Northern Ireland Assembly, 15 December 2010

376 contributions from 62 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

The Speaker has been notified this morning by the Minister for Social Development that he will not make his planned statement on housing responses in times of need today but proposes to do so in the new year.

Ministerial Statements

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I have received notice from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister that the deputy First Minister wishes to make a statement.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

First, I apologise to Members for not having available for them a copy of the statement. Last night’s very late negotiations impacted on our ability to deliver that in a timely fashion, and I humbly apologise to all Members. Hopefully, by the time I have finished my contribution, that statement will be available in printed form.

With permission, I would like to make a statement on a programme of high-level meetings held recently in Brussels, which included a meeting with the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, and the President of the European Parliament, Mr Jerzy Buzek. The visit’s purpose was to engage politically at the highest level in the European Union to renew the unique relationship with European institutions that we have enjoyed and benefited from in recent years. More specifically, the visit was to make the case for continued support from the EU for the region.

During the visit, we also welcomed President Barroso to the Executive’s offices, where he joined the First Minister and me in opening those new premises. The new offices will ensure that we remain at the heart of Europe, taking full advantage of the goodwill that we have generated and the relationships that we have developed.

A programme of meetings and events in Brussels took place on 8 December and 9 December 2010. They included meetings with the President of the European Parliament, Mr Jerzy Buzek; Mrs Danuta Hübner MEP, Chairperson of the European Parliament’s Regional Development Committee; Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science Máire Geoghegan-Quinn; Commissioner for Regional Policy Johannes Hahn; and MEPs Jim Nicholson and Diane Dodds. Apologies were received from Bairbre de Brún MEP who was attending the climate conference in Mexico.

We also met ambassador Lebrecht of the UK Permanent Representation to the EU; ambassador Montgomery, from the Permanent Representation of Ireland to the EU; and José Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission.

On the evening of Wednesday 8 December, the First Minister and I hosted a dinner in the Executive’s office in Brussels, which was attended by a number of Invest NI clients. Those companies were represented at senior executive level and comprised those representing significant existing investors in our economy and potential investors drawn from the information and communication technology (ICT) sector, with a particular focus on financial services.

There can be no doubt that the European Union, with its responsibility for legislation, cohesion policy across 27 member states and billions of euros in funding programmes has and will continue to have a very significant influence on our lives. In the past 20 years, it has contributed over €2 billion through structural funds and programmes, including the Peace programmes that supported the peace process. President Barroso invested personally and politically in that process when, in 2007, he was the first European leader to visit us at the time of the restoration of the devolved institutions. That was to underline his support and that of the EU for the political process at a pivotal time in our political and economic development. He established and gave his name to a task force whose job was to provide us with a route map to better and more effective engagement with the European Union and to exploiting the opportunities that that represented.

In general, our visit to Brussels provided us with an opportunity to outline at the most senior levels in the EU the achievements of this Administration in approaching the end of an uninterrupted period of governance. We expressed our particular concerns about the impact of the recession in jobs lost in the economy and unemployment and the difficulties that are faced by sections of society that have not yet enjoyed the benefits of peace and were at risk of being left behind. We also dealt with the impact that the financial crisis in the South will have in lost trade and possible contraction of the finance sector due to the restructuring of Irish-owned banks.

Throughout, we emphasised the positive contribution that the EU made to recent economic growth and, in particular, to the success of the peace process, which was underpinned to a significant extent by the financial support from Europe through the success of Peace and IFI programmes. Those continue to be of immense significance to our political and economic development.

We stressed also the unfairness of the extent of the Treasury cuts, which did not take account of decades of underinvestment in infrastructure and the disadvantage of having higher corporation tax relative to that in the South. However, although we were intent on outlining the context in which continued EU support is required, we also took the opportunity to outline the international interest in the successful peace process, which was reflected in visits from politicians and others from regions such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Zimbabwe, the Middle East and so on. We outlined our desire in general to help other regions experiencing conflict through our example in general and specifically through the establishment of the peace building and conflict resolution centre at Maze/Long Kesh (MLK) as an international centre of excellence dedicated to peace building and transforming societies.

It is now nearly four years since that significant intervention by President Barroso, and it was, therefore, important that we met him once more to express our appreciation of the work of the task force and our hope for the continued support of the EU as we strive to emerge from recession and restore the economic momentum of previous years. It was important in that context to brief the president in particular on current political and economic developments, including the agreement on establishing a centre for peace building and conflict resolution on the site of the Maze/Long Kesh prison. He was pleased at the success of this Administration in approaching the end of an uninterrupted four-year term and acknowledged the importance of the conflict resolution centre and what we have to offer the wider international community from our experiences.

We were able to raise some specific issues with President Barroso, including the current economic and fiscal challenges here and across Europe, the potential for a Peace IV programme and IFI funding. We raised the issue of the problems faced by savers and investors in the Presbyterian Mutual Society and alerted him to the possibility of us seeking at a later date Commission agreement on compliance with state aid rules.

We are assured of the continued political support of President Barroso, who expressed his determination to keep part of the future budget to promote further territorial cohesion and solidarity. The president also confirmed that he would look constructively at any request to extend the International Fund for Ireland. Similarly, the president expressed his continued support for our peace process and was supportive of a future EU Peace programme, although he stressed that that would depend on wider budgetary discussions. In the president’s view, the region is a demonstration of the added value of EU spending. In light of our general discussion with the president, we agreed that his offer to renew the work of his task force would be very welcome and would provide a valuable framework in which all those issues and more could be addressed. The president outlined his proposal further at the press conference following our formal meeting.

When we met Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, the Innovation Commissioner, we highlighted many factors that have inhibited our small and medium-sized enterprises from participating in the current research and development programme, the seventh framework programme, including the complexity of the application processes. Our meeting with Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn also allowed us to look in more detail at how best we can draw down funds under the current and future research and development programmes. We agreed that it would certainly be in the interests of our small and medium-sized enterprises to see the process simplified, and that is the subject of ongoing consideration in the Commission.

Importantly, the commissioner offered to organise a major conference in 2011, targeting in particular peripheral regions and small and medium-sized enterprises with a view to raising their awareness and capacity to access around €9 billion of funding, which will be the subject of the next call for proposals in July 2011 under the seventh framework programme. It is important that we take advantage of that offer and encourage our businesses and academic institutions to become involved. Máire Geoghegan-Quinn also encouraged us to participate in the shaping of the eighth framework programme, which is currently under consideration.

With President Buzek and Danuta Hübner, we sought to secure the support of the European Parliament on issues that impact directly on us, including the European Parliament’s consideration of a future cohesion policy, a possible extension of the International Fund for Ireland and a Peace IV programme. When we met Commissioner Hahn, it was clear that, notwithstanding budget pressure, Europe is with us for the long haul as we move from conflict to peace and prosperity for all. Commissioner Hahn has no doubt that the EU has played a key role in peace building and cross-border activity and that we are a shining example to others in Europe and throughout the world. However, he also realises that the job is not done and that further support is needed, particularly to deal with the problems facing our disaffected youth and to tackle the legacy of conflict and division. Commissioner Hahn kindly offered a place in his department for a national expert from here to gain experience in the Commission, which will complement the help that he has already provided through lending us a member of his staff to work on the task force. Those things are particularly important if we are to keep in touch with developments in EU funding.

In summary, Mr Deputy Speaker, the European Union is vital to our future interests. Economic recovery will be driven to a large extent by innovation and our future success at drawing down research funding, which are, therefore, essential. Equally, as we enter a period of negotiation on future cohesion policy, we must put forward as strong and robust a case as possible, while making it clear that we have a great deal to offer the wider international community on the basis of our experience of peace building and conflict resolution.

In the space of two days, we managed to engage with senior political figures at the highest level in the European Union, raising their awareness and understanding of our regional position and, thereby, gaining significant agreement in principle for continued support through instruments such as the International Fund for Ireland and the structural funds. We continue to have President Barroso’s personal support. That is reflected most significantly in his renewal of the work of the Barroso task force, which should meet in early 2011 to take stock and identify emerging opportunities.

We believe that the outcome of the meetings has been consistently positive and will significantly help our prospects in forthcoming negotiations on areas such as CAP reform, cohesion policy and more general decisions about multiannual budgets for 2013-2020. We are also confident that the prospects of securing an extension of the International Fund for Ireland are greatly enhanced as a result of the meetings. The role of the Executive’s office in Brussels will be pivotal in that work by maintaining a constant and close relationship with the directorates general, MEPs, the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee, all of which are working on our behalf and whose assistance we recognise.

The work of the task force is now more important than ever, and it is vital that we recommit our energies to it. We must build significantly on our engagement with Europe to fully realise the potential for sustainable economic growth. We also have much to offer, through our own experiences, to help other nations that are interested in engaging with us about how conflict is resolved.

We were particularly pleased that President Barroso joined us in the opening of the Executive’s new offices. That was a sign of his recognition of the importance of our presence in Brussels. We thank the president and his commissioners, President Buzek and the European parliamentarians and ambassadors who made themselves available. We also express our thanks to the staff of the Executive’s office in Brussels, Invest NI and all those who helped to make the two days in Brussels a success.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank the deputy First Minister for this morning’s statement. Will he outline whether he believes a Peace IV fund is a realistic prospect after the discussions in Brussels?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The First Minister and I were certainly impressed by the very strong and warm reception that we received at all levels in the European Parliament. There is no doubt that there are many other regions throughout Europe that would envy the access that we had to the very highest levels. From our engagements with President Barroso, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, Commissioner Hahn and former Commissioner Hübner, it was clear that they are all still very much engaged with and supportive of the ongoing contribution that we have to make to the development of Europe. We were encouraged by what we heard about President Barroso’s commitment to the International Fund for Ireland and the Peace IV programme.

It also became clear during our engagements that a big debate is obviously happening in European states about their own budgets. That is a state of negotiation that will continue over the the coming weeks and months. We were obviously there to lobby on our own behalf, and we were certainly allowed to do that. However, it was clear that many people thought that they had the opportunity to lobby us to get us to influence others about their contribution to the European Union. In short, we were very encouraged by what we heard. However, the outcome of those programmes will depend on the outcome of the negotiations that are taking place between member states.

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

We will all welcome the news that there was warmth about the concept of a Peace IV programme. What specific proposals were put to Presidente Barroso about a fourth Peace programme? How much was bid for and for which areas of social or economic development in this region is money being sought?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

This is an ongoing process between us and the European Union. At this stage, suffice it to say that we recognise that a lot of Europe’s approach to our moving forward substantially on the issue of Peace IV and the continuation of the International Fund for Ireland will depend on what it hears from other areas. For example, we all know that, at present, the Committee on Appropriations in the United States is dealing with the issue of the contribution that the US may make to the International Fund for Ireland.

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

What about Peace IV?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am coming to Peace IV, if the Member will be patient.

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

My question was about Peace IV.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I know that it is not easy for the Member to be patient or, indeed, courteous. If he is looking for an answer, he would do well to behave himself.

We are involved in ongoing discussions about Peace IV. The engagement between our representatives, headed up by the junior Ministers in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, and the Barroso task force when it arrives early next year will be critical. We can all take great heart from the fact that President Barroso relaunched the task force during our visit. That will allow us to engage, in a concrete way, in making our own proposals, all of which will be ready for the task force’s visit when it arrives here early next year.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his statement on the Brussels visit. I hope that he agrees with me that the role of the Executive’s office in establishing an Assembly and Executive presence with the European Union in Brussels is very important. Will he also agree that the various Departments did not fully exploit the Barroso task force and its report in the past? What steps can be taken to ensure that the relaunched task force will have input from all Departments to maximise the money available from Europe?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member raised an important point. We always have to be willing to review continually our connection with Europe, particularly when it comes to opportunities that clearly present themselves as a result of an ongoing engagement. I certainly think that there are lessons to be learned, and I do not think that anybody in the House would argue that we have been able to maximise the potential of what is available through our connections with Europe.

The other difficulty that we have to recognise is that the ability to influence Europe depends on the number and quality of people that we have available to engage in that important work. The staffing levels in the operations of other regions of Europe, including, for example, Scotland, show that they invest far more funds in the level of their representation. That gives them an edge over us. When we were in Brussels, the First Minister and I had discussions between ourselves about how we could improve our operation there. As a result of our visit, we are now seriously contemplating how all Departments in these institutions can up their game in accessing the funds that are clearly available and will be available if we make proper presentations in a way that exploits the funds that will come for the benefit of our people. For example, Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn has chief responsibility for innovation in the European Union, and our engagement with her and all the people around her made it obvious that they are more than willing to assist us. We would do well to take up the offer from Commissioner Hahn to accept one of our representatives on to his team, given the important lessons that we would learn about improving our performance.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his statement, and I congratulate him and the First Minister on the fast turnaround on both statements. I am sure that the deputy First Minister will agree that there is still considerable goodwill in Europe towards Northern Ireland.

Therefore, is there a trade-off to be had in the sense that, although the European Union can still assist Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland also has an obligation to assist the European Union, particularly in areas of conflict? Does the deputy First Minister see the potential for the Executive and the Assembly to help other conflict or post-conflict regions in Europe, such as Kosovo, in any way? Was that discussed with the president of the Commission?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

From the first time that President Barroso arrived here prior to the restoration of these institutions in 2007, he was very taken by the enormous political transformation that had occurred here as a result of the peace process. He made it clear at a very early stage that he thought that many other areas throughout the world — he obviously has a particular interest in the situation in Europe —could benefit from our experiences. Therefore, at a very early stage in the process he put on record his and the European Union’s support for the construction of a peace building and conflict transformation centre on the Maze/Long Kesh site, and he reiterated that support in the course of our engagement. At the moment, we are preparing our application for those funds, which could be anything up to £20 million. That application will be presented in January. We hope for an early response to that, but it is clear from our engagement that President Barroso is onside. He is not alone in that; other people we met shared that view.

President Barroso thinks that we can make an enormous contribution, which is highlighted by the number of representatives from different conflict situations throughout the world who have arrived here in recent times. As I said, very large delegations from Iraq and Afghanistan have visited, as have people from Sri Lanka, the Middle East and other conflict situations throughout the world. It is not just President Barroso who thinks that we have something to offer. Just as importantly, people who have been involved in those conflicts believe that we have something to offer. The case is compelling.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I know that the deputy First Minister and the First Minister visited Brussels last week to open the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive. I and some other Members were over with the Assembly and Business Trust the week before, and we received a briefing from the Northern Ireland Executive’s European office. It is fair to say that we were somewhat underwhelmed by that presentation. Will the deputy First Minister give us an assurance that his Department will ensure that the office in Brussels is a lot more proactive than it is at the moment and engages with European commissioners at a very early stage of legislation to make sure that it feeds information back to the Executive and to the Assembly on any legislation that may impact on Northern Ireland?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As I said, the First Minister and I believe that there are important lessons to learn from our ongoing engagement with Europe. There is no doubt that we have the ability to up our game and improve performance, and we are determined to do that. Therefore, we are reflecting on the visit.

The offices are second to none; they are very impressive. During the past couple of days, they have been used by the Agriculture Minister and her team extensively as they tried to minimise the impact of cuts from Europe on our fishing fleet. I want to record our appreciation to her and her team on securing what appears to be a successful outcome on behalf of the fishing industry. However, the Member has raised an important point, and there are lessons to be learned. We can improve our performance and up our game, and we fully intend to further consider how we can do that in the days and weeks ahead.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Northern Ireland has benefited from European funding for many years. Does the deputy First Minister believe that the task force is delivering and will continue to deliver?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes; there is no doubt about that. The fact that President Barroso reiterated his intention that the task force should continue its work is very important. The task force is the embodiment of the goodwill towards the peace process here that exists at the highest level in the EU.

As we all know, the president created the group of Commission staff who benchmarked our participation in EU matters against a number of regions and made suggestions about policies and funding that might be of interest to us. The task force remains available to provide advice and guidance on EU policies and their application to our circumstances. In the view of the First Minister and I, that help is vital because it opens doors for Ministers and officials in any of their dealings with the EU and makes for better and more effective engagement.

We look forward with some considerable interest to the another visit by the task force early next year and to real engagement with it. If we exploit the access that we have to the EU, it will bring, undoubtedly, huge benefits for our Departments, SMEs, business communities and, indeed, for our entire community.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the deputy First Minister for highlighting to the Commission the positive role that the International Fund for Ireland and, indeed, Peace funding have played and the important role that structural funding and the Commissioner’s task force can play in seeking future funding. In the course of that engagement, did the deputy First Minister or the First Minister express concern at the disproportionate level of the fine of over £60 million that has been passed to the Northern Ireland Executive from the EU as a result of Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) mapping errors?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Inevitably, that matter came up in our conversations. As we all know, a process of appeal is in place. DARD officials and the Minister are dealing effectively with that appeal. The process has not yet ended, and we await the outcome.

