Northern Ireland Assembly, 25 January 2011

317 contributions from 52 members. The official report.

Private Members’ Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I advise the House that a valid petition of concern was presented yesterday, Monday 24 January, in relation to the third group of amendments that have been published for today’s Consideration Stage of the Caravans Bill. Amendment Nos 12, 13, 14 and 15, which make up group three, concern exemptions from licensing of sites. As the petition was presented yesterday, votes on those amendments will be decided on a cross-community basis and can be taken today.

Ministerial Statement

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I have received notice from the Minister for Social Development that he wishes to make a statement to the House.

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

Members will recall that I made a statement to the Assembly on 11 October 2010 announcing a fundamental review of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE). That work is ongoing, and an interim report is expected by March. At that time, I also advised that, following receipt of information about a series of allegations and investigations into how Housing Executive staff discharged their duties, I wanted to be satisfied, as I am sure Members will want to be, that the Housing Executive board’s governance systems are working effectively and that its staff operational systems are applied consistently.

At that time, I also decided that the permanent secretary should ask his internal auditor to lead a team to examine and to report on whether the appropriate information and structure is available to the board to ensure that it does, and can, effectively identify and manage risk; prevent and detect fraud and error; hold senior managers to account; and ensure that the organisation operates, and will operate, at the highest standards of corporate governance. The team will look at whether adequate controls are used to manage risk; the prevention and detection of fraud and error; performance, procurement and asset disposal, including in relation to land and property; and the procurement of repairs, maintenance, miscellaneous works and adaptations. The team will consider whether the organisation has, or can have, access to appropriately skilled and trained staff to allow it to operate in its current form while preparing for, and implementing, both organisational and cultural change. The team will also examine whether the seven principles of public life — selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership — are being implemented effectively throughout the organisation.

A major part of the review was carried out by a team of Northern Ireland Civil Service specialists, headed by the Department’s senior internal auditor. In addition, external specialist assistance was secured through the Department of Finance and Personnel’s Central Procurement Directorate for a gateway review of procedures for letting and managing Egan contracts, including controls over the prevention and detection of fraud and error. The gateway review was carried out by independent experts in that field. Moreover, the audit review team reported on an ongoing basis to an oversight panel, which was chaired by the permanent secretary and included independent membership. The purpose of that architecture was to provide a quick, robust, searching assessment of where NIHE was on contracts and governance and, critically, where it needed to be.

I first wish to address the gateway review, which was part of the twin-track review of the Housing Executive since October 2010. The gateway review was a dedicated and accelerated piece of work over a five-day period. It was a health check review of the Housing Executive’s programme of maintenance, repairs, support works and adaptations for Egan contracts. At its first meeting of the new year, I briefed the Social Development Committee on the broad contents of the gateway review, and a copy of the review report was forwarded to the Committee on Friday 21 January.

As regards the gateway review of procedures for letting and managing Egan contracts, the specialist team considered it important to record that it was evident to them that NIHE is driven by a strong desire to deliver a high-quality service to its tenants and to gain equally high levels of satisfaction from tenants for the service delivered. The board and senior management at the Housing Executive have embraced the need for ensuring that the procedures in place reflect best practice. However, it must be said that extensive transformation is required.

It is useful to note that a major change in management style was effected with the move to Egan contracts. The gateway review team found that, since the early part of this century, the day-to-day contract management of suppliers has been and is conducted in an appropriately non-adversarial manner that is consistent with good practice. However, the team concluded — and this is crucial — that the culture of non-adversarial management as the primary technique for managing contractor behaviour has created a weakness in the system that will need to be addressed. That is the extensive transformation to which I just referred.

Fourteen recommendations have been made, and they include that the Housing Executive produces and adopts a new corporate procurement vision and strategy; that all future contracts be drafted on the basis of the detail set out in the procurement strategies and that a report be produced to confirm that they meet the need and, in so far as can be determined, will be enforceable; and that the contract manager ensure that processes are put in place to recognise and to collect the evidence that may be needed to enforce any provision of the contract.

I now wish to spend a short time considering some of the recommendations. The gateway review team’s approach was fundamental, as can be witnessed from its very first recommendation, which is that NIHE produces and adopts a new corporate procurement vision and strategy, and from its series of sequential recommendations. In particular, recommendation E:

“We recommend that … attention is given to the form (detailed terms and conditions) so that the contract enables effective and enforceable management to be delivered.”

