the autumn or after the next election, with imaginative ways that will allow us to send a signal to the people — the young workers, those who need health and social services, carers — that we can fund need. That need is not merely social, it is also economic. It is about innovation and linking up what the Department of Education, the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) and the Department for Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) need to do in order to realise the employment opportunity of this region.

At the last level, we also need to be able to bring the compassion and the opportunity to use regional funding and regional spending to help those who are most on the margins of society.

For most county towns in rural areas, nothing is more important than investment. It is important in the cities too. Capital investment means that jobs can be created, but when people in local communities do not see themselves getting jobs when the road project or big regeneration project comes through, they get disillusioned about the value of devolution.

I agree with Jennifer McCann that social clauses are hugely important. My only regret is that, to date and for whatever reason, we have not been able to get the most out of social clauses. Only last week, I asked the Minister for Regional Development for figures. He has been able to produce only eight jobs for long-term unemployed people in the past two years. It is not that he does not want to produce more jobs, so it must be because there are barriers in the process. If devolution is to mean something to me and to most of us, we need to begin to address those barriers.

I thank the Minister of Finance and Personnel for his time and efforts over the past couple of weeks. However, rather than talk about a Budget, I agree with the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development that this is the easy part of what will be a very difficult conversation in the months ahead. It is important at this stage that we reflect on the points that have been made on the matter. How can we raise money differently? More importantly, when we do so, how can we spend it in a way that changes lives?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Once again, I welcome the opportunity to comment on the Budget (No.3) Bill. In some respects, this is a landmark, as it is the last formal debate on the authorisation of the three-year Budget that the Executive and the Assembly agreed. My party did not agree to it, because we were in opposition then. However, today we are not.

Of course, as the Bill becomes law, some tidying up will still need to be done through the monitoring rounds and, eventually, through the spring Supplementary Estimates. Over the year, those monitoring rounds may take on considerable importance in the context of what we have to do to implement the cuts from the Treasury.

I want to make a number of points, but I will do my best to avoid repeating what was said during the debates on the preceding stages of the Bill. The process has gone relatively smoothly overall. I emphasise the importance of the economic interface in our approach to public expenditure in Northern Ireland. Obviously, a lot of the macroeconomics lie outside the Executive’s direct control, but there are implications for the way in which we spend money. In the light of the ongoing economic situation, that has to remain our primary concern.

I reiterate the point that I made last week about the importance of rebalancing the economy by balancing demand-side intervention with the supply side to free up the costs for companies and individuals so that they can spend money. I would tend to focus more on the supply side, because investments in that area can have an impact on demand. However, as we emerge from recession, it is important that we take every available opportunity to try to shift the terms of the debate on our economy locally. Our economy has major structural problems, not least the dependency on both the public sector and a relatively small private sector with low productivity. To simply free up money for the demand side often does not tackle those fundamental structural difficulties. We must be mindful of the balance when we pitch the economic assistance that we give through public expenditure, which is limited.

Having reflected on some of the comments that were made last week, in particular those of the Minister of Finance and Personnel in his winding-up speech on the Second Stage of the Budget (No.3) Bill, I particularly acknowledge what he said about North/South co-operation. I hope that I will not get him into too much trouble with his party for saying this, but I found his comments to be particularly encouraging. I apologise if I misquote or misrepresent him, but, leaving aside the issue of structures, which may be important in some cases and unimportant in others, he said that, in essence, where there is logic in doing something on either an all-island or a more limited cross-border basis and it makes financial and economic sense, there is no good reason not to do it, as long as we respect and abide by our constitutional situation. That is encouraging, and there should be scope over the next few months for having more rounded debates in the Chamber and elsewhere on how we can take that agenda forward for our local benefit here in Northern Ireland, leaving aside any other benefits that may accrue from that.

I also want to take up the comments made by Conall McDevitt on revenue raising — he has gone quiet all of a sudden. It is important that we are realistic about the need to raise revenue. I was encouraged by the start of his comments but became more disappointed as he went along, because he was raising the issue in a tantalising way, but not actually grasping some of the essentials. When he was challenged about the issue of water charges, he ducked it and said that it is a flat no. The fundamental reality we have to face in this society is that the continued deferment of water charging — or, as Conall McDevitt described it, the funding that we keep “pushing down the pipe” — costs our block grant around £200 million every year. The deferral of water charges is not covered by the block grant; it is a decision we have to take, and it comes at an opportunity cost for revenue that could be invested elsewhere.