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

I welcome warmly the report that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister presented to the Assembly. It probably represents a move from being Europhobes to being Europhiles. I emphasise the importance of giving resources to the Executive office in Brussels. Will the deputy First Minister reassure the House that, where they are required, additional resources will be given to that office and that there will be no undermining of that office given our difficult financial circumstances?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As I said in response to earlier questions, we are reflecting on our operation in Europe and on our Department’s relations with Europe. It will not be lost on the Member that, over the course of the past three and a half years, the Executive have been proactive in our engagement with Europe and have put on record repeatedly our appreciation for the support that we have received from Europe over many years.

Without going off on a tangent, I will say that the recent difficulties in the South have brought about a fairly frenetic debate about the relationship between Europe and the Irish Government, particularly on the arrangements for the recent bail out. Without going into the detail of that, many views will be expressed South of the border and in the North about the ongoing relationship with Europe in the context of the difficulties that are being presented.

Our position is clear. It is important to have a positive and constructive working relationship with Europe. There are huge funds in Europe, and, more than that, there is huge goodwill in Europe for what has happened here. Based on our visit to Europe, we are quite clear that there is an ongoing dedication and commitment to assist us in the time ahead. We would be foolish politicians if we were to ignore that or pass that up, and we have no intention of doing so.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I welcome the deputy First Minister’s statement. He mentioned that the Presbyterian Mutual Society issue might be raised at a later date, but now that we are in the midst of the draft Budget and the discussions with it, will the deputy First Minister raise that matter with Europe immediately, and how does he see that working out?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Although we have had discussions about that in the course of our engagement, the situation in relation to Europe will come into play only when we have settled our Budget. We worked very late into the night last night, our Budget review group met yesterday, and the Executive met yesterday and agreed to put out for consultation a draft Budget, all of which propels us along the road. We all understand the great stress and difficulty that is being inflicted on savers, many of whom are small savers, very elderly and very dependent on their savings for care packages and other necessities of life. We understand the importance of moving as swiftly as we possibly can. In the past 24 hours, we have taken a huge stride forward. We very much look forward to the consultation process. Over the next number of weeks, that process will allow everybody to have their say on the budgetary decisions that we have made.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle, Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Aire as an ráiteas sin.

Pursuing further the points raised by Francie Molloy and Alastair Ross, I suggest to the deputy First Minister and the First Minister that it is high time for all Departments in the North to place senior officials in Brussels on a permanent basis to network more, to track legislation at an earlier stage, to gain an understanding of funding opportunities and to exploit potential. It is my understanding that, at this point, only two of the 12 Departments — OFMDFM and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development — have permanent representation in Brussels.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member raises an important point. In the course of reflecting on how we can improve our performance in the time ahead, it will, no doubt, be very useful for Members to put forward their ideas and suggestions, which we will then consider.

Since moving into the new premises, we have been able to accommodate a wider range of events and a much larger number of visitors. For example, the Brussels office has received around 1,500 visitors since it was moved to new premises in December 2009, which represents a significant increase on the same period in other years. Over the past year, the office has facilitated visits by seven groups from the Assembly, including officials from OFMDFM and DARD, the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, the Assembly Commission, a delegation of Assembly Clerks and the Assembly and Business Trust, which was there on two occasions. Minister Empey, Minister Murphy and, more recently, Minister Gildernew have all been there. Local organisations from the public and private sectors have used the new offices to host meetings and to hold events and they have attended presentations by our staff and other EU representatives. Those organisations include Belfast City Council, the Ulster Farmers’ Union, the PSNI, Harland and Wolff, the Local Government Association and Queen’s University, Belfast.

There is no doubt whatsoever that people see the value in engaging with Europe. As I said, the challenge for us is to see how we can further exploit the potential that is clearly there. Undoubtedly, the suggestion made by the Member will be considered along with, I hope, many more suggestions in the weeks and months ahead.

Pól Callaghan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle, Go raibh maith agat as an deis seo labhairt.

The Minister referred to the bailout in the South in which the European Commission was the central player. The statement also rightly refers to the impact that the financial crisis in the South will have through lost trade. Obviously, the bailout was an attempt to deal with that crisis. When he was in Brussels, did the deputy First Minister take the opportunity to express to President Barroso his abhorrence at the bailout in the Republic? What effect does he think that such a position will have on the huge amount of goodwill that he claims still remains there for this Administration?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I know that the Member is new, but I must remind him that I was in Brussels as the deputy First Minister. I was not there to represent a political party but to fulfil my duties and responsibilities along with the First Minister, and the invitation to enter into that debate — [Interruption.]

I notice that, whenever I speak, the unelected Member for South Belfast, Conall McDevitt, always has a smirk on his face and says that he is curious. I will allow him to be more curious in the time ahead.

Ministerial Statement

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

The Speaker has received notice from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister that the First Minister wishes to make a statement.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Mr Deputy Speaker, in accordance with the requirements of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make the following report on the fifteenth summit meeting of the British-Irish Council (BIC), which was held in the Isle of Man on Monday 13 December 2010. All Northern Ireland Ministers who attended the summit have agreed that I should make this statement to the Assembly on their behalf.

The Isle of Man Government hosted the summit, and the heads of delegations were welcomed by the Chief Minister of the Isle of Man, the honourable Tony Brown MHK. The Irish Government delegation was led by the Taoiseach, Mr Brian Cowen TD, and the British Government delegation was led by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP. The Welsh Assembly Government were represented by the Deputy First Minister, Mr Ieuan Wyn Jones AM. The Scottish Government were represented by the Minister for Culture and External Affairs, Ms Fiona Hyslop MSP. The Government of Jersey were led by the Chief Minister, Senator Terence Le Sueur, and the Government of Guernsey were led by the Chief Minister, Deputy Lyndon Trott.

In addition to deputy First Minister and me, the Northern Ireland delegation consisted of Minister Wilson, Minister Poots, Minister McCausland, Minister Kennedy, Minister Attwood, Minister Ford and junior Minister Newton. A full list of participants is attached to the statement that was, I hope, provided to Members.

The British-Irish Council plays a unique and important role in furthering, promoting and developing links between its member Administrations through positive, practical relationships and in providing a forum for consultation and co-operation on east-west issues. Member Administrations consult, discuss and exchange information with each other on matters of mutual interest within the competence of the relevant Administrations.

The summit provided an opportunity for a substantive discussion on the current economic developments that are affecting the member Administrations, including Ireland’s entry into a programme of international financial support, the Irish Government’s four-year national recovery plan and their 2011 Budget. The UK’s spending review and public expenditure reductions were also discussed, and the Council consulted on the actions being undertaken across all the Administrations to endeavour to stabilise public finances, repair banking systems, cut costs and boost employment. The Council acknowledged that member Administrations continue to face serious challenges. It agreed that the sharing of information and knowledge on the measures and actions being taken was invaluable, as member Administrators seek to rebound from current economic challenges.

The Council welcomed the discussion paper prepared by the BIC digital inclusion work stream. That paper highlighted the importance of a digitally inclusive society, as citizens increasingly communicate, transact and access information online. The Council was updated on activities in the area of digital inclusion in the respective Administrations and approved the future work plan of the digital inclusion work stream. That work plan focuses on developing a body of knowledge and best practice around programmes to support digital inclusion; looking at how digital inclusion can deliver public cost savings; identifying and sharing cost effective ways to encourage and to facilitate more widespread engagement of those who are digitally excluded, including through the involvement of all key stakeholders; and sharing statistics and other relevant information across Administrations.

The Council discussed the progress on arrangements for the establishment of a BIC standing secretariat and considered a number of operational details relating to the establishment of the new secretariat, including its functions and staffing arrangements.

The Council also approved a cost-sharing model to apportion the running costs of the new secretariat, once established, across member Administrations. The Council considered the draft running-cost budget for the secretariat, which was proposed by the First Minister of Scotland, and noted the necessity for value for money and efficient management of resources. The budget was agreed in principle, with a recommendation that it should be reviewed annually.

The Scottish Government undertook to bring to the Council a further proposal detailing the most cost effective accommodation available in Edinburgh to accommodate the new secretariat once an opening date is agreed by member Administrations. The Council tasked the BIC co-ordinators group with taking forward further work on the development of a number of new administrative procedures for the secretariat, including appropriate arrangements for governance and accountability.

In conclusion, the Council agreed that the first BIC summit of 2011 will be hosted by the UK Government. The Council also agreed that BIC co-ordinators will examine the practicability of setting a fixed pattern of dates for future summits and that a summit meeting will take place in Derry/Londonderry in 2013 to mark the year of culture.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank the First Minister for the statement. Has a schedule for future summit meetings been agreed? Does the First Minister support the setting of a fixed pattern of dates for such meetings?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It is helpful to have a fixed pattern of dates for BIC meetings. Everyone recognises that if we are to have a number of Ministers present, depending on the work streams of a BIC summit meeting, they will require as much notice as possible. Therefore, it is helpful to have as much knowledge as possible about the venues and dates of the meetings. However, we must take into account that elections in various jurisdictions can mess up that programme.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Regarding digital inclusion, can the First Minister confirm whether the campaign to ensure the wider availability of 3G coverage outside the greater Belfast area was discussed? If it was not, will he undertake to raise the matter at future meetings? May I also hear a little bit more about the community development practitioners and policymakers’ seminar on minority and lesser-used languages, which was held in Belfast, and about the local groups that were involved?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On the last point, although there was a work stream report, it was not discussed at the BIC meeting. I will ask the Minister to speak to the Member on that issue in a language that they both understand.

The issue of 3G may relate to mobile phone masts, so I will be careful not to intrude on the business of the Finance Minister. We have 100% broadband accessibility across Northern Ireland, although there are indicators that it is a little shaky in some places. However, we are moving to the next generation of broadband in Northern Ireland. Indeed, we are probably in the lead for broadband coverage in the whole of Europe. As the Member will know, we have moved on with Project Kelvin, which gives us an unequalled data transfer rate into North America and Europe. We are well in the lead in those matters. It is important that we have 3G and broadband accessibility to the highest degree possible right across Northern Ireland. The Finance Minister has responsibility for those issues and can continue to take the matter up with the telephone companies.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement. I acknowledge the wide range of subjects that it covered. However, looking down the list, I notice that all the other Administrations brought one, two or three members to the table, while we brought eight Ministers and one junior Minister. Is there any reason for the preponderance of members that we seem to have had at the table? Furthermore, how many advisers and civil servants were in the Northern Ireland deputation? I was beginning to wonder whether our deputation had to row from here to the Isle of Man and needed a full crew to get the ship there.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

We did not want to exclude the Member’s party. One of his party’s Ministers wanted to be present even though he was not speaking on any specific business. That was also the case with the Ministers from the SDLP and the Alliance Party.

The First Minister and I are content to go along to such meetings without other Ministers. However, to be inclusive and to encourage the other political parties that are involved in the Executive, we have widened our representation. As soon as representation is widened with Ministers, it is widened with their support staff. We are very happy to look at who goes to the meetings, but we do not want to exclude the Member’s party.

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

I welcome the First Minister’s statement, which was very comprehensive and interesting and covered a wide range of different issues. There seems to be a lack of focus in the sense that I do not detect the First Minister and deputy First Minister’s priorities for the BIC, which is a very important institution. Will the First Minister outline OFMDFM’s priorities for the BIC?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

They are no different to our priorities for the North/South institutions, which are to improve our relationships, increase our knowledge base, increase our understanding of each other and learn from each other. That is the whole idea of the network that is being built. The purpose of the east-west relationship is no different to that of the North/South one, which is to encourage better co-operation and greater understanding.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the First Minister for his statement. With regard to the section of his statement on the economy, does he see the potential for the BIC to act as a nucleus through which the various regions of the United Kingdom can provide an effective challenge to the UK Government on regional policy or, more appropriately, the lack of a proper regional policy? That would lead to a situation in which the different interests of the regions are respected instead of the one-size-fits-all approach from the UK Government?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

In response to the previous question, I said that the purpose of the body was to get greater co-operation and mutual understanding. I will not follow that by saying that it can facilitate a gang-up against the UK Government, which is, effectively, what is being suggested.

Of course, there will be areas of commonality between the devolved legislations, perhaps less so among the Crown dependencies, when it comes to the British-Irish Council. However, the body provides us with the opportunity to speak to each other, particularly on the margins. Although the statement deals with the formal business of the BIC, much of the useful business is done in the meetings that we have over lunch or before or after the various sessions. That is the opportunity that we have to lobby the Government on certain matters.

Under the BIC and the Joint Ministerial Committee (JMC), we have procedures for challenging the Government if we feel that we have been dealt with unfairly. By and large, the BIC allows us to see where there is a common approach with other Administrations. Very often, that common approach is found across all the participants, rather than the devolved Administrations being on the one side and the UK Government being on the other.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for his statement. I listened carefully to it, particularly the part about the standing secretariat. It seems that the only remaining decision to be taken by the BIC is on when it will start business. Will the First Minister confirm that and tell the House what next steps the Scottish Government will take in preparation for the establishment of the standing secretariat?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

All the difficult decisions have been taken. Location was obviously going to be an issue, given the number of areas that wanted the secretariat to be based in their jurisdiction. We have settled on Scotland, and on Edinburgh. Details on the personnel who will service that office have also been agreed. We have agreed the cost-sharing elements, with the Scottish Government taking on the cost of the accommodation. We have a sharing mechanism, whereby Northern Ireland is responsible for, I think, 9% of the non-accommodation costs.

Only a starting date has to be decided, and the Scottish Administration will then work to find suitable accommodation. They indicated that if that decision is taken soon, they can probably find accommodation at half of the cost budgeted for initially. So, it is import that we get a start. All the arrangements have been agreed, except for a start date, which will probably be on the agenda for the next BIC meeting.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. I draw his attention to the housing element in the statement, and greening and improving the energy efficiency of the housing stock. I am sure that he will agree that that would also act as a stimulus for the construction industry. A good delivery model for that would be the green new deal. Was the green new deal discussed at the summit? I do not want to tread on the toes of the Finance Minister either.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am very supportive of the green new deal and I hope that it will be moved forward in Northern Ireland. It was discussed by some participants, perhaps not at the session, because some discussions took place in the margins. It is a mechanism that has not only environmental benefits but employment benefits. Significant work could be carried out in the construction industry, which is suffering. However, I will leave my colleague the Finance Minister to say more about that shortly.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he outline the extent of the relationships that are being developed and built up with the BIC?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

We have a number of mechanisms. The BIC is one of them, and the North/South Ministerial Council and the Joint Ministerial Committee are others, where, on a regular basis, we meet Ministers from other devolved regions and jurisdictions. That contact, which is also at official level, because our officials accompany us and meet those from those jurisdictions, assists us to indicate policy issues that we want to push forward, and gives us the opportunity to indicate the difficulties that we are having with our own budgetary matters with Her Majesty’s Government.

One builds up those contacts on a regular basis, and they prove very valuable. There are also very few occasions when we go to those meetings without coming back with some benefit. For instance, we had discussions in the margins with other members about corporation tax. We were envious of the Isle of Man’s arrangements. Members had discussions on that matter with Owen Paterson, and we found out what was happening with corporation tax in other areas.

We had a series of discussions relating to the Budget, when we addressed the proposals put forward in Wales and Scotland. I am delighted that although Wales and Scotland may have had their Budgets agreed before ours, we come out better, because Scotland’s is a one-year Budget, and ours is a four-year Budget. Wales simply dispersed the money that was allocated to it under the block grant, whereas we have significantly added to that with regard to our Budget.

Although we may have been the last of the three out of the blocks, I think that our job has been much more beneficial to the community as a whole, because we have produced a four-year Budget, which will have significant additional revenue streams.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I note that marine issues were very much part of discussions in the environment section. Given that Northern Ireland is well behind in setting up its own marine management structure, will the UK be introducing a pilot project that includes Northern Ireland in its management plan?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Clearly the statement available to Members is a fuller statement than that which I gave to the House, because I took out all of those issues, as they were not discussed. Reports were compiled by the work streams on those issues, but there was no discussion of them at the BIC meeting. I will pass on the Member’s comments to the Minister involved and ask him to respond.