The reason for that recommendation was acknowledged in the following sentences:

“governance surrounding contract management was poor”;

and,

“there was a poor understanding of what needed to, or could be, done to instigate more formal contract management processes when a contractor was performing consistently badly.”

The report rightly acknowledges that the procurement team of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has a strong understanding of the procurement process and that its approach is sound, well managed and:

“best practice from the point of view of probity and risk management.”

The report also comments that the Egan approach was grounded in a partnership approach between the public body and the contractor. That principle is important; it has its place and creates a non-adversarial environment. Crucially, however, the report says that contract management:

“has become reliant on the effectiveness of relationships with contractors”.

I intend to address that point at some length as it is at the heart of the gateway report. All 14 recommendations are fully informed by that analysis, and the future should be strictly informed by it. The point is developed with the gateway review assessment of key performance indicators (KPIs). The Northern Ireland Housing Executive suggests that KPIs had become “the most significant control” over contracts and contractors. The gateway report did not accept that as the case under the current control regime, with KPI levels not embedded in the most recently issued tender.

Indeed, recommendations I and H state that KPIs “will not be enough to cover” any complex contracts currently being tendered. That important point is developed in the penultimate paragraphs of part 6 of the gateway review, which offers three options to contracts currently being tendered. The review states:

“The options are:

For the contracts to continue and negotiations post contract with successful suppliers to reduce the risk;

For the contracts to be adapted as well as possible in the time available and to proceed with a reduced but present risk;

For the contract process to be delayed until later in 2011 with an extension of the existing contracts so that appropriate time can be given to improving the procurement”.

That is an essential point: contracts are being tendered, but the process does not satisfy the recommendations of the gateway review. Consequently, I agree with the review that contracts currently out for tender should become a baseline for future contractual arrangements. Legal advice confirms that it is proper to delay the contract renewal process until later in 2011, with a short extension of existing contracts until the initiation of a new tender process, as informed by the gateway review recommendations, which will lead to a new regime of contract management, compliance and enforcement.

That is the way forward. I am determined that a new discipline and rigour should be applied to contracts. That is necessary to protect tenants’ needs, the Housing Executive’s authority, the interests of the Department for Social Development (DSD), and government expenditure. It is necessary to draw a clear line between the practice of yesterday and a better way for the future.

I stress that the 14 recommendations must be implemented in real time. As a demonstration of that approach, existing contracts will be extended for a short period while a new tender and contract process is developed that reflects and honours faithfully the recommendations of the gateway review team.

The second part of the intervention that I announced last autumn was a wider governance review of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Its purpose was self-evident: to give me, as Minister, and, I trust, the Committee for Social Development and the Assembly, the reassurance that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive will work effectively across a number of important areas in the immediate future.

As Members know, a series of internal and external investigations into the Housing Executive raised concerns that its governance systems were not sufficiently robust. The audit and governance report is a result of my intervention last autumn. It runs to 177 pages, including a lengthy appendix and 75 recommendations, and, like the gateway review, it is a comprehensive piece of work. Its content and conclusion confirm that the intervention last autumn was necessary, proportionate and timely.

As I said, the report contains 75 recommendations, 16 of which relate to “critical control issues”, which is a term used by the audit team, with 59 relating to developing existing policies and practices so that latest best practice can be embraced. I have accepted all the recommendations in full and without doubt.

The report acknowledges that there is “much evidence of good practice”. It also acknowledges that Housing Executive:

“management are being challenged and held to account”

and that the board has “appropriate structures” to effectively detail and manage risk.

However, the review team identified a range of critical control issues that weaken the governance structures and their effective operation. Recommendations on those include developing formal terms of reference for the board and all management committees, conducting a comprehensive review of the board’s standing orders and scheme of delegations, and reviewing risk management arrangements.

There are also a number of recommendations on land and property and on the procurement of repairs, maintenance, miscellaneous works and adaptations. For example, although the control framework that the Housing Executive established provides adequate controls over performance of maintenance works and the prevention and detection of fraud and error, there are a number of areas where controls could be strengthened. Those include recommendations on the level of information that is provided to the Housing Executive’s board and to the chief executive’s business committee, greater use of the repairs inspection unit, and a review of the KPIs that are used to measure the performance of contractors. That point was obviously touched on in the gateway review process.