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

Mr Farry seems determined to have the debate within the confines of the status quo and on the assumption that there is nothing wrong with the rating system, that it is absolutely fit for purpose and delivers exactly what is was designed to do. However, there is the opinion, not just on the SDLP Benches, but outside, and probably across the House, that, in fact, the rating system has some big problems. My question is not about whether we need to fund water. We all agree that we need to fund water, but differ on the question of how. That is the issue. Does Mr Farry agree that the rating system is, at very best, just about fit for the job it does?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I am grateful for those comments as they have teed up some of the comments I need to make on the issue. Whether we raise revenue through a standing charge based on the value of property or we simply add the cost of water on to the rates, in effect, the overall net impact is fairly similar: households will be paying more. It could be done as part of the rates or as a separate charge, but the overall net effect is fairly similar. That particular point is something of a distraction.

The one downside about making that increase in order to fund water as part of the regional rates process is that essentially it is being said that the only way of funding water is according to the value of property. That does not take into account the potential for reflecting usage of water in households through metering, for example. There may well be advantages in doing it separately.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

There is, of course, an additional problem that has not been considered: as rate payments are subject to housing benefit opportunities, I imagine there would be a difficulty with Treasury if we were to include a charge for a service in a tax on which people could obtain some alleviation through housing benefit. Therefore, leaving aside the charges that were mentioned, whether funding for water should be raised through rates is another matter that we need to take into consideration.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Further to the Minister’s comments, the other consideration has to be the implications in relation to the European Union, and what the expectation would be from that source on how income for water is going to be raised. I appreciate that the Minister is not a fan of the European Union, but I understand that Conall McDevitt and I share a common interest in supporting it.

It is worth bearing in mind that we have had a significant discussion in the Assembly regarding rates. It was one of the first issues raised during this mandate back in the spring of 2007, and we have had a comprehensive piece of legislation since then. In some respects, the issue of rating reform has now been settled, at least for a decade or so. I do not think there is a huge appetite for returning to that. There were certainly aspects of that that I was uncomfortable with. I have always said that I would rather that we levied rates or local charges based on people’s income as opposed to the value of their property. Although property is a fairly good measure of ability to pay, it is a blunt instrument in some respects. Given the problem of people who are asset rich but income poor, an income-based approach would be better. That may be what Mr McDevitt intended when he suggested that we need to reform the basis on which we raise revenue. However, his party was not prepared to entertain such a suggestion when rating reform was discussed a matter of months ago.

I wish to make a final point about rates. If we go down the line of, as was suggested, explaining for what the regional rate is used, that rate will become, by implication, a hypothecated tax, which means that it is raised for particular purposes, rather than for general revenue. The current approach is the fairest one, because money can be spread across all Departments. If revenue were raised for particular areas, flexibility in the management of resources would be curtailed. That could create some distorted and bizarre outcomes and lead to certain areas that receive public money being regarded as privileged, and vice versa. I have concerns about that.

Mr McDevitt raised the issue, but I do not want to be completely unfair to him in my comments. Therefore, to widen my comments, I must say that I detect a lack of maturity in this debate from a whole host of quarters in the Assembly. Economists are saying in public that the Executive and Assembly simply have to bite the bullet and raise additional revenue. Householders here are not being asked to pay at the same levels as people elsewhere, and, as a consequence, our ability to invest in public services and to improve the economy is being compromised. Parties that stand up and complain about cuts need to put their hands up and say that they are not prepared to take the leap. They must be realistic and accept that, in return for providing better public services, we need to ask people to pay more. That is the only honest and frank way in which we can approach the issue.

It is worth reinforcing the point that the method used for raising additional revenue will be linked to ability to pay. The measures that we have at present may not be perfect, but that broad relationship exists. However, the inverse is true in another respect. The vulnerable in society depend proportionally more on public services, particularly the Health Service. We need only look at the issue of health inequalities to see those figures appear in stark relief. We are robbing those services by continuing with what is, in effect, a subsidy for the better-off in society. Water charges, if they are introduced, will be linked to ability to pay. The approach that not only certain political parties but trade unions have taken to the issue of water charges is utterly baffling. They cannot have it both ways. We have to make tough decisions and choices. It is about more than rhetoric. We must be prepared to put our hands up for some very difficult choices that we must make to move the situation along.

The final issue that I wish to talk about is health. I was most disturbed by comments that the Health Minister made during last Tuesday’s Question Time when I asked him about consultant provision. He referred to the justice budget and made disparaging remarks when he spoke about his attitude to healthcare for prisoners and that for the ordinary population.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

The Minister’s points were not in any way disparaging of health provision for prisoners. It seems to be a priority for the Alliance Party Minister and Members from the Alliance Party to spend money on prisoners rather than on protecting the budget for patients.