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

Further to an earlier question about the size of the delegation, could the First Minister please inform the House of the cost of the meeting to the Northern Ireland Executive? What was the cost of getting everyone there, getting them back, putting them up, and so on?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I wonder does the Member seriously believe that a few days after the BIC meeting, somebody has been sitting counting up the columns to find out how much it cost. I will tell him what the cost would have been if we had not been there: we would have lost out in our relationship with the other Administrations. It is vital that we attend. If his Minister did not want to go, he could have stood down from being on the visit. I note that while he was there, he did not have any role to play in the meeting. But as I said, I think that it was in response to Mr Beggs, it is important that we are inclusive and bring in all the other parties in the Executive, so that they are aware of what takes place at the meeting and have the opportunity in the margins of the meeting to talk to other Ministers. If other parties do not want to be present, they do not have to be. The deputy First Minister and I do. The Member can put down a question on costs, but the answer is that it is good value for money.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the First Minister for his statement. One of the key elements of the BIC is the exchange of ideas and information between the different member Administrations. Will the First Minister outline whether, at that meeting of the BIC, the Northern Ireland Ministers were able to learn anything from the other member Administrations that could be of assistance to us in dealing with the challenges ahead?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I have given one example already, in relation to corporation tax, but I will give another. I know that, in the margins, the Minister for Employment and Learning spoke to people about tuition fees. I had discussions about tuition fees and how that issue was being handled in Scotland and Wales. A considerable number of comments were being made about Nick Clegg’s involvement in the summit and about tuition fees, although we do not intend to learn from that particular lesson. Such issues are dealt with in the margins and that is helpful, not only by increasing our understanding but in shaping and forming our policies.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The First Minister reported that marine renewables were discussed by the BIC in 2010. Given the potential of marine renewable energy in Northern Ireland — I am thinking of SeaGen and the Torr Head tidal project — what issues will be discussed at the European level, as indicated in his report, in early 2011?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am not part of the work stream that deals with marine energy and renewables. I will ask the relevant Minister to write to the Member on that issue. Again, I point out that that issue was not raised at the BIC meeting.

Pól Callaghan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The First Minister said that one of the main purposes of the BIC was for Administrations to learn from each other. I concur with that statement. It also helps those in the wider community across these islands to learn from each other.

Given the wider migration patterns of different people between these islands, has there been any discussion, as part of the digital inclusion stream of work, on the extension of RTÉ availability into Great Britain and on ensuring that BBC availability is maintained after the digital switch-over in the Republic?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Of course, digital inclusion is about greater use of the Internet, ensuring that it is accessible to people and providing opportunities for those who have been digitally excluded to access the Internet from libraries or other sources. We received a long lecture on digital inclusion from the Minister of Finance and Personnel, who has recently learned the difference between a Brillo pad and an iPad. He proved the theory that, very often, the people who know least about a subject speak most about it. On behalf of his fellow silver surfers, he outlined the use of the Internet in Northern Ireland and targets that we have set to increase its use from around 67% to 78% by 2014. That is the digital inclusion agenda. It is not so much about the hardware that is available; it is about ensuring that people have access and that those who have been excluded get greater use of Internet facilities.

RTÉ was not raised at the meeting. I can say that RTÉ is available to those who have digital television, such as Sky TV, in Northern Ireland and, no doubt, in the South as well. If the Member wants to raise an issue, I am sure that the Finance Minister will be happy to hear from him when those issues are being addressed. However, they were not part of the digital inclusion agenda that we dealt with.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I wish to make a statement on the draft Budget 2011-15. Late on 14 December 2010, the Executive met and agreed a draft Budget for 2011-15. I am grateful for the early opportunity to present it to the House. Although the draft Budget document that has now been circulated provides considerable detail, I appreciate that Members are getting copies only now. Unfortunately, that is because of the rather late conclusion of the Executive meeting early this morning.

I will now turn to the strategic context of the draft Budget. Less than two months ago, the UK spending review announcement left Northern Ireland facing its most difficult fiscal environment in decades. After years of sustained public expenditure growth, the coalition Government’s proposals will result in real term reductions in spending throughout the United Kingdom.

Some people said that the agreement of a draft Budget in Northern Ireland would be the biggest challenge that the Executive may face. Many said that in such circumstances, Executive agreement on the draft Budget would be impossible. Make no mistake: the ability to agree a draft Budget in such circumstances was a litmus test for the Executive. However, I am pleased to present the Executive’s draft Budget, which is not just for one year, as some cynics said that it would be just to get us through the election, but for the next four years. On that basis, the Executive can say that we have passed the test of facing up to difficult issues, looking to the future and giving people some certainty about the economic future during the lifetime of the next Assembly. It is an important day for the new devolved arrangements. It is a day when the Executive have come of age. We have proved that we can take difficult decisions and reach agreement. We have proved that we can work together to the benefit of people in Northern Ireland.

Before I turn to the detail, I thank my officials for the assistance that they have given in preparation of the draft Budget. Believe you me, there were long hours of work into the middle of the night to draft, redraft, consult, and so forth. A lot of work has been done on the Budget by officials and advisers, and I thank them for the tireless and enthusiastic way in which they undertook the work that they were allocated to do.

The Budget is not something that can be dreamt up in a couple of weeks; it is a culmination of months of hard work and input from a wide range of people. I believe that the Budget is evidence of the growing maturity of the Executive. We sought to achieve consensus around the Executive table. That did not prove possible, but, at least, no Minister voted to oppose the Budget. I understand that with less than six months to the next Assembly election it is always possible that some may choose to play politics with the Budget, but the search for unanimity around the Executive table cannot hold back the delivery of a Budget that will allow Departments to plan for the future. We may not have a Budget that is endorsed by all five parties in the Executive, but, crucially, we have a Budget for the next four years.

Considering the difficult economic times, this is not the time to play politics with people’s lives. This is a time for us, collectively, to step up to the mark and take responsibilities for the decisions that we have to take. That is what we were elected to do, and that is what I have sought to do in constructing the Budget.

In the spirit of co-operation, let those who earlier this year advocated reductions in the level of public expenditure in Northern Ireland at least play their part in helping to administer those reductions in the level of public expenditure.

This has not been a quick process, but in the most difficult of circumstances it was essential that we took our time and got it right. I believe that we have done that.

Three years ago, my predecessor as Finance Minister, Peter Robinson, declared that after years of direct rule, the Executive’s first Budget had been made in Northern Ireland. Today, we face problems and challenges that are not of our making, but we have sought to produce home-grown solutions to the problems that we have faced.

The real benefit of devolution is how we react in tough times. Although the global economic downturn has dramatically changed the financial environment in which we operate, the priorities that we set out as an Executive at the start of the term remain. Our priority in this Budget is to stimulate the economy, tackle disadvantage, protect the most vulnerable in our society and protect front line services. Members will be aware that it has been a daunting task to deliver the draft Budget. The UK spending review announcement on 20 October presented the Executive with a much reduced funding envelope for the coming four-year period. Let me remind Members of the implications of that announcement. Current expenditure resources from Treasury will decline by 8% in real terms, and capital investment resources allocated to us will decline by 40%, over the next spending period.

Rather than burying our heads in the sand, we took responsibility for our future. We argued the case for Northern Ireland at every opportunity, and, significantly, we will continue to do so, because there will be opportunities to do that. When the time came to set the Budget, we got on with it. The task confronting the Executive was to seek to enhance our spending power and to allocate the scarce resources at a time when our economy is in recession and our key public services are experiencing higher levels of demand from the public.

This has been a long and rigorous process. The Executive, through the ministerial subgroup, examined the wide range of issues directly relevant to the establishment of the Budget. I pay tribute to the members of the subgroup for the role that they played in helping to shape the Budget. The issues considered by the group included exercises to identify new sources of revenue, options for maximising receipts, constraining public sector pay, and rationalising the number and scope of public bodies. We also looked at how best to reduce bureaucracy and assessed a number of proposals for new and increased charges.

The outcome of that work has been incorporated into this Budget, and significant additional allocations have been made. Indeed, £842 million has been included in the proposed allocations in the draft Budget, and the remainder will be allocated over the Budget period. We have also identified a number of proposals that have some merit but need further exploration before they can be definitely included in the Budget position. The one thing that we do not want to do is to include figures in the Budget where we are not sure that the money is actually forthcoming. We have exercised that prudence in the statement today. I know that Ministers will vigorously investigate those proposals over the coming weeks and beyond, if necessary. The capacity of the Executive and Ministers to think imaginatively in months and years ahead will play a significant factor in determining how much we can improve on the present allocations.

We are also taking significant steps to limit the pressure on public expenditure without affecting front line services. At this time of limited employment opportunity in the private sector, it is essential that we seek to protect jobs in the public sector. That is why we will mirror the UK Government’s arrangements for public sector pay and put a freeze on annual inflationary increases for all those earning over £21,000 for the next two years. We are also putting a moratorium on Civil Service recruitment, other than in exceptional circumstances. I believe that there is consensus among Ministers that, in the current times, all Ministers agree to an arrangement that equates to a voluntary salary reduction.

We are also taking action on the use of consultants. In the last few years, the annual spend on consultants has been reduced from £42 million in 2006-07 to £21 million in 2009-2010, but we want to go further. For the Budget period, the Executive have agreed a target of year-on-year reductions of 10% for consultancy spend, and all proposed consultancy spend of £10,000 or more will require specific prior approval from the relevant departmental Minister. In that way, we can keep track of what is happening with consultancy spend.

In addition, the Executive will take action on arm’s-length bodies, or quangos, as they are also known. The Budget review group will review all the arm’s-length bodies against agreed criteria and bring a final set of recommendations to the Executive, in anticipation of a final decision in May, to facilitate a Bill to rationalise quangos early in the next Assembly term.

There are specific announcements that will be welcomed across Northern Ireland. In the last Budget, the Executive froze the domestic regional rate in cash terms for three years. We also deferred the introduction of water charges. As a result of those two decisions, the average household in Northern Ireland is £1,600 better off over the term of this Assembly than would have been the case under direct rule. While a continued real-terms cut in the domestic regional rate is unsustainable in the present fiscal environment, I am committed to protecting household budgets. I therefore propose that domestic regional rates will only increase by inflation over the next four years. That modest increase is well below the trend for the last decade. I also announce that the Executive have no plans to introduce separate water charges during this Budget period. As a result, Northern Ireland householders will continue to have the lowest household bills in any part of the United Kingdom.

We will continue to help business too. I propose that the non-domestic regional rate should also be limited to inflation increases over the Budget period. In relation to industrial derating, I propose continuing, over the course of the Budget, with the 30% cap on the liability for manufacturing.

Unemployment has risen significantly over the past three years, and, although the rate of unemployment remains significantly below levels recorded in the 1980s, Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom where unemployment has continued to increase over the past six months. It is, therefore, crucial that the Executive react to tackle the issue wherever possible.

In response to the growing unemployment problem, the draft Budget agreed by the Executive includes funding for a package of measures to increase employment opportunities. It is essential that we attempt to maximise job opportunities to reduce the amount of time that people are unemployed. For that reason, the range of programmes and policies will focus on those sectors with the greatest scope to maximise the number of jobs created.

The current proposals include a range of measures, such as grants for business starts in neighbourhood renewal areas; contact centres; the food processing sector; social enterprise; knowledge process outsourcing; enhanced enterprise support to disadvantaged young people; and a proposed programme for export starts. The cost of the proposed package of measures is £18·8 million over the next three years, and Invest Northern Ireland estimates that it will result in the creation of around 4,000 additional jobs over that period, growing to 5,000 jobs over the longer term. The package demonstrates the Executive’s commitment to helping people in Northern Ireland through the current economic difficulties.

Corporation tax is a key strategic issue, and the Executive will have to take time to deliberate on the outcome of the UK Government’s paper on rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy. I am also pleased to announce that the draft Budget includes a provision for an assistance package for the Presbyterian Mutual Society (PMS) savers.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

That package is financed by an additional £175 million of borrowing under the reinvestment and reform initiative in 2011-12 and a contribution of £25 million from the Treasury, which will be matched by an equal contribution from the Executive. When the proposals are implemented, that will put an end to the long nightmare faced by many PMS savers.

The most difficult decision that any Finance Minister has to address is that of resource allocation. What is a difficult task even in benign financial times has proved extremely difficult and challenging this year. Ministers have many pressures on their departmental budgets, and the bids that they advanced carried considerable merit. The key to constructing the draft Budget position was to determine the relative priorities of the Executive going forward.

Our key goal is, I believe, to put in place a Budget that facilitates economic growth and recovery. It is only through economic growth that our wider society can advance and prosper. Being able to offer people jobs, attract foreign investment and improve the skills base of our young people are the bedrock elements on which regional wealth and prosperity are founded. This draft Budget reflects that prioritisation. The current expenditure allocated to the key economic departments — the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) and the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) — will increase by 3% and 1·9% by the end of the four-year period, which will ensure that Northern Ireland is an attractive place for businesses to locate to and flourish in.

Other Departments will have an important role to play in creating future economic growth. One cutting-edge example of that is the growing contribution of Northern Ireland Screen to the local economy. Northern Ireland has a wealth of creative talent, and the Executive recognise the positive impact that major productions have on our economy. We are committed to ensuring that quality production facilities are in place to foster that growth, and we will, therefore, allocate some £5 million to that area.

It is also essential that the Budget reflects the priorities of the people of Northern Ireland. In that regard, no service is more important than the Health Service. That is why, even in the most difficult financial situation, the Executive have agreed to afford a degree of protection to the health budget. That is why we have ring-fenced and put in place full protection for the health element of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) budget. Indeed, when factoring in the efficiency targets and service reductions that will apply in other UK regions, I would suggest that the Health Service in Northern Ireland has received the most beneficial settlement anywhere in the UK. It will now be for the Health Minister to determine how best to use those resources. I expect him to put in place plans to take forward productivity and efficiency improvements in that sector. Although we are determined to continue to invest in the Health Service, investment must be accompanied by the requirement to continually improve its performance.

This draft Budget also reflects the concern of Ministers to assist those most in need in the current economic environment. The Executive will therefore set up a social investment fund, administered by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM), that will provide some £20 million annually to take forward specific area improvement projects in those communities. The Executive will also establish a £20 million social protection fund to assist those in severe hardship as a result of the economic downturn. That fund will have an initial allocation of £20 million in 2011-12 and will then draw on the additional new revenue streams that Ministers are to take forward.

Other initiatives in the draft Budget include a commitment to participate in the green new deal, an initiative that will leverage significant private sector investment and result in lower levels of waste, greater energy efficiency and many thousands of new jobs in the local construction industry.

The Executive have also commissioned the Environment Minister to take forward the introduction of a plastic bags levy in Northern Ireland and, although the amount generated — some £4 million per annum — is low, it bestows significant wider benefits on the environment.

As I have indicated, there is a strong commitment on the part of the Executive to ensure that every possible measure is taken to assist the local economy. When the UK spending review was published in October, there was much comment on the negative impact that the cut in capital investment would have on our construction sector. In the light of that concern, the Executive have agreed to reclassify in excess of £250 million of current expenditure as capital investment over the Budget period. This will mean that, by 2014-15, capital spending will total some £1∙5 billion, reflecting a level of spending recorded in 2005-06. Therefore, there is still a significant amount of capital projects to take forward over the next four years, and spending in that area will be well above the long-term trend. As a result of our investment, many key projects will be able to proceed over the Budget period. They include the new police and Fire and Rescue Service training centre, the Altnagelvin Area Hospital radiotherapy centre, and the sports stadiums and water and sewerage network upgrades.

In recent weeks, we have heard from those who suggest that the solution to all our problems is simply to increase taxes and charges on hard-pressed households. That not only fails to appreciate the relatively small proportion of our public expenditure that can be raised locally, but punishes those whom we are seeking to protect. It is not a path that this Executive will follow. Our priority has been to protect hard-working families, not to punish them through ever-higher levels of taxation. We have constructed a Budget to help people as much as possible in this difficult economic environment.

Budget allocations are not the end but the start of the process. Our challenge will be to deliver quality public services with the resources that have been allocated to us. This will be more difficult in the present environment than in recent years. However, I believe that we can rise to that challenge. The public consultation process will now begin, and I urge all members of the public to participate. It will not be led by the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP), but by individual Departments, which will now publish their savings plans and spending proposals. It will allow interested parties to provide the views that will shape the final Budget position that I will bring before the Assembly in February.

This has been a most challenging Budget process, but it leaves us with the capacity to deliver quality public services and to continue to invest in the future. We can protect the advances that we have made in recent years, such as free prescriptions and free public transport for those over 60. We will continue to have the lowest household taxes anywhere in the United Kingdom.

We are extending the liability cap on industrial derating for the next four years, which will protect jobs in our vital manufacturing sector. Despite the reduction in the available public spending, we continue to make the Health Service a key priority by providing it with a better budget settlement than in either Scotland or Wales.

The draft Budget honours the financial package for policing and justice by ring-fencing its budget and providing additional funding where it is most required. It delivers a much-needed package to help PMS savers. It funds the green new deal to deliver thousands of jobs across the construction sector. It funds assistance for thousands of jobs to help us through the recession.