The Northern Ireland Housing Executive has a number of effective human resources systems and processes in place, but there is imbalance in the workforce, particularly where the age profile of the organisation is concerned. Indeed, that has been debated in the Chamber before. If that imbalance is not addressed, a risk will be created that the organisation will lose significant knowledge, skills and experience. That point was made about the reform of another organisation in the past 15 years.

I will comment briefly on a number of the recommendations. The corporate governance recommendations are a pathway to enhance the capacity of the board and its structures. They are the right disciplines for any significant organisation to be in the right place when it comes to its conduct. The response maintenance recommendations are a broader narrative of the gateway report. I refer particularly to recommendations 41 and 42, and I consider recommendation 42 to be critical. It says that the Housing Executive should review its procedures for the inspection of response maintenance, including whether the size sampling is adequate.

The human resources recommendations are good management practice, and the recommendations on the seven principles of public life are important. They include conclusions to be drawn when current internal and external investigations are complete. Bearing in mind the scale of potential disposal, the asset disposal recommendations are an important group. The disciplines and processes for asset disposal must be in place, as should those for response and planned maintenance. I do not intend to comment further on this part of the report, although I will answer questions on it. It is of a significant scale, and it places substantial responsibility on the Housing Executive and DSD.

I think that several conclusions can be drawn from the reports, although that list is not exhaustive. First, it was necessary, and this has been proven to be the case, for me to commission the governance and gateway reports, respectively. The reports cover a range of territory and have been conducted and completed with considerable expediency and good practice. In their totality, and with full implementation, they offer a way forward. I acknowledge the work of both the teams that went into the Housing Executive. They had to act quickly, probe deeply and draw the right conclusions. In my view, the teams that went in, as well as the external oversight team, which was managed by the permanent secretary and included an independent expert, demonstrated what can be done very quickly to assess public bodies and to create the architecture and processes to put them in a better place.

Secondly, it is essential that all the reports’ recommendations are fully implemented, and are seen to be implemented, to ensure that best practice in governance and contract management prevails and confidence deepens. That is required without prejudice to the ongoing fundamental review of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Independent of the longer-term conclusions of the fundamental review, the shorter-term life of the Housing Executive must be informed, inter alia, by the two reports. That is why I have been provided with a draft implementation plan and why the Housing Executive is required to have a final plan endorsed by its board in February. Thereafter, I will forward the final implementation plan to the Committee for Social Development for its information.

Thirdly, the Housing Executive board and DSD must ensure that implementation occurs expeditiously and faithfully. I have accepted the reports and their recommendations in full, save, with the consent of DSD, the gateway review team or the oversight group, a rare exception where the recommendation might be slightly varied.

I welcome the endorsement of the reports by the chairperson and acting chief executive of the Housing Executive. However, my judgment is that the objective of quick and faithful implementation requires a level of oversight that is outside the jurisdiction of the board of the Housing Executive. That is why I am putting in place a new level of oversight through meetings every two months between the chairperson and vice chairperson of the board, its senior managers and me, as Minister; monthly meetings between the Housing Executive and the DSD permanent secretary and senior officials; and, critically, a panel of three people, chaired by the permanent secretary, with expertise in overseeing that important work. That latter decision borrows from a similar model that was deployed during the recent review, and it will include an independent person with expertise in providing a challenge function.

Fourthly, as was recommended by the gateway review, I shall invite the gateway team to conduct a short review of the NIHE implementation plan. I intend that that shall be done in advance of the plan going to the board of the Housing Executive in February.

Fifthly, I have instructed my permanent secretary to assess the conclusions of the gateway review against other contracts that are the responsibility of DSD. The Egan model is not particular to the Housing Executive. It emerged from considerations in the 1990s that saw Egan-type contracts being introduced across public bodies generally. Therefore, it might be possible to apply the gateway review recommendations to other DSD contracts. If it is possible, we should do so.

Sixthly, arising from the gateway review, if there can be application to contracts anywhere in government, we should do so. That is why I am copying the gateway review to the Minister of Finance and Personnel for his consideration. The permanent secretary of DSD has raised the report with the Central Procurement Directorate to determine whether it could be more widely applied to government contracts and considered by the panel of secretaries that deals with procurement matters.