The draft Budget will allow the Executive and the Assembly to continue to deliver for people in Northern Ireland. It shows the benefits of local decision-making for local people. It reflects the priorities of the people of Northern Ireland. It is good for families and businesses, and it lays the foundation for a better future. It also demonstrates that Northern Ireland can and will continue to move forward. I, therefore, commend the draft Budget to the House.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Before I call Ms Jennifer McCann as Chairperson of the Finance Committee, Members will know that it is the convention that the Chairperson has some latitude in putting his or her question. However, I warn the House that more than 30 Members wish to ask a question on the draft Budget statement. Some Members may have the urge to deliver their own draft Budget statement to the House. [Laughter.] I warn Members that what we need from them is a focused question about the draft Budget statement. If that is forthcoming, I believe that every Member will be able to speak. Therefore, I make it clear that I will ask any Members who deliberate too long before coming to their question to retake their seat, and I will move on to the next Member’s question.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement. We have not had a chance to go through the draft Budget in much detail, but I particularly welcome the revenue-raising measures that will be adopted to deliver additional allocations. I will make a few points and ask a question.

The setting up of the social investment fund to tackle poverty and to invest in areas of disadvantage and need will be welcome, as will the package of measures outlined by the Minister to increase employment in neighbourhood renewal areas, the social economy sector and the green new deal, which will also combat fuel poverty and help those in the construction industry, which has been particularly badly hit. The social protection fund to protect vulnerable people affected by welfare cuts is also welcome.

As I said, I have not had time to go into the draft Budget in detail. The Minister’s statement touched on the timetable. However, on behalf of the Committee, I ask him to provide more detail on that to the Assembly and wider public? Will we all be given adequate time to fully consider and respond to the draft Budget?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for her comments and for welcoming certain points in my statement. Immediately on completion of the statement to the House, the draft Budget will be published, and it will be available for consultation over an eight-week period. Committees will have a vital role to play in gathering some of those consultation responses and in questioning Ministers and officials about the draft Budget.

I know that there will be the fullest interest in the draft Budget and that Members and the general public will play their part and give their views. Once those responses are in, we will deliberate on them, and, in the same way that we gave full consideration to ideas provided in the preparation of the draft Budget, we will fully consider the points that are made during the consultation period.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I congratulate the Finance Minister and his Executive colleagues on achieving what some Members of the House told us on the radio just 48 hours ago could not be achieved. The Finance Minister will know of my interest in tackling fuel poverty, so I am pleased to see support for the green new deal included in the draft Budget. Will the Minister tell the House when he expects to be able to come back with final proposals for the green new deal?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

First, some money is already allocated to the green new deal. A business case that is being looked at by the Department of Finance and Personnel shows the things that the money is to be spent on, the jobs that will be created, the savings to be made and the private money that will be drawn in. For every pound that we spend, I think that about £2 or £3 will come in from the private sector. So, it is good value from that point of view.

Initial allocations can be supplemented as we bring in new revenue over the time of the Budget. In the longer term, about £72 million of public money will generate about another £180 million of private money. I think that that will affect 100,000 households and create over 3,000 new jobs, probably in small local construction firms that use local materials, which is, of course, the benefit. The other aspect of this is that in doing so there is also the social benefit of addressing fuel poverty. From memory, some of the work that we did means that individual households can save up to about £300 a year on household fuel bills, which is a significant saving for individuals.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

The Committee has previously queried the capacity of the in-year monitoring process as a mechanism for managing significant new or unforeseen pressures, especially given that the level of reduced requirements declared by Departments has diminished. Related to that, the Committee was advised by Department of Finance and Personnel officials that an urgent review would be undertaken to consider the reliance of in-year monitoring rounds with no contingency fund —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I urge the Member to come to his question.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

Will the Minister provide an update to the House on the progress that has been made regarding the reliance on the contingency fund, the creation of such a fund, and the use of overcommitment? What assurances will he give that robust systems will be in place to manage unforeseen pressures during the forthcoming budgetary period?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thought that the Member would, first, have apologised for the disgraceful way in which he moved around radio and TV studios over the past number of days and said that there was no chance that we would ever get a Budget —

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

[Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

At least he —

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

[Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member has asked a question. He should allow the Minister to continue.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

[Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. If I have to name the Member, I will put him out. The Member should take his seat. He has asked a question and he should allow the Minister to continue.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

At least he might have had a bit of humility now that we have delivered a four-year Budget that achieved significant support in the Executive. Apart from the fact that some have decided to play party politics with it, we may have had far wider support.

The Member talked about a contingency fund and how tight the Budget is. If he looked at the logic of his position, a contingency fund could only have money in it if we took money out of the existing available Budget. We cannot talk about tight Budgets and then take a whack out of those tight Budgets for a contingency fund. We would have to hold on to a contingency fund until very close to the end of the financial year in case an emergency arose, which would deny Departments the opportunity to spend that money in a planned way. Either the Budget that we have to finance is tight, or we have stacks of money to put into a contingency fund. The Member condemned overcommitment, but there is no difference between that and a contingency fund because an overcommitment means deciding to spend more money than one has and then, during the year, having to find ways to claw that back.

In-year monitoring is not a flawless process, but in the absence of hearing any other ideas about how to reallocate money and have money allocated during the year, we have to stick with it. However, as I have said and as I have made clear to the Committee, I am always happy to explore practical and workable measures. However, given the confusion in the Member’s mind, I am not so sure that he has got it clear.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement and acknowledge his hard work in bringing us to this point. Given that a four-year Budget ought to be the financial outworking of a four-year Programme for Government, when will we see that Programme for Government? Furthermore, in the absence of a Programme for Government, how did he determine the financial priorities for Departments for the next four years, noting that the Minister’s own DFP budget for the next year will increase by 4·2% while the education budget will be reduced by 3·3%?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

With respect to how priorities were established, we have a Programme for Government, and there is no indication that the priorities in that, namely the growth of the economy, the protection of front line services and the protection of disadvantaged people in the face of the recession, will be any different in a new Programme for Government. I notice that the Member who was out of the SDLP, but is now back in, is making faces beside the party leader. Perhaps the SDLP has different priorities. Perhaps the SDLP does not want to protect jobs and front line services or to help disadvantaged people. Those are the issues on which we reached consensus to move forward, and that is how we have spent money.

As far as the departmental allocations are concerned, the Member will know, of course, that DFP carries the costs for a wide range of central services that apply to all Departments, including their properties and office accommodation and many shared services such as HR Connect, IT Assist and Account NI. Of course, that money for the other Departments is held in the DFP budget.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I also thank the Minister for his statement. As an individual party, Alliance might have chosen to do things differently, perhaps even more radically. However, I recognise the fact that it is a product of a partnership and a collective effort, so, on that basis, we are prepared to give it a fair wind. In what has been agreed so far, what contingency is in place in the event that the Executive are given the power to lower corporation tax, given that we would then have to allocate resources to that?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

In my Budget statement, I pointed out that we will examine the Government’s paper on corporation tax when it is brought forward. If we decide to move forward on that, there will be costs to the Executive and the Assembly. We have said that we will look first at some of the revenue streams to see whether they and other means could be used to finance any costs involved in the corporation tax proposal. As we have made clear in the past, once a decision is made on corporation tax, it may mean us having to revisit the Budget. If it is decided that that is the way forward, we will introduce lower corporation tax either on a phased or an immediate basis, and the financial implications will have to be absorbed in the Budget. Of course, that has been one of the big debates, and we will have to continue to debate whether we can afford the change or whether there are other ways to finance it. I hope that those discussions will be ongoing.

Although we have decided on this Budget at this particular time, as Members have said time and again, as financial circumstances change, we should always be receptive to and work towards those changes. That is why the Budget review group will continue to look at savings, revenue-raising methods and other adjustments that might need to be made.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his statement. What consultation did he have with the other Executive Ministers during the process?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

That is an example of a focused question.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member has learnt well.

During the process, we sought to make this an Executive Budget and looked to find ways to include all the Executive Ministers. I am a bit disappointed because, despite that, there have been attempts to present this as a draft Budget from two parties. It is not the draft Budget of two parties; rather, it is the product of long months of work in which all parties were involved. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I will outline the consultation for Members. First, we set up a Budget review group, which included all parties. That group had sight of the first draft paper at an early stage. Indeed, that happened weeks ago. On the basis of that paper, I had numerous meetings with individual Ministers about their departmental allocations and some of the general themes in the paper. The Budget review group met regularly and received comments and proposals from most parties. However, I think that one party did not make any proposals, but we will leave that for the moment.

There was then a new round of discussions with Ministers to make adjustments and to talk about issues such as whether we should protect the Health Service budget, whether we should have an invest to save fund and whether we should increase the regional rate in line with inflation. All those issues were discussed individually with Ministers and with the Budget review group.

Over the past two weeks, when the Budget review group was not meeting, there were discussions between parties. I kept all the parties informed about the discussions between the parties and between me and the parties. The one party that has accused me of being in some way partisan and of excluding it is the Ulster Unionist Party. However, I am sure that the Minister for Employment and Learning will acknowledge that I kept him informed and was in constant contact with him, because he thanked me for that. If he did not inform his colleagues, that was up to him. However, every party was involved at all stages of the process, and a collegiate approach was taken. I am, therefore, disappointed that some are now, maybe for political reasons, trying to distance themselves from that.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. It is certainly a better and much improved draft Budget than would have been the case had we rushed into it. Given that this is a four-year Budget, I welcome — [Interruption.] A bit of manners, please.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Given that this is a four-year Budget, I welcome that there is no provision for the introduction of water charges. Will the Minister confirm that that is now off the agenda?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I made it clear that the spending proposals in the Budget do not depend on and are not predicated by money from water charges.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for the statement. Given his earlier comments about engagement with other Executive Ministers, I know that he sent correspondence to the Education Minister requesting a service delivery plan to clearly set out what would happen in particular Budget scenarios. Will the Minister confirm that, to date, he has not received that plan, the decision and announcement made in the House today are in the absence of such a plan, and no scenario planning has been done —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I ask the Member to come to his question.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Will he confirm that no Budget scenario planning has been done by the Department of Education?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

A number of Ministers have not yet delivered savings delivery plans to their Committees. However, when the Executive met and discussed the issue, it was agreed that, as part of the Budget agreement, savings delivery plans would be available for Committees to discuss with Ministers and officials as part of the process.

Fred Cobain (UUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his statement. The Minister said that the draft Budget shows the benefits of local decision-making, reflects the priorities of people in Northern Ireland, is good for families and business and lays the foundations for a better future. If things are as good as that, the first thing that we need to do is ask the Government to take another £6 billion out of the Budget.

A number of weeks ago, the Minister for Regional Development assured the House about the funding for the A5 and A8 roads. In view of the recent statements by the leader of the Irish Labour Party —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member must come to his question.

Fred Cobain (UUP, Belfast North)

I am coming to the point, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Fred Cobain (UUP, Belfast North)

I am coming to the point. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member should not challenge the authority of the Chair. Order. That applies to all Members. I warn the Member. I asked him to come to his question, and he should come to his question.

Fred Cobain (UUP, Belfast North)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In view of the recent statement by the leader of the Irish Labour Party and today’s draft Budget statement, can the Minister give any assurances about the future of those two projects?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

First, I will comment on the Budget and on whether it is a good Budget. This is our best attempt to address the problems that have been laid at the door of this Executive by the party that he and his colleagues —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I ask the Minister not to point.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

He and his party encouraged the people of Northern Ireland to vote for that party. It now seems, of course, that they are more Tory than the Tories. They think that because this is such a good Budget, we should have another £6 billion in cuts. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Just like any other part of the Budget, the A5 and A8 capital projects are included on the basis that finance is available. In this case, that finance is from the Government of the Irish Republic. I mentioned corporation tax. If corporation tax comes on stream and we make a decision to do that, there will have to be adjustments. If the money is not forthcoming from the Irish Republic after the next election there, we will, of course, have to review that capital spending. That is the only sensible approach that we could take.

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

A pupil premium has been established in England that pays approximately £430 to schools for each disadvantaged pupil. Of course, money for that will have been reflected in the Northern Ireland block. Was any bid made or money allocated for an equivalent scheme here?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

It is up to the Minister of Education to decide how the spending that is available to her Department should be allocated and whether proposals should be put in place for such a scheme. The Member may have suggestions about or a desire for that. I know that the Member’s grasp of economics is sometimes fairly tenuous, but he knows full well that if money is to be spent on a pupil premium, it will have to be taken from something else. It might be more useful if, when he asks such questions of and makes such suggestions to the Minister of Education, he would at least identify where he thinks the money to finance such a proposal should come from. That is a fairly reasonable question to ask, rather than simply saying that something is a good idea and we should act on it while totally disregarding its financial implications for other parts of the Budget.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. We welcome the fact that there is to be further consideration of public sector pay and the annual increment increases will not be affected. However, will the Minister confirm that the withholding of inflationary pay increases is a direct result of the policies of the Tory-led Government?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

We have a Barnett consequential handed down to us as a result of decisions made about pay in the rest of the United Kingdom. To have moved away from that would have meant that although some people may have had more pay, fewer people would be getting any pay. The emphasis in this Budget is on protecting jobs. The only way in which we could have financed a different pay deal in Northern Ireland would have been to take money from other services or jobs to give an increase, because, as the Member rightly pointed out, we had a Barnett consequential.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I also welcome the fact that we have a draft Budget in front of us today. A key issue that society faces is the increased dissident threat. Therefore, how will the draft Budget impact on policing and, more specifically, on the funding that will be available to enable the police college at Desertcreat to proceed?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Department of Justice budget has been ring-fenced. We always said that when the devolution of policing and justice took place, we did not want the police budget and demands for policing to have implications for other spending programmes in Northern Ireland. Equally, ring-fencing the budget means that we have stronger leverage with the Treasury when making applications for additional funds in the event of increased terrorist activity in Northern Ireland.

The Member asked about the police college. I have been told by the Minister of Justice that it is not a police college but an integrated college because it will also contain the Fire and Rescue Service and the Prison Service. That element comes from other budgets, but we have made sure that the capital element for the Fire and Rescue Service has now been included so that the project will be able to proceed.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome his announcement that the Executive will adopt proposals from my Single Use Plastic Bags Bill, which I brought to the Assembly quite recently. I also welcome the Executive’s approach of identifying additional revenue streams and refusing to be restricted by the Tory-imposed comprehensive spending review. Will the Minister confirm that that work will continue and further avenues for new revenue will be considered, including additional tax-varying and borrowing powers?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

My only regret about the plastic bag tax is that leaflets will probably go all round north Antrim saying what a great triumph it is for Daithí McKay. He has caused me to have second thoughts about that proposal.

We have already hammered down and nailed down some revenue proposals, and £842 million worth of them are in the Budget. There is still work to be done on a large number of other proposals, and we have sought ways to ensure that they are followed up. Rather than simply saying that they are good ideas and hoping that Ministers work at them in their Departments, they will be pushed forward by the Budget review group. Therefore, there will be some central drive. The Member is quite right: the strength of our Budget proposals and some of the discussions that we had will be that they can supplement the amount of money available for public spending in Northern Ireland.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement and congratulate him on the Budget. In light of the ordinance of the Speaker to keep questions brief, I will ask how the health settlement in the draft Budget compares with that in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

One of our priorities was the protection of front line services, and it was quite clear from my discussions with other Ministers, from the questions that I was asked in the Assembly and from the views of the public, that the public were concerned about the provision of an adequate Health Service in Northern Ireland. For that reason, we have protected the health budget.

Members can look at the table and work out the increases, but the biggest increase by far in spending over the next four years will be in the health budget. Although most other budgets have taken not only a real decrease but a cash decrease, the health budget will, I think, increase by 7% over that period. That compares favourably with the situation in Wales, where there was a 2·5% real reduction, and in Scotland, where there was a 3·03% real reduction.

The health element of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety budget has been protected by 0·2% in Northern Ireland. In addition, the Health Minister has been given flexibility to move money around. He indicated some willingness to move money from his capital budget to his current budget to meet some of those pressures, and he has been given flexibility to do so.

All in all, this is a good settlement for the Health Minister. There has been some discussion about the £20 billion of efficiency savings that are required from the health budget in England. We have not required those in Northern Ireland, and it is up to the Minister to manage his budget. Having said that, there are still challenges, and it is up to the Minister to look at where the savings might be and how productivity can be increased and to take the necessary actions.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the publication of the draft Budget for consultation, and it is a good thing that it is for a four-year period. I note the Minister’s statement that this is not a time to play politics with people’s lives. Accordingly, I will ask him about the capital expenditure element of his statement, where he states that he wants to reclassify in excess of £250 million. What would be the actual impact on our capital expenditure if there were a fall in that? Just below that, he mentions a number of projects that he has kept going. What have the discussions been about the police training centre vis-à-vis more capital expenditure for our schools?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

We have sought ways of supplementing the capital budget. The Member mentioned one element, the switch from current expenditure to capital expenditure of some £250 million over the four-year period. We have also sought ways of increasing capital receipts. We have a total of capital receipts of over £500 million over the period. Some of that will come from the better use of assets that we hold — for example, government offices — and from how we can raise revenue from the capital estate that we have. We will look at the reserves held by other bodies such as housing associations, which hold reserves of over £250 million, and the Harbour Commissioners, who hold reserves of nearly £60 million.

We have looked around to see where there is unused capital that we can bring into the Budget to mitigate the impact of the savage reduction of 40% in our capital budget. We have to be inventive to make up the gap, and, as I said, by the end of the four-year period, we will be spending £1·5 billion on capital investment, which is the same as was spent in 2005-06 and reflects the long-term trend. There was, of course, a peak during the last couple of years of this Executive’s mandate, when additional capital became available and we spent it. We are probably back on to the long-term trend, and the important thing that I get from the construction industry is that it has available at least some idea of the trend, so that it can plan its investment and recruitment.

There has been a long-term commitment to the building of the police college, and that has been held back because the fire service training centre is included with it. That has now been secured as a result of the allocation that has been made.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

In light of the worry, concern and stress across Northern Ireland among vulnerable low-income and working-class families surrounding any increase in student fees and the loss or reduction of education maintenance allowance, what assurance can the Minister give that that will not happen in this Budget?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

It will be for the Minister for Employment and Learning to bring forward proposals on the financing of universities and the implications that that may have for those who attend universities. Looking at the Department for Employment and Learning’s budget, one can see that, despite the fact that there were Barnett consequentials as a result of the decision made in England, it is growing over the four years by 1·9%, which should help the Minister in making those decisions. However, ultimately, that is something that he will have to look at.

I emphasise that the one thing that we cannot afford not to have in Northern Ireland — the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment will confirm this — is a first-class higher education sector. That is needed to produce the kind of student required to attract the high-quality international investment that we seek to bring into Northern Ireland. Such students have higher than average incomes, which, of course, would add to the productivity of our industry in Northern Ireland. There is a balance between ensuring a first-class higher education sector with a good flow of able students going through it and the financing of that. However, the details of that are not for me to say.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I welcome the draft Budget laid before the House today. Given the slight increase in the regional rate, there is no doubt that there will be some pain for households in Northern Ireland. Will the Finance Minister tell us how much households will benefit from water rates not being brought in?

I welcome the fact that money for the policing college has now been ring-fenced by the Executive.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

If water rates had been introduced there would have been an increase of around £400 a year in household bills. Therefore, households have been saved that money. Households are £1,600 better off as a result of decisions made by the Executive over the past number of years on the regional rate and water charges. We are mindful that, before we start dipping into people’s pockets, we must make sure that we have the most efficient form of public spending in Northern Ireland.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Given the importance and potential of our creative industries, which employ approximately 36,000 people in the North, will the Executive acknowledge the importance of maintaining that key growth area in our economy and ensure that a cross-departmental approach is taken to stimulating it? On that point, I welcome the commitment to financial support for NI Screen, which will ensure that high-quality production facilities will continue to be supported.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

A decision was made to invest in NI Screen and that part of the creative industries. People sometimes think of the creative industries as being simply arty stuff. However, as the Member rightly points out, real jobs are created there. When we talk about creating jobs in Northern Ireland, we should remember that a range of industries create a wide variety of jobs. There is potential within the creative industries to create jobs.

I am very pleased that we have announced the investment for NI Screen, which will enable it to chase after more productions and bring them to Northern Ireland. I have seen the impact of that in my area. As a result of one set being built in Magheramorne quarry, £2 million has been brought into the Larne economy in the past year. Local people were employed as joiners and caterers and in building sets and supplying transport and so on. From that, we can see where the real jobs come from.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the Minister’s statement. Will he give us a further breakdown of the £842 million of revenue raising? How much of that depends on asset sales, given the instability of the property market at the present time?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

That is a very good question. The one thing that I did not want to have in this Budget was fantasy figures or Monopoly money that would never materialise, hitting us, therefore, with problems further down the road.

Of the £842 million, over £500 million is coming from asset sales. All those figures have been tested, and, although I cannot remember the figure offhand, Departments identified something like £400 million of assets that could be sold. They surrendered those assets, and the indication from Departments is that those are available and saleable. A second amount of £100 million was realised as a result of the work of the asset realisation team. That team identified a number of opportunities, most of which, as I indicated earlier, relate to the sale and leaseback or other disposal of government buildings.

We asked for professional advice on that area, and, if Members look at the table of figures, they will see that that stream of spending is loaded towards the back end of the Budget period. We knew that it would not be delivered on quickly, that we would have to advertise and get people interested and that some work needed to be done. The figure rises to around £15 million in year four of the Budget period, and that is further evidence of our prudence. The implication of the Member’s question was that we should not just stick figures in for the sake of it.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I also welcome the Minister’s statement and his reference to the assistance package for the savers of the Presbyterian Mutual Society. When does the Minister expect that those savers will receive a payout?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

It was a good thing that the draft Budget was endorsed last night and not just sent out for consultation. Indeed, it is ironic that some of those who wanted to abstain and put it out for consultation were in the vanguard of advocating a quick resolution to the problems of the savers of the Presbyterian Mutual Society. As the draft Budget was endorsed, we can take the next step and approach the European Union and talk to it about the state aid implications of making payments to savers. I understand that the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment will approach Europe in the near future to ascertain that it has no difficulties with that approach. At the same time, the Minister will work up the scheme, because there is now certainty that the money is available to her. The endorsement of the draft Budget is, therefore, a step forward for the savers. The money for the payments is included in next year’s Budget, and, therefore, we will be unable to make any payments until the next financial year. There are other steps that must be taken, and the administrator and savers must also be consulted on the details of the scheme.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I also welcome the draft Budget being brought forward. We heard reports this morning about the raising of finance through the Port of Belfast. Can the Minister elaborate on that?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I can. Again, we applied the prudence principle in relation to the Port of Belfast. The figure in the press is that some £125 million might be achievable from the Port of Belfast over the four years of the Budget. However, most of that will require a change in legislation, and, rather than simply sticking all of that money into the Budget now, we have been fairly prudent. The immediate financing of a project for Northern Ireland Screen in the port can, we believe, be obtained from that source. We will also put £15 million from the Port of Belfast into the final two years of the Budget. That will give us time to pass legislation if legislative changes are needed. Therefore, we are not anticipating money that we cannot get, because we do not have the legal power to do so. We have not yet built into the Budget the additional money that might be available. That money is likely to be an additional £90 million, and we have simply said that, if it comes on stream, it will be allocated to future projects. I hope that the Member can see that we have included an element of caution in that proposal, rather than assuming that that money will be there.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Like others, I thank the Minister for his statement. This has been a mature debate, which leads me to believe that the Health Minister may have handed out sedatives on the way in. However, there is no increase in his budget.

I agree with the Minister that the Budget facilitates economic growth and recovery. He went on to talk about improving the skills base of our young people, who are the bedrock upon which we will achieve that growth and recovery. Considering that the Minister voted against student fees in Westminster last week, does his previous answer indicate that there is no provision in the Budget to increase student fees and that the decision will be left to the Minister for Employment and Learning?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I just wish that the Sinn Féin MPs had been with me to join in the debate at Westminster and vote against the proposal; they would have reduced the Government’s majority even further. I have made my personal position on student fees and that of my party very clear: I want people to be able to go to higher education on the basis of their ability to benefit from it rather than their ability to pay. I, and many other Assembly Members, benefited from that opportunity, and I do not want it to be lost. However, I must say a word of caution. One reason why I went to Westminster last week to speak and vote against the proposal was that I believed that it was wrong. The consequentials of the proposal have already been passed to our Budget. If the proposal had been defeated, the issue of resource restrictions would not have arisen.

The Minister for Employment and Learning is consulting Joanne Stuart about a revision of her original paper. There is also need for a conversation with the universities about how they spend the money that they get. Every effort should be made to ensure that the principle that I elucidated at the beginning of my answer is upheld: people should receive higher education on the basis of their ability to benefit from it rather than their ability to pay. I hope that we will follow that principle in the debate.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement. However, can he explain to me and all the children in the North why the Executive decided to take £70 million out of the education budget but create a new £80 million social investment fund so that the many will pay for the needs of the few?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am surprised that a member of the Social Democratic and Labour Party should adopt such an attitude. I hear members of her party paying lip service to their concern about the many communities in Northern Ireland that have been left behind. Those communities have huge problems of youth unemployment; underskilled and underqualified youths; households in poverty; and estates with poor living conditions that do not give people any aspiration to lift their vision and look to a better future for themselves and their family. Even though those people may not be the majority in our community, there are good grounds for saying that we cannot afford for them to be left behind. That is why the fund has been set up.

The proposals for the fund will come to the Executive. Let me say this to the Member: that fund will give Departments, such as the Department of Education, an opportunity to bid for projects to help young people in those estates who have not benefited from their time in school because of family, social or other circumstances. It will create an opportunity to bring those young people along as part of society, which is something that, I thought, the Member would have welcomed. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I, too, welcome the statement. If some people were to be listened to during the week, the draft Budget has been achieved against all odds. It must come as a bitter disappointment to those who declared that it would never happen.

The Minister referred to quangos in his statement. I welcome that because this country has become “quango land”. The Minister intends to introduce a Bill to rationalise quangos. Is there not a more effective, more efficient and quicker way to deal with quangos? How many does he envisage doing away with? I suspect that he could get rid of a couple of thousand and he still would not have them all away.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am not sure whether there are a couple of thousand of them. The Member might be exaggerating a wee bit there. Nevertheless, there are a lot of arm’s-length bodies and quangos. A Bill is required because some of those bodies are ensconced in legislation, and further legislation will be required to remove them. The issue is being left with the Budget review group, which includes Ministers from all the parties, because sometimes there is an understandable reluctance in Departments to deal with it. Furthermore, a Minister might listen to the departmental view on that issue. We want to take an Executive view on the issue, bring forward proposals and make savings.

Dawn Purvis (Independent, Belfast East)

I welcome the Minister’s statement and the fact that the Executive have agreed a Budget. In his statement, the Minister referred to the four key priorities of the Budget. I agree with those priorities, although perhaps not in the order that they were listed. One of those priorities is to protect front line services. What mechanism or process has the Minister and his Executive colleagues put in place to monitor the implementation of the Budget to ensure that front line services are protected?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

That is not just a job for me as Finance Minister or for other Ministers. The real work to ensure that Departments protect front line services is for Assembly Members. The whole point of Committees is to bring Ministers along and question them about their spending plans, their savings plans and why they are deciding to save money in one area and not in another. That is the role of Committees, and I hope that they continue to fulfil it effectively. As Finance Minister, I have the job of ensuring that resources are allocated as effectively as possible within a limited Budget to Departments with responsibility for the front line services that have the greatest impact on the public. This Budget settlement has, by and large, done that in very difficult circumstances.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

In spite of the devastation that the Ulster Conservatives and Unionists have imposed on us, does the Minister feel that we can still make a positive contribution to the young people who are currently not in education, employment or training? Is it not the case that, after the cuts that the Ulster Conservatives and Unionists imposed, they are now the Ulster Conservatives — New Farce?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I insist that parties are referred to by their official name in this House. That goes for all parties.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

First, it is important to give our young people skills so that they can take up employment opportunities, not be a burden on society, make a contribution and raise their self-esteem. That is why, for example, the budget for the Department for Employment and Learning, which will deal with a lot of those young people and their training needs, has been protected. That is also why, in my answer to the Member for Upper Bann Dolores Kelly, I pointed out that the social investment fund will be important in how we deal with some of those people. Within the limited resources available to us, we have sought to remain true to the principle of having a skilled workforce in Northern Ireland. That means trying to reach those who are hard to reach and helping them towards productive activity in our society.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I call Mr Kinahan.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

Sorry, Mr Speaker, I cannot find my question.

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

Given that this Assembly was established against a background of inequality, particularly on a regional basis, and given that we learned today that capital expenditure is to be savagely cut, what hope can the Minister give to regions that still lack infrastructure and a lot of other things that people take for granted? What hope is there that those people are not now mothballed for the next three years?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Capital projects have been undertaken in the past in Northern Ireland. I take the time, maybe one morning or afternoon a week, to go around the Province to see the expenditure. That expenditure is spread across Northern Ireland. It is not located in just one area. I have visited projects in the west, south and north of the Province and here in the east. So, it is unfair to say that there is not a distribution of those projects across Northern Ireland.

As far as areas that may have been left behind are concerned, part of the social investment fund is to deal with that issue, albeit that it is a very limited amount of money. Nevertheless, that fund will deliberately target areas where people feel that they have been left behind and where, perhaps, there has not been the investment that we would have liked to see.

Again, of course, it is up to Members to ensure that, when capital programmes that are brought forward to Committees appear to be skewed in one way or another, Ministers are challenged about them. However, it is not a good idea to allocate capital purely to make sure that there is an even geographical spread. It has to be done on the basis of where the projects and infrastructure decisions can have the greatest return for Northern Ireland. In some cases, that may mean a huge bias towards one area in one year and not as much to another area. However, the basis should be whether the capital project is a sound capital project and whether it will contribute to the betterment of Northern Ireland and to our ability to compete in the world.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I congratulate the Finance Minister and the Executive Ministers who constructively engaged in producing a Budget that goes some way to minimising the pain that would have been inflicted on us through the Tories’ block grant to Northern Ireland. Undoubtedly, there will still be some pain, and the freeze on public sector pay will hit some individuals. Had the Executive decided not to introduce a pay freeze, would people in the public sector ultimately have lost their job?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The answer is, quite clearly, yes. I should have the figures because, in the Budget review group, we did an exercise to show what the impact would be if we did not abide by the pay freeze at £21,000 and set it at a higher level or did not implement it at all. I do not want to give a misleading answer to the House, but we would be talking about hundreds of jobs had we not implemented the pay freeze, for which we already had a Barnett consequential and in respect of which we had our spending reduced on the basis of a decision elsewhere.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for letting me have another chance. We are very pleased to see a draft Budget in place. However, when we look at the funding for the Department of the Environment, it is hard to tell in which of the four years the review of public administration is planned to take place, along with the vital planning and financing of the councils. As you know, those go hand in hand. Can the Minister guarantee that the funding is in place for that to happen in the first year?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am not past the detail of every line in the Department of the Environment budget or any other departmental budget. All I do know is that the Minister has made a commitment that he will move to try to rationalise and make better use of the finance available for local government. Anyway, those sorts of decisions are reflected in the Budget allocation. The Budget allocations will drive Ministers to look at how savings can be made.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The draft Budget refers to progress on the creation of a new Education and Skills Authority (ESA). I would like to bring it to the Finance Minister’s attention that two weeks ago, the Education Committee was briefed by senior departmental officials that they had not been authorised to carry out work on money-saving schemes. I ask the Minister, especially in light of the controversy surrounding the ESA, what exactly has been agreed and how senior officials in the Department of Education are supposed to produce detailed proposals within one week of the launch of the consultation process?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The tables show that money has been put in under the invest to save proposals for some of the upfront costs of establishing a single body to oversee the administration of education in Northern Ireland; I think that it is £10 million in each of the first two years. Therefore, finance has been made available to the Department of Education for that purpose, and I hope that progress can be made on it. I am sure that the Member will know well the difficulties that have held that up. However, just as there has been goodwill among parties in getting this draft Budget agreed, I am sure that we will try to build on that goodwill to make the kind of savings that can be made in education administration. Given the size of the education budget, there is a need to find ways of making savings on administration so that as much money as possible goes to schools.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I call Ms Anna Lo.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

At last; I thought that I was never going to get called. I welcome the statement from the Minister. Has the Minister considered the costs of division in our society and the potential savings from the promotion of a shared future?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Not only has thought been given to that, the comments that have been made over the last number of weeks by the First Minister have reflected the need for a huge debate on that. Huge savings can be made, not least in education. There are many ways in which money can be saved. All Ministers should be looking at every opportunity to save that money. However, with the issue that the Member raised, one has to be mindful of the situation on the ground, and you cannot do these things overnight. Nevertheless, it will be music to my ears if I hear of innovative ways in which Ministers believe that they can save money, so that the money that is being used is being used for the good, practical purposes of delivering services.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

That concludes questions on the ministerial statement. I ask the House to take its ease as we move to the next item of business.

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

Executive Committee Business

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I inform Members that the Debt Relief Bill has received Royal Assent. The Debt Relief Act (Northern Ireland) 2010 became law on 15 December 2010.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I inform Members that the Unsolicited Services (Trade and Business Directories) Bill has received Royal Assent. The Unsolicited Services (Trade and Business Directories) Act (Northern Ireland) 2010 became law on 15 December 2010.

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

I beg to move

That this Assembly agrees that the provisions in the Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill (consequential on the proposed repeal of the Saving Gateway Accounts Act 2009) dealing with the supply of information by the Department for Social Development and the classification of saving gateway accounts as an excepted matter under schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, should be considered by the UK Parliament.

The contrast between the debate that has just finished on the draft Budget and hopes that may otherwise have been raised by it is brought into sharp relief when one considers the legislative consent motion and legislation that is going through Westminster. That legislation not only repeals the saving gateway accounts proposals, which never actually went live, but ends eligibility for child trust funds and abolishes the health in pregnancy grant.

While we talk about the Northern Ireland Budget on one hand, we see the reality when it comes to Northern Ireland benefits on the other. The legislation in London cuts significant money from those who are in need, such as young mothers and pregnant mothers. I have two daughters under the age of five, and my family has benefited from child trust funds and health in pregnancy grants. The Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development is in the same position as I, given the age of his children. When we deal with Budget issues, therefore, we must be fully mindful of welfare and benefits issues, including the legislation that is going through Westminster as I speak.

The legislative consent motion performs ones technical function: it repeals a mechanism by which information was to be shared with Revenue and Customs on proposed saving gateway accounts. I will go into that in more detail. The legislative consent motion repeals a technical provision that relates to access to information by Revenue and Customs. It does not touch on the broader issues of child trust funds and the health in pregnancy grant because they are not devolved matters. They are reserved matters on which the London Government have exclusive authority to legislate because they affect the tax system. Therefore, the consent motion, as I understand it, deals with a technical matter in respect of legislation that is going through Westminster. It does not touch upon wider issues that are part and parcel of that legislation.

On 15 September 2010, the Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill was introduced in the House of Commons; it contains measures to repeal the Saving Gateway Accounts Act 2009. The motion addresses that, although the Bill also contains measures to end eligibility to child trust funds and to abolish the health in pregnancy grant.

As a consequence of the proposed repeal of the Saving Gateway Accounts Act 2009, the Bill also repeals provisions to deal with the supply of information to Revenue and Customs by the Department for Social Development (DSD) and removes the saving gateway scheme from the list of excepted matters in schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Therefore, the motion asks the Assembly to agree that those consequential provisions may be considered by the Westminster Parliament since, technically, at least, they result in a change in the Department’s functions and the Assembly’s legislative competence.

As I said in my opening remarks, the Assembly is not asked to endorse the Bill’s policy intentions, as saving gateway accounts, child trust funds and the health in pregnancy grant are all excepted matters and outside the Assembly’s legislative competence. I should explain that the saving gateway would have provided a cash saving account to people on low incomes. The aim was to provide a financial incentive to save through a matching Government contribution for every pound saved. The scheme was to be open to those who receive qualifying social security benefits and tax credits and was to be administered by Revenue and Customs. Saving gateway accounts for those who qualified were to have been available from July 2010. However, on 22 June 2010, in their emergency Budget, the British Government announced that the saving gateway was deemed unaffordable, given the need to reduce the deficit and that the Con-Dem coalition would not introduce the scheme.

My Department was to have been involved in facilitating the saving gateway scheme by providing information about those people who are in receipt of qualifying social security benefits and who would have been eligible to open a saving gateway account.

As I said earlier, the Westminster Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill also contains provisions to abolish the health in pregnancy grant and to end eligibility for child trust funds. I emphasise that both of those policy areas are the responsibility of the London Government.

The purported aim of the health in pregnancy grant is to contribute towards an improved lifestyle and healthy diet during the final weeks of pregnancy and other additional costs faced at that time. It is meant to underpin the existing financial support, such as the Sure Start maternity grant, which is available to assist with the cost of a new baby. The decision to abolish the health in pregnancy grant and to end eligibility for child trust funds will have a grievous impact on low-income families with young children. They are already in need, and the decision to abolish the health in pregnancy grant and the child trust funds can only put them in more need. That is further reason why the proposed hardship fund, which I have argued for in the Budget, will be beefed up and developed over the next number of months. It will mean a lot more than it appears to mean on paper.

The legislative consent motion deals with the much narrower technical issues of the changes to DSD’s functions and the list of excepted matters in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 as a result of the proposed repeal of the Saving Gateway Accounts Act 2009. Although Members may have reservations about the proposed repeal of the 2009 Act, as I do, I trust that we will use our influence in Westminster to try to mitigate the intentions of the Bill. It is not an issue that we as an Assembly have any power over. In many ways, it is more than a parity issue; it is an issue relating to an excepted matter, which, at this stage in our development, is a matter for which we do not have any legislative or operational competence. However, if Parliament agrees to the repeal, it would be inappropriate for us to deny it the opportunity to sort out the consequential changes to other legislation. On that basis, I ask the Assembly to support the motion.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I will begin my remarks by speaking in my capacity as Chairperson of the Committee. The motion refers to the Saving Gateway Accounts Act 2009. As the House will recall, the Assembly debated a related legislative consent motion in that year which permitted Westminster to legislate to establish saving gateway accounts in Northern Ireland, as was the case in the rest of the United Kingdom.

The 2009 Act should have allowed some of the poorest individuals in society to establish a savings account. The accounts would have allowed those individuals to put aside a small amount of money, say £25 a month and, after a period, the Government were to top up the account with 50p for every pound saved, up to a limit of £300. As Members can imagine, the Committee warmly welcomed that provision. To help to identify people who might benefit from such accounts, the 2009 Act allowed information-sharing between the Department and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), as outlined by the Minister.

The 2009 Act also included provisions which were to make the saving gateway accounts an excepted matter. As the House will recall, the relevant legislative consent motion was passed by the Assembly in March of last year.

On 25 November, the Social Development Committee considered the motion that is before us today. Members were dismayed that the Westminster Government had decided that the saving gateway accounts can no longer be afforded. As the Committee’s recent report shows, members made inquiries and took some time to consider the benefits of the original proposals and the success of pilot schemes in Great Britain. The Committee concluded, with some regret, that it had no option other than to support the motion, which is to repeal the provisions relating to the saving gateway accounts. The Committee noted that the Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill also abolishes the health in pregnancy grant and child trust funds. The Committee also noted that both of those are excepted matters, and, as the Minister explained, they are not the subject of today’s motion.

On behalf of the Committee, I record members’ disappointment that the saving gateway accounts will not come into being and people from Northern Ireland will not benefit from them. The Committee believes that a great opportunity to help people develop a savings habit has been missed. As agreed, with regret, by the Committee, I must also indicate that the Committee supports the motion that will permit the United Kingdom Parliament to repeal the named provisions.

Speaking in a personal and party capacity, and as the Minister has said, I think that the motion and the effect of the Bill will be technical but will have a profound impact in Northern Ireland, particularly on people who need some of the support that would have been given. We will never know whether the savings gateway accounts would have had the positive impact that was hoped for in the first instance, because we will never see them come into being, other than through the pilot schemes that I mentioned before. However, simply because this is happening, it does not mean that there is not a job to do.

There is a massive job to do, particularly in Northern Ireland, which has the worst levels of financial exclusion of the whole United Kingdom. In fact, in my own constituency, which is sometimes seen as a very affluent area, the Scrabo ward in Newtownards, which largely covers the West Winds estate, is one of the 36 most financially excluded wards in Northern Ireland. That was discovered in a report by the Community Foundation. We can see for ourselves in Northern Ireland, in areas like that, the profound impact that financial exclusion — people not having a bank account or savings account of their own — can have on poverty. It can keep people in the grip of poverty.

I know that there is a lot of good and positive work done in Northern Ireland by credit unions. That is seen in the level of activity. Around 25% of people in Northern Ireland use or have used credit unions, compared to only around 2% in Great Britain, but even that high level of activity is not having the impact that we want to see. There is a task for the Assembly, in spite of the loss of savings gateway accounts, to try to ease the burden and the problems that come with financial exclusion of some of the most vulnerable in society.

I also regret the ending of the child trust fund. The Minister has already exposed my personal interest, like his, in that matter. However, the fund was not aimed primarily at helping the Minister for Social Development or me: it was aimed at helping people who, otherwise, would not have had the savings habit that I mentioned before. Children would have been born into the world and would have had nothing set aside for them for a rainy day later in their lives. The figures show that the lowest level of uptake of the child trust fund has consistently been in some of our most disadvantaged communities. I know that the credit unions were hoping that there would be legislative change at Westminster to allow them to offer child trust funds to people in those areas. That has not come about, and we need to redouble our efforts in achieving that aim.

I regret the ending of the child trust fund. It was a small amount of money. A lot of people saw a reduction because of the fall in the stock market and how they had invested that, but, nonetheless, that account was there forever and a day, to be accessed by that child later in life when they became a young adult. I deeply regret its loss. Although it was only around for a few years, I think that the longer-term impact of it would have been immensely positive, particularly for vulnerable people in Northern Ireland. With all of that in mind, I support the motion out of necessity rather than out of choice. It is quite technical, but I reiterate that the impact could well be very profound, particularly for vulnerable people in Northern Ireland.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The savings gateway accounts, the health and pregnancy grant and the child trust funds are all forward looking schemes that would have benefited families with young children, and were seen as progressive. Unfortunately, because of the Government’s statement on 22 June that they were no longer affordable, they can only be seen in the light of cutbacks — one of the many cutbacks that are going to affect families, particularly families with young children.

The Minister and the Chairperson have both gone into some detail about the nature of the Bill. The Bill that we have contains provisions that are consequential on the proposed repeal of the Saving Gateway Accounts Act 2009. It means that the Bill will amend the law dealing with the supply of information by the Department for Social Development to Revenue and Customs. That will mean the removal of the requirement on the Department to provide Revenue and Customs with information relating to social security for the purposes of identifying individuals who would have been eligible to open a saving gateway account. Therefore, it is a technical amendment.

Given that the announcement was made on 22 June, and the scheme was not to be introduced here until July, it never took off, so unfortunately, nobody had the benefit of it. I reiterate: it is a cutback. A scheme that was forward looking and beneficial has again been knocked back.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Other Members and, indeed, the Minister said that they have concerns about the Bill, and I think it is of grave concern to us all that both the saving gateway account and the child trust fund, which both seem to be very worthy funds, will be taken away. It is unfortunate that we never had the opportunity to access the saving gateway account scheme. It would have definitely benefited communities in Northern Ireland.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Although I support the technical point of sharing information with HMRC, I share the concerns of the other MLAs who have spoken. This was a very good scheme to encourage those who are not normally in the habit of saving with a bank, and it was unfortunate that, during the pilot schemes in England, there was a slow and low uptake. In fact, it was never rolled out to the whole of the UK, and it was unfortunate that the change of Government was seen as an easy opportunity to scrap the entire scheme.

The Minister mentioned the pregnancy grant, from which I benefited. It is a welcome bit of money, particularly when mothers such as me give up full-time jobs to stay at home and suddenly find that they lose their steady income. To have that extra bit of money always helps, so it is a great pity that the scheme was not rolled out.

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

I thank Members for their contributions. The comments of Mr Hamilton, Mr Brady, Mrs Bradley and Ms Lo captured the essence of the impact of this technical change and the broader legislation that is going through Westminster. Words used included “dismayed”, “regret”, “disappointment”, “opportunity missed”, “grave concern” and “great pity”. Mr Brady said that these were forward looking schemes, and I think that that describes them as well as any other term. They were forward looking because they were front line opportunities for people who were in particular need or potential distress.

Since 2005, 5·2 million child trust fund accounts were established in Northern Ireland and Britain, and since 2009, 850,000 women received the pregnancy grant of £190, 25 weeks into their pregnancy. Those are not small sums for people on low incomes and represent no small opportunity for those who may not have had an inclination or opportunity to save in the past.

I concur with the remarks made, but it leads to the conclusion, as the Committee Chairperson said, that there is an obligation on us to do what we can to ease the burden. That principle has to inform policy and government, not least in consideration of the Budget that has now gone out for consultation, in which there are further interventions of some weight and significance to ease the burden on those who will be in new increased levels of need over the next four years.

With reluctance, I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly agrees that the provisions in the Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill (consequential on the proposed repeal of the Saving Gateway Accounts Act 2009) dealing with the supply of information by the Department for Social Development and the classification of saving gateway accounts as an excepted matter under schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, should be considered by the UK Parliament.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I call the Minister of the Environment to move the Consideration Stage of the Waste and Contaminated Land (Amendment) Bill.

Moved. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in my provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are two groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn. The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7, which deal with the fixed penalties for illegal waste activity and fees for appeals and remediation notices. The second debate will be on amendment No 5, which relates to the quality and nature of waste for recycling. Once the debate on each group is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. The Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points of the Bill. If that is clear, we will proceed.

Clause 1 (Fixed penalty notices for offences under Article 4)

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7. Those amendments deal with the enforcement of offences for illegal waste activity and making provision for fees to be charged for appeals.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 2, line 19, leave out “£200” and insert “£400”.

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: In clause 5, page 6, line 37, leave out

“(but not regulations under Article 5 (7))”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 3: In clause 5, page 6, line 41, leave out

“(but not regulations under Article 5(7))”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 4: In clause 5, page 6, line 41, at end insert

“( ) In Article 5A of the 1997 Order (fixed penalty notices for certain offences under Article 5(8))—

(a) in paragraph (1) for ‘the Department’ (where it first occurs) substitute ‘an authorised officer of an enforcing authority’ and for ‘to the Department’ substitute ‘to the enforcing authority’;

(b) in paragraph (2) for ‘Department’ substitute ‘authorised officer’ and at the end add ‘to the enforcing authority’;

(c) in paragraph (9) for ‘the Department’ substitute ‘an enforcing authority’;

(d) in paragraph (11) for ‘The Department may’ substitute ‘An enforcing authority may’ and for ‘by the Department’ substitute ‘by the enforcing authority’;

(e) for paragraph (13) substitute—

‘(12A) Article 22C (use of fixed penalty receipts by a district council) applies in relation to amounts received by a council under this Article as it applies in relation to amounts received under Article 22A.

(13) In this Article—

‘authorised officer’ means an officer of the enforcing authority who is authorised in writing by the enforcing authority for the purposes of this Article;

‘enforcing authority’ means—

(a) the Department; and

(b) in relation to an offence committed within its district, a district council.’.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 6: In clause 8, page 8, line 38, at end insert

“( ) After paragraph (1) insert—

‘(1A) Article 127(2)(b) of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (power to prescribe fees for appeals to the planning appeals commission under that Order) shall apply to appeals under this Article as it applies to appeals under that Order; and a notice of appeal to the planning appeals commission under this Article shall be accompanied by such fee (if any) as may be prescribed under Article 127(2)(b) of that Order.’.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 7: In schedule 1, page 11, line 7, at end insert

“4. In Article 82—

(a) in paragraph (1) at the beginning insert ‘Except as provided by paragraph (1A),’; and

(b) after paragraph (1) insert—

‘(1A) No order shall be made under Article 4A(10), 5A(10), 22B(5) or 42B(10) unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly.’.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

The Minister of the Environment: A number of the amendments that we will debate arise from recommendations made by the Environment Committee. I express my appreciation to the Committee members for the work that they have done in a timely manner in considering this Bill.

Clause 1 provides for fixed penalties for minor fly-tipping offences. Those fines can be issued either by councils or by the Department. The Bill originally stipulated that those fines could range from between £100 and £200, with the issuing authority deciding what would be appropriate in each instance. The stakeholders who responded to the Environment Committee’s consultation on Bill were supportive of the clause, but suggested that a higher upper limit might be appropriate. I have no objection to that suggestion. Indeed, I appreciate that a broader range of possible fixed penalty amounts may allow more scope for distinguishing between various types of fly-tipping offences. I therefore propose amendment No 1 to allow for a range of fines between £100 and £400. My officials have engaged with the Environment Committee on the issue, and my understanding is that the Committee is content with that proposal.

I turn to amendment Nos 2, 3 and 4, which relate to clause 5 of the Bill. Clause 5 gives councils investigative and enforcement powers in relation to illegal waste activity. Those powers currently rest solely with my Department. However, the Bill as originally drafted did not allow council officials to take enforcement action in the event of a failure to present appropriate waste documentation. Following further reflection and engagement with stakeholders, I now appreciate that it will be helpful to councils to have those powers. I therefore propose the amendments to allow councils to take enforcement action in the event of failure to present appropriate waste documentation to officials. That will enable councils either to prosecute through the courts or to issue a £300 fixed penalty notice. Again, I understand that the Environment Committee is supportive of that proposal.

I take this opportunity to mention briefly the development of a fly-tipping protocol, which will clarify the respective roles and responsibilities of the Department and councils in dealing with fly-tipped waste. I am pleased to confirm that formal consultation with the local government sector on this issue is due to commence shortly. I do not intend to commence the relevant provisions in the Bill until the protocol is in place. However, those powers in the Bill that can be used straight away will be commenced as soon as possible after the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Clause 8 allows for all appeals against contaminated land remediation notices to be heard by the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC). However, there is currently no provision for the PAC to charge a fee for that type of appeal. At Committee Stage, Members expressed concern that unscrupulous operators may seek to use the appeals process to delay action on their obligation to take remedial action. It was suggested that the absence of a fee may encourage such activity. Therefore, having further considered the issue, I now agree that a fee is appropriate. It will be in line with the current fee for a planning appeal, which is £126. I would probably prefer it to be higher, but it has to be associated with the planning appeal fee, and the Planning Appeals Commission may consider whether to raise that fee. We hope that the fee will go some way towards dissuading frivolous appeals and to ensure a degree of consistency with similar provisions in environmental liability regulations. Therefore, I propose amendment No 6, which introduces a fee for appeals against remediation notices.

Finally, my proposed amendment No 7, to schedule 1 to the Bill, relates to the future amendment of fixed penalty amounts. The Bill originally provided that any future legislation amending fixed penalty amounts for fly-tipping offences should be subject to negative resolution, which is consistent with the existing fixed penalty provision in waste management legislation. I originally felt that negative resolution was appropriate on the grounds that the issue is neither sensitive nor controversial, and there was substantial legislative precedence for such an approach. However, we noted that the use of affirmative resolution is proposed for the future amendment of penalty amounts in other Bills in the legislative programme. I recognised that the Environment Committee, on advice from the Examiner of Statutory Rules, recommended the use of affirmative resolution. Existing waste management legislation already provides for three fixed penalties, and the Bill provides for a fourth. Effectively, amendment No 7 would ensure that any change to the amount of those fixed penalties will be subject to affirmative resolution, which will afford the Assembly greater control in that area and ensure consistency with other Assembly legislation.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Day three in the big house, so here we go with more legislation. I want to pay tribute to the departmental officials and the Committee staff for their work in bringing the Bill to this stage.

On behalf of the Environment Committee, I welcome the Bill’s Consideration Stage, which I am sure Committee members will agree makes changes that will contribute to the ongoing battle to address waste problems in the North. The Bill makes some changes to the legislative framework in Part III of the Waste and Contaminated Land Order 1997 for the management of land that has been contaminated by pollution. That Part of the Order has not yet been commenced, and the Department indicated to the Committee that the amendments made by the Bill to that Order will mainly reflect lessons learned through the experience of operating legislation elsewhere. The Committee was content with the proposals, which include an amended definition of contaminated land that more accurately reflects the definition of controlled waters and introduces the notion of significant pollution of waterways, underground strata, or the significant possibility of such pollution.

The minor amendments made by the Bill to the Producer Responsibility Obligations Order 1998 were also acceptable to the Committee. Therefore, the Committee predominantly focused on the clauses that amend the Waste and Contaminated Land Order 1997 to clarify and strengthen the existing statutory framework for waste on land, and that legislate for a partnership approach between the Department and local government in tackling illegal waste activity. Having looked closely at what the Bill offers, I share Committee members’ confidence that it will take us a significant step forward in how we manage illegally dumped waste.

The Bill was referred to the Committee on 13 April 2010, and, to ensure that there was enough time to fully and effectively scrutinise it, the Committee sought an extension to the Committee Stage until early November. Members will confirm that that length of time was needed to go through the Bill in sufficient detail and to get the necessary information from the Department.

I am sure that my Committee colleagues will support me in noting the good working relationship that was established between the Committee and lead departmental officials during Committee Stage. The Committee’s detailed scrutiny led to six recommendations, and I am pleased to report that the Minister has taken on board all of the Committee’s recommendations for amendments. I thank the Minister for listening to the Committee and taking on board the necessary recommendations.

Before I talk about the amendments in detail, I must mention a significant issue that gave the Committee considerable concern and yet could not, in the Committee’s opinion, be addressed in the Bill. The Committee is adamant that, as the Bill brings about the sharing of powers for dealing with illegal waste activity between central government and local authorities, there is a need for an agreed protocol between the Department and councils to outline which authority has responsibility for dealing with and clearing up different aspects and quantities of fly-tipped waste.

The Committee heard evidence from a range of councils and the Local Government Association about the need for clarifying and identifying the responsibilities of local authorities and the Department. In addition, many other respondents expressed frustration at the confusion between the Environment Agency and local authorities and at their unwillingness to take responsibility. Several respondents provided examples of where illegally dumped waste was left lying indefinitely, sometimes long after a court had penalised the offender, simply because agreement could not be reached on which authority had the responsibility to clear it up. Therefore, the Committee was adamant that a protocol must be agreed and put in place before the Bill is enacted.

I am pleased to report that the Committee recently had sight of a consultation on a draft protocol. It also appears that a threshold quantity of 20 sq m is being suggested as the level that would generally determine which authority takes responsibility for dealing with the waste. The Committee believes that that amount, which equates roughly to a lorry load, should be acceptable to councils. That is good news, but I would like the Minister’s assurance today, just as his official assured the Committee, that he will not enact the clauses that relate to councils’ enhanced waste management powers until the protocol has been agreed with councils and is in place. The Committee also wants the protocol or timely guidance to provide clarity on addressing the differences between domestic and commercial waste, dealing with hazardous waste or waste that is dumped on land that is unregistered or unoccupied, and addressing the ever difficult issue of landowner liability.

The six amendments in the first group have all been tabled by the Minister. However, as I mentioned earlier, each was recommended by the Committee to improve the Bill. Amendment No 1 raises the upper limit of the range of fixed penalty fees from £200 to £400. Most respondents to the Committee’s call for evidence were adamant that fixed penalties must be set at a level that acts as a deterrent and felt that an upper limit of £200 was too low to ensure that. The Committee agreed, and it also noted that a larger range provided more scope for selecting different fine levels to reflect the seriousness of an offence, the level of damage caused and to punish repeat offenders. On behalf of the Committee, I welcome the Minister’s amendment to clause 1.

I will combine amendment Nos 2, 3 and 4, as did the Minister, because, together, they amend clause 5 to address the Committee’s recommendations that the same powers of entry and investigation that are afforded to the Department should be provided to councils. The Bill gives most of the powers that are currently available to the Department for addressing illegally dumped waste to councils. However, it does not, as drafted, devolve powers to take enforcement action in the event of a failure to present appropriate waste documents. Amendment Nos 2, 3 and 4 remedy that, and, on behalf of the Committee, I welcome them.

The Committee was pleased to learn that an appeals process was being put in place to address genuine concerns. However, on being advised that no mechanism was currently available for applying a charge when referring a case to the Planning Appeals Commission, the Committee was concerned that the appeals process could be used by offenders to buy time. The Committee recommended that the Department should consider an amendment to introduce a charge, and, on behalf of the Committee, I welcome amendment No 6.

Finally, in this group, I turn to amendment No 7. On the advice of the Examiner of Statutory Rules, the Committee suggested that the powers to change a fixed penalty fine that is identified in the Bill and exists in waste Orders should be subject to the highest available Assembly scrutiny. In addition to ensuring that proper debate accompanies changes to fine levels, it brings the Bill into line with other Bills with fixed penalties that are going through the Assembly.

During Committee Stage, the Department indicated that it would not table an amendment to that effect, so the Committee agreed its own amendment. However, on subsequently being advised that the Department had revisited the issue and would be tabling an amendment, the Committee agreed not to submit its amendment and to support the Minister. On behalf of the Committee, I am pleased, therefore, to support amendment No 7.

I shall now say a few words as a Sinn Féin MLA for Newry and Armagh. I welcome the work on the Bill, which is a good one. However, the important issue for us is that the protocol be set in place before the Bill is enacted. Go raibh maith agat.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I, too, welcome the Bill, which has been long awaited and has involved a lot of hard work, on which I congratulate everyone. I, too, long to see the fly-tipping protocol agreed, and I ask that it be agreed before the Bill is enacted. My major concern about the protocol is to ensure that we do not enter a world where we are arguing over the size of waste dumps or who is responsible for them and, in particular, who will pay for clearing them. We need to ensure that, in the protocol, we have a fast, agreed and dynamic system for dealing with the problem, and I look forward to seeing it.

I am pleased to see that amendment No 1 raises the fine, yet the Department will still have the power to raise it further. Fly-tipping and illegal dumping are repugnant and lazy ways to deal with waste, so we have to make sure that everyone does what they are meant to do. I will not go into the other amendments in detail, although I welcome them all, and I look forward to speaking on my amendment in a second.

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

I add my support to the Bill and the amendments. I come from an area that has suffered considerably from illegal waste dumping and the difficulties that that brings, so I particularly appreciate the need for the Bill. Like other Members, I thank the Department and Committee officers for the harmonious way in which they helped us to work through Committee Stage to get the Bill to this stage.

Having been a councillor for many years, I am all too aware of the millions of pounds that are expended across the 26 councils every year on clearing up waste that is left by thoughtless people. Therefore, I support amendment Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4, and I tend to support Danny Kinahan’s amendment No 5. I will explain that as I move through the debate. The increase in the fixed penalty is significant and important, because a considerable body of research in other jurisdictions shows that results are very positive when fixed penalties are increased. Of course, I take into account the fact that some people may not be able to afford to pay. However, I suppose that the answer to that is for them not to contribute to the waste.

In relation to amendment Nos 2, 3 and 4, I agree that councils should have the same power to enter premises as the Department. I do not see any point in affording anyone the opportunity to escape conviction for what I believe to be very serious crimes, and I am particularly pleased that the 24-hour warning will not be afforded, because, as we all know, massive changes can be made in 24 hours.

In relation to Mr Kinahan’s amendment, I am influenced by what I have seen in other countries, particularly France, where rigid conditions are imposed at the point of collection, allowing the quality of waste to be enhanced significantly.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The amendment on the issue of quality is in the second group.

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

I thank the Deputy Speaker for reminding me of that, and I apologise to Mr Kinahan if I have gatecrashed his section of the debate. However, I am sure that he will be relieved to know that his amendment has some support.

In general, the Bill is important, and its provisions will certainly be one of the positive aspects of the existence of local councils. We, therefore, support the Bill at this stage.

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

I support the amendments. As a councillor for many years, I found it frustrating that we could do very little about illegal dumping. I, therefore, support these amendments, because, as well as giving councils additional powers, they would give them the same powers as the Department.

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

Like my colleague and party spokesperson on the environment, I support the Bill. Having sat through discussions on it, I compliment the Department for its hard and industrious work on the Bill, which addresses a very serious issue. I support all these amendments, but I wish to dwell a lot on amendment No 5. However, with your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, would you prefer it if I waited until we came to that group?

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

That amendment will be debated in the next group.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I, too, support the amendments and welcome the hard work of the Department and the Committee on the Bill. I have direct experience of the scourge of illegal dumping in my constituency, so I welcome the increased powers to tackle the problem. I recognise the importance of waste management in protecting our natural environment for present and future generations. As custodians of the environment, that is one of our most important responsibilities from a moral and, increasingly now, an economic perspective.

To fully protect the natural environment, we will, of course, be required to lead attitudinal change on and awareness of the impact of the waste that we produce as individuals and as a community. The Assembly should, therefore, fully support the approved management and enforcement of illegal waste disposal that the Bill, if amended, would introduce. The increased powers for local government and enhanced partnership working between the Department and councils in tackling the illegal disposal of waste from fly-tipping and more serious criminal activity are particularly positive provisions of the Bill, if amended.

Amendment No 1, which would raise the upper limit of a fixed penalty notice from £200 to £400, is to be welcomed. Amendment Nos 2, 3 and 4 would give councils the same powers of entry and investigation as the Department of the Environment. I think those are sensible recommendations from the Environment Committee, and they would further enhance enforcement of appropriate waste management in the region. I note that no amendment to clause 4 was tabled, which is evidence of the agreement in the House that suspected offenders of illegal dumping should be served with a notice to clean up that waste.

I also welcome the improved contaminated land provisions, and, from an environmental and economic perspective, I support the more effective identification and restoration of contaminated land that the Bill will introduce. I am, therefore, content to support amendment No 6 and the changes to schedule 1 to the Bill, which are proposed by amendment No 7.

In conclusion, the Minister of the Environment, the Executive and the Assembly must continue to lead fundamental attitudinal change in the community on the need for positive custodianship of our natural environment and on the impact that our waste production has on the world around us. However, we must also ensure that waste disposal and treatment are tightly controlled. I am content that the Bill, if amended, will improve local governance on this important matter.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank Members for the issues that they raised on the first group of amendments. I will briefly cover the points that were made.

The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment, Cathal Boylan, raised the issue of an agreed protocol. We have been discussing unofficially with local authorities how we can better deal with fly-tipping. We now intend to enter into full consultation with local authorities on that issue. Prior to that full consultation, we have had discussions around the scale of the problem and about whether local government would be involved in the clean-up or the Department would take responsibility for dealing with fly-tipping. The Department’s opinion was that it would kick in at around 20 cubic meters, which, it was indicated, is the equivalent of one tipper lorry load. That represents a substantial amount of waste, and it would be right and appropriate that the Department should take over at that point. Assurances were sought that those elements of the Bill would not be introduced until a fly-tipping protocol was in place. I will give that assurance that it is not the Department’s intention to introduce those aspects of the Bill until a fly-tipping protocol has been agreed and is in place with local authorities.

Some Members welcomed the raising of fees. It is the right thing to do. Other Members indicated that the Department has to give a lead on issues relating to waste and developing attitudinal change. That has been happening for quite a number of years now, going back to the Wake up to Waste campaign. We are now looking at Rethinking Waste, and a lot of effort is being put into media campaigns, into basic education in schools and through local government and councils. A considerable effort is being made to educate people, and I believe that people are responding. That is why we have 35% recycling, and it is why recycling is growing. People are dealing with their waste in a much more sensible way than dumping a settee or a bag of rubbish at the side of the road. Such actions are an inconvenience for everyone and a hazard for many people, and they make unnecessary work for local authorities when there are ways and means of dealing with that waste without imposing huge financial burdens on ordinary people.

I thank Members for that. I ask the House to support amendment Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7.

Question, That amendment No 1 be made, put and agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 (Councils to enforce Articles 4 and 5 of 1997 Order)

Amendment No 2 made: In page 6, line 37, leave out

“(but not regulations under Article 5 (7))”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

Amendment No 3 made: In page 6, line 41, leave out

“(but not regulations under Article 5(7))”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

Amendment No 4 made: In page 6, line 41, at end insert

“( ) In Article 5A of the 1997 Order (fixed penalty notices for certain offences under Article 5(8))—

(a) in paragraph (1) for ‘the Department’ (where it first occurs) substitute ‘an authorised officer of an enforcing authority’ and for ‘to the Department’ substitute ‘to the enforcing authority’;

(b) in paragraph (2) for ‘Department’ substitute ‘authorised officer’ and at the end add ‘to the enforcing authority’;

(c) in paragraph (9) for ‘the Department’ substitute ‘an enforcing authority’;

(d) in paragraph (11) for ‘The Department may’ substitute ‘An enforcing authority may’ and for ‘by the Department’ substitute ‘by the enforcing authority’;

(e) for paragraph (13) substitute—

‘(12A) Article 22C (use of fixed penalty receipts by a district council) applies in relation to amounts received by a council under this Article as it applies in relation to amounts received under Article 22A.

(13) In this Article—

‘authorised officer’ means an officer of the enforcing authority who is authorised in writing by the enforcing authority for the purposes of this Article;

‘enforcing authority’ means—

(a) the Department; and

(b) in relation to an offence committed within its district, a district council.’.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We now move to the second group of amendments for debate. There is only one amendment, amendment No 5, which would allow the Department to set requirements for the quality and nature of waste for recycling.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I beg to move amendment No 5: After clause 6, insert the following new clause

“Quality of waste to be recycled

6A. After Article 26 of the 1997 Order insert¾

‘Quality of waste to be recycled

26A. The Department may by regulations provide that in carrying out their duties under Article 20, district councils must meet such requirements as may be prescribed, in relation to the nature and quality of waste which is to be recycled.’”

I am very pleased to debate the amendment today as the subject was discussed, albeit rather broadly, in Committee, and we did not all agree at the time. I wanted to learn a little bit more about the subject and, having done so, I tabled the amendment. The intention is to give the Department the necessary powers to regulate the nature and quality of waste that is being recycled. However, I was perplexed about why the matter was not proposed and agreed to in the Committee as it seemed extremely sensible.

As all Members know, we have European targets to recycle 50% of our waste by 2020, and I am told that the Minister hopes to raise that to 60%. The landfill figures for councils show that many are struggling to get near that figure and that they are all trying to meet the targets in different ways. I will be slightly partisan and congratulate Antrim Borough Council on being one of the top four councils that are below 50%. Different councils have different levels of achievement, different ways of recycling and, I imagine, different cost considerations as they try to reduce recycling costs. We need to ensure that they reach their landfill and recycling targets. We should note that four councils are below 50% at the moment. No others are below 60%; it is the same four. However, six are still over 70%. Therefore, there are problems, and we should try to set standards on recycling. That is very much part of the amendment.

The presentation notes that came to our Committee showed that 11% and 26% of the material that two of the recycling companies, namely Huhtamaki and Cherry Polymers, are being provided with is being rejected and, therefore, going to landfill. That indicates that some of the councils are maybe not achieving their figures in the right way and that they are passing the landfill on to somebody else. I appreciate fully that councils have financial pressures, and I do not see the amendment as one that gives the Department the power to come in incredibly strongly. Rather, it should be able to come in when it is necessary to set recycling standards. We must set good standards in Northern Ireland when they are needed.

The export controls allow us to export lower quality, and that is one way that allows some councils to deal with their waste more cheaply or allows recycling companies to have a lower standard. However, that waste may well end up in landfill in another country or be re-sorted at their expense. The latter possibility is fine, but I do not think that any of us here wants further landfill in other countries. I am also told that it will cost only another 0·1% of the costs to put a standard recycling monitoring system in place.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I will let you come in when I get to the end.

I was given other figures that I need to explore further. However, I have it on very definite authority that the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) research is telling us that 25% of recycled waste is appallingly bad and of such a low quality that it is no good to anyone. However, a great deal of the remaining 75% is also of a very poor standard. The Committee has not had time to consider that, and that is why I tabled the amendment. If that is really happening with the recycling of waste, we should look at that with great concern.

We need an accurate measurement and to sort it out so that we do not simply have a vague summary. I hope that all Members will support my amendment.

We know that the revised waste framework directive, in which quality guidelines will be issued, is coming from Europe. Quality is very much an issue. Therefore, we must agree this amendment so that we can deal with that. I will now give way.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. He said that he had wanted more information before tabling his amendment. From where did the Member seek that information? Was it from a group that would benefit from the waste? If that was the case, does he agree that, through talking directly to the market and tabling an amendment, he is interfering with the market process? That would mean that he is getting involved in something that he should not get involved in. We should encourage the free market.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for that good point. I was very much aware that that may well have been behind the figures that I was given, because it started off with my being lobbied by someone who is on one side of the market. I was keen not to propose an amendment that would allow one side of the market to benefit over the over. However, we must remember that this issue should not always be driven by the market but by the standards that we, in Northern Ireland, want to set. That is why I tabled an enabling amendment that the Department could take on board. I am intrigued to hear the Minister’s response. I want the Bill to provide the chance to deal with waste and to make sure that it is recycled to the right standard when we want it to be. If that does not happen now, we will have missed our chance.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. As we heard, amendment No 5 provides enabling powers for the Department to introduce, by regulation, targets for the quality of recycled material to be produced by councils. The Committee debated the issue at length. Following a visit to a waste recycling plant, members were concerned that the quality of recycled material collected by councils would deteriorate as councils were placed under building pressure to increase their amounts of recycled material. That scenario could have the perverse effect of increasing the waste that goes to landfill if a reduction in quality rendered the material too poor to enter the recycle market.

The Committee was briefed by the Department and received information from waste recycling companies that showed that not all such companies were of the one opinion on this issue. The Committee recognised that if such a power was invoked, it could place considerable cost burdens on local authorities and force them into waste collection models that may be less cost-effective in their particular circumstances. The Department informed the Committee that it is trying to achieve the same goal through voluntary initiatives and stressed that no other legislature had introduced legislation of this kind.

The Department was also concerned that a singular focus on quality could compromise our ability to meet EU recycling targets, which are solely quantitative. The Committee agreed that, on balance, it would be wiser to allow market forces to dictate the approach adopted by local authorities in conjunction with waste management groups and material recycling facilities. Therefore, the Committee did not support the amendment.

With your indulgence, I will say a few words as a Member for Newry and Armagh. I waited to see what information on cost Mr Kinahan would bring to the table. The Committee debated the issue, and I know that some Committee members will speak today who were not there when we took the vote. I have to be honest: I think that you are misguided about the 0·1%. We need clarity around those figures from an independent source. We need to know what the amendment will cost councils. You said that it is enabling legislation, but there is nothing to stop it being enacted at any point in time. I visited Bryson House, and I found that all councils would be punished for the behaviour of a few.

Mr Trevor Clarke said today and in Committee that we should not favour one MRF over another. We should look across the board independently. In Committee, we received information from different MRFs.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

Do you not appreciate that we did not necessarily get all the facts in Committee? I am trying to ensure that we set high standards. The markets should not be the sole way of doing things in the future.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I remind Members to address their remarks through the Chair.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I agree with what Mr Kinahan said about putting something forward on quality. We did bring forward the idea that we should look at the issue of quality, and we have put that in the report. However, he is saying that we did not receive all the information, but he is trying to make the case today for his amendment using only a certain piece of information. Perhaps more homework should be done. We received information in Committee from different groups, and rather than steer down one road in support of one group as opposed to another, let us get the information independently checked. The fear for us in Committee was the cost to the ratepayer. Nobody has convinced us — although perhaps other Members will when they get the chance to speak — that it will not be a cost to the ratepayer.

I agree that there should be a quality element to dealing with waste. Some councils are making their targets. I put it to the Minister that, instead of incentivising councils that are making their targets, why not incentivise all councils? For instance, the Minister came with us when we went to Magherafelt District Council and saw the new contract that it has signed and the good work that it is doing. Banbridge council and my district council area, Armagh, are reaching their targets, and we should be incentivising those councils. However, this power would be a stick to beat those councils with. I agree with putting the quality element in our report, and perhaps the Department could look at that in other ways. However, putting it in legislation at this point in time —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Does the Member accept that the amendment is enabling legislation that would allow the Minister and the Department to make such judgements as to what intervention, if any, would be appropriate? It was mentioned earlier that the Department is trying to achieve the same goals through a voluntary mechanism rather than through using legislation. Should that voluntary mechanism be unsuccessful, the amendment would enable some sort of direct intervention so that we do not produce low-quality recycled material for export elsewhere that would, potentially, go to landfill. If waste is not being recycled, we may just be exporting problems, rather than ensuring a reasonable quality in our local recycled materials.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I take the Member’s point on board, but the amendment could also be construed as a stick to beat councils with. I will say again that, whether it is called enabling legislation or not, it is a stick to beat local councils with. At the end of the day, ratepayers will pay for this.

The question around quality is: why are some councils achieving their quality targets but others are not? Questions such as that need to be asked. A lot of Members sit on councils and in the Assembly. I would like them to go back to their local councils to ask those questions. I have left Armagh council, but, as a ratepayer, I have asked whether I am getting value for money. Armagh is achieving its targets.

Mr Kinahan knows that it was me who suggested the quality issue when we went to Bryson House. However, on the whole, there is not enough information and a strong enough argument is not being made today about the figures. If Mr Kinahan had come to me to say that it would be of little cost to councils and that there would not be much change, I would have looked at the amendment. However, as a Sinn Féin Member, I cannot support the amendment.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

We will not be supporting the amendment either. Quality of waste is an important issue, and the amendment put forward by Mr Kinahan was probably well intended. Yet it is the unintended consequences of the amendment with which we perhaps have some difficulty. The Chairman said that the Committee has discussed the amendment, and he quite rightly said that the organisations that came forward had different opinions on it. It is probably fair to say that the companies benefitting directly from this are those that support it, which is a warning to us all of the dangers of interfering in the area.

During discussions, two key issues caused some Committee members concern. First, this is an issue over which local councils have power, and it is a contradiction that Mr Kinahan is tabling his amendment while many Members are calling for more powers and greater responsibility to be devolved to local councils. His amendment will remove some control and autonomy from local councils and will mean central government taking decisions for them. I am concerned about that. Local councils should have more power and should retain their power in this area. If there are issues with some council areas, the focus should be on those areas, and Mr Kinahan’s colleagues on those councils should be bringing those issues to council meetings.

The second concern with the tabled amendment is that it will represent a significant change to the Bill and there will have been no public consultation on that change. If the amendment is agreed, a number of organisations throughout the Province will quite rightly say that there has been no consultation. We must be cognisant of that so that we do not leave ourselves open to criticism.

The Chairperson referred to the costs to taxpayers should the amendment be agreed. A number of councils in Northern Ireland operate some form of co-mingled collection of waste, and many are tied into contracts. If the amendment is agreed, and if the Department takes action against councils that are tied into longer-term contracts, there will be an obvious cost to those councils, which will be passed on to ratepayers. We need to be cognisant of the potential for significant costs to be placed on councils and ratepayers.

The Committee was also concerned about intervention and interference in the market. Indeed, I am surprised that Mr Kinahan is so anti-market given that his party is aligned with the Conservative Party. It is strange that he is so opposed to a free market on this issue. Importantly, if the amendment is agreed, that will represent an intervention in the market, and as recycling companies are able to provide their services and not many of them are having difficulty in doing so, it is hard to justify the necessity for that intervention.

It is also important to say that if the Department —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

We heard that 26% of some samples of recycled materials were made up of waste that is not suitable for recycling. If the market resulted in the production and export of extremely poor quality material from MRFs, with high levels of contaminants, would the Member still feel that there was no reason to intervene?

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I am always interested to hear Mr Beggs’s opinions on dumps and waste, and I know that he has some knowledge of the issue. However, it is up to individual councils to determine how they deal with that, and if councils accept recycled materials that are not up to the necessary standards, it is up to them to change that. Mr Beggs and Mr Kinahan have been heavily influenced by the lobbying of certain companies that would gain an advantage from this type of intervention. I said that at the beginning of my contribution, and we must be aware and careful of that.

If the standards that were introduced were too high, it is possible that the amount of recycled material would be affected and some of it would not reach the level determined by the Department. As an unintended consequence, we may end up with more waste going to landfill. That is not what the amendment intends to do, but it may happen. Likewise, if standards were too low, there would be no incentive for companies to try to improve them. The tabled amendment has unintended consequences, and, as I said earlier, although it is well-intentioned, when we drill down into the detail, we all have concerns with how it will play out. Therefore, the DUP will not be supporting the amendment in the name of Mr Kinahan.

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

I feel that I should support amendment No 5. I welcome individual thinking in any group, particularly in a discussion about something as serious as waste. Although I was not present at the Committee meeting — I may have been adding to the carbon footprint elsewhere, but I cannot remember — I think that the amendment is worthy of consideration. I have spent a long time on a council on the north coast that is told, year in and year out, that market forces prevent any kind of recycling because it is always cheaper to chop down trees, pour waste oil down drains, and so on. If we are saying today that we rely on market forces to improve the environment and to encourage recycling, I am afraid that the future is not particularly bright.

The Bill is important, and it would be a pity to not take on board amendment No 5, which was proposed by Mr Kinahan. We can debate non-contentious issues without getting into people’s personal lives and stuff like that. The remarks that were made earlier were unfortunate. Let us focus on the Bill. Amendment No 5 creates an opportunity to reinforce in the public’s mind the absolute need for the highest standards. Mr Deputy Speaker, you may have read in the newspaper recently about one recycling company that has stopped accepting waste because it was finding dead animals and all sorts of things in it.

I would prefer that we have a healthy debate. We can vote and then continue the positive and helpful work of the Committee.

Brian Wilson (Green, North Down)

I, too, support amendment No 5. As Mr Beggs pointed out, the legislation is only enabling legislation. We hope that it will never be necessary. If local councils are not meeting their standards, and a lot of their output is being dismissed because of contamination, there must be a body that regulates and monitors that. Who will lose out if that does not happen? It will be the ratepayers who pay council tax.

More important is all the contaminated waste that has been discarded, as it undermines public confidence in the whole waste system. It is important that councils are continually reminded that they must improve the quality of their waste. A few weeks ago, North Down Borough Council was told that its area’s waste has deteriorated in recent years. We took measures to publicise that and reissued guidance on what should be put in each of the bins, and so on, to try to improve quality. The reminder that standards are not being met is important. The amendment will create an enabling power that I hope the Department will not use, but it will be there to help.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I call Mr Peter Weir.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I saw you looking around for a second, trying to see where I was.

I declare an interest as a Member of North Down Borough Council, which the Member who spoke before me failed to do.

Amendment No 5 will affect councils, but there are a number of reasons why, although it is well intentioned, it is not the right amendment. I will pick up on some of the remarks made by Mr Brian Wilson and Mr Kinahan. Mr Wilson said that it was simply an enabling power that he hoped would never be used. The proposer of the amendment said that he did not want the Minister to be using the provision “incredibly strongly”. The whole point is that, once the stick — that is, an enabling element — has been created, there cannot be a degree of control over when that stick is brought out, who it hits and how hard it hits them. Although I have every faith in my colleague the Minister of the Environment, in six months’ time, a new Minister from another party may be in office. We are talking about legislation, which gives a particular level of power to the Department, that will supersede the good sense that any individual may have. That is the first element of my reticence about the amendment.

Secondly, there is no doubt that there has been a very strong focus by councils on the issue over the past number of years. That focus has been necessary, even if they did not want it. For instance, anybody who has served on a council will know that the bill for waste and related issues, such as landfill, accounts for about 55% or 60% of expenditure for most councils. It will not be productive to add an extra burden to councils by creating a situation in which there is a higher level of uncertainty for them, in that they will not know what changes they will have to make to their methodology.

The amendment’s focus is the wrong way round. As has been highlighted, the amendment would advantage certain companies at the expense of others. However, it is not the recycling companies that are at fault. If there is an argument, it is about the differential way that some of councils approach the issue. If we are looking at any degree of corrective action, financial or other, as the Chairperson of the Committee discussed, I would have thought that the focus should surely be on finding ways that the Department can work with councils. The amendment takes the focus away from that.

There is a danger that, if agreed, the amendment would lead to a focus that would heavily advantage a small number of companies that, I suspect, have been fairly effective in their lobbying on the issue. However, it would disadvantage a large number of other companies. There are two problems with that. First, the market is evolving and developing. Consequently, we do not want to create any barriers to market entry. Indeed, we want to facilitate the widest range of choices. That is right from a broad philosophical viewpoint. From a council point of view, if we create a situation in which the market is extremely limited, and if we get into what could be described as a neo-monopoly-type situation, there is a danger of the leverage being entirely handed to those companies at the expense of the ratepayer. That will mean that we end up with councils paying through the nose to deal with waste. I think that there is a problem there.

Additionally, there is a concern that if very high standards are enforced, people’s natural reaction will be to shy away. If people feel that there will be some level of contamination, they will shy away from trying to recycle at all. Therefore, there could be a negative impact on recycling, because it could lead to a situation in which councils and individuals do not pass on waste in the first place. The end result will be a driving down in the amount of recycling.

I think that there is a more nuanced position for dealing with the issue. It probably lies in the relationship between the Department and the councils rather than in trying to restrict the market through the companies. Therefore, I want the philosophy behind the issue to be taken forward in a different way. If accepted, the amendment will be counterproductive to the end result that I am sure we all want to see. Therefore, I oppose the amendment.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I appreciate the mature debate that we are having on the amendment. I appreciate the rationale behind it. As others said, the amendment is well intentioned, but in light of new information, I cannot support it. I was at only a couple of meetings on the Bill, so I came to the issue late. It became clear that there was a difference of opinion between the companies on the matter. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment, however well intentioned.

Similar to others, I am concerned about the impact that the amendment would have on local government and, ultimately, the ratepayer. If agreed, the amendment would have serious financial implications for local authorities. I declare an interest as a councillor on Down District Council. Another implication is that more material would be deflected to landfill, which is not what we are trying to achieve. The amendment would send out mixed messages.

There is also a slightly hidden agenda. Perhaps somebody wants a waste stream with high calorific value to go for incineration to make incineration economically viable. I am not sure how well intentioned the amendment is.

As a local councillor and former member of Arc21, I have good knowledge of the waste industry. From a local government perspective, a huge amount of money is directed at recycling and, indeed, at the whole waste management programme. Anybody involved with local government will understand that. Should we seek to impose more financial burdens on local authorities at this time? A lot of legislation is coming from the Assembly to local government, and people are screaming out to keep the zero increase in rates. Therefore, it would be very difficult for local authorities to carry out what the Member is trying to achieve.

We have to ensure that there are more incentives for the public to do the right thing, whether that relates to co-mingled waste or kerbside collection. There should be more of the carrot, instead of the stick. There should also be incentives through grant aid for communities to improve their recycling. Housing estates with a threshold of good, uncontaminated recyclables should be rewarded with a grant to use for an environmental scheme in their locality. Such incentives would be much more beneficial.

As was outlined, councils were not consulted on the amendment. They did not bring it back to their members. NILGA, obviously, would have serious concerns, and I know that the LeasCheann Comhairle would have serious concerns. Have particular parties thought that through, even with their local government colleagues? It is OK saying something up here, but when it goes down to local government level, the same parties fight to throw it out. Sometimes, Members need to think things through and carry out a bit more consultation.