In recognition of the issues that were commented on in the media, the Assembly and elsewhere, there was a need for a quick and robust response by DSD. In doing so, I followed the lead of my predecessor in the Department, Margaret Ritchie, who, during her time in office, demonstrated resolve and rigour around housing issues, including the new oversight regime for the business of housing associations and her initiatives to deal with issues that touched on the Housing Executive. This is an important point: when the previous Minister went into office, she enhanced the size of the housing division in DSD by 100% because she identified that there was a need for a more interventionist approach that was consistent with good evidence and due process for housing in Northern Ireland. The fact that a number of housing associations are suspended from the newbuild programme and the other issues that are ongoing in respect of housing associations, for example, is a consequence of the oversight and governance regime that drills down into the life of housing associations. That regime was put in place by my predecessor.

Housing has been a success story of the past 40 years. However, it requires reform in a positive image. My decisions are a demonstration of my belief that that is what we need to do. This statement is a further demonstration of where we need to go. I trust that colleagues across the Chamber will endorse my approach.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his statement. It contains many issues about which he and I share concern. I particularly welcome his final paragraph. Everyone on this side of the House would agree that there is a need for ongoing positive reform across the housing sector in Northern Ireland.

Both reports refer to the procurement and management of contracts by the Housing Executive. Worryingly, the gateway review indicates that key performance indicators were demonstrably too low and that contractual requirements were apparently not enforced by the Housing Executive. The review also appears to suggest that changes were made to contract documentation without legal oversight, which, apparently, could make contracts less enforceable. Will the Minister explain how the contracts situation arose and inform us of the cost of that to the taxpayer, if it has been quantified yet?

Furthermore, will the Minister indicate whether, in his view, some of the Housing Executive’s shortcomings in managing its contractors led to the poor performance that some Members and individuals across Northern Ireland experienced during the recent cold snap? Finally, the Minister outlined some changes to the governance of the Housing Executive, particularly to the monitoring of that governance. Notwithstanding the ongoing fundamental review, will he assure the House that he will not shy away from further change to the governance of the Housing Executive if, indeed, it proves to be necessary?

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

I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development for those questions. In particular, I welcome his recognition of the need for the reform in a positive image of the housing sector in Northern Ireland. I shall make a number of comments.

First, I will not shy away from or shirk the responsibility for driving reform. The one thing about which I was convinced before coming into this job, because of my past experience and responsibilities, and which has affirmed my views since, is the need for reform in a positive image of a wide range of public services and wider life in Northern Ireland. I am utterly convinced about it. That is not to discount or diminish the very significant contribution made by public bodies in the past 20, 30 and 40 years. In very adverse circumstances, the contribution of the leadership of public bodies, and a number of public bodies in particular, to moving Northern Ireland forward, keeping it stable and dealing with issues of need and disadvantage should, in my view, be acknowledged and applauded. However, just because we did business in that way in the past does not mean that it is the way in which we need to do it in the future. Whether it involves the Housing Executive, housing associations or a wide range of other organisations, such as the Belfast Harbour Commissioners, we need a new phase of deep reform in a positive image. I do not mean reform in the image promoted by the Tories, which causes strain and stress. I mean reform that will liberate organisations and people so that they can deliver in an even better way for people in Northern Ireland.

The Member asked about how that situation arose, which is an important question. Indeed, in the gateway review and, more particularly, in the governance review, one of the tasks set in the recommendations was to find out why certain things were managed in the way in which they were. For example, the Housing Executive is obliged to answer a question about a 2007 report that was meant to, but did not, go to an audit committee. The answer to that question will reveal why, as the Member indicated, certain things arose. I have part of that answer. In that case, a senior manager in the Housing Executive and people on the audit side of the Housing Executive had a difference of views about the critical issue of how a paper going to the audit committee should be managed. In that moment and in that difference of view, a process that, in my view, should have been followed through was not. Consequently, a report on how to manage certain affairs did not go to the audit committee until late in 2010, three years after the matter first arose.

Whilst I have asked the Housing Executive to indicate in more detail how that situation arose, people can see that, in the Housing Executive, the balance of relationships and the balance of authority between, on one hand, the senior management team and, on the other hand, the board and its structures needed to be reconfigured. That is what those reports tend to do.

The Member asked a legitimate question: does the gateway review give some insight into the management of heating and other contracts over the past month during the cold weather? That is a fair question and one that I asked myself, the Housing Executive and the Department. Was that a contributory factor to the difficulties that the Housing Executive had in the initial phase of response? My answer to that is two-tiered. Yes, there may be a shadow over the response of contractors to the cold weather that arose over the past month in the initial phase, and there may be a shadow over the gateway observations on how they handled the situation. However, on the other hand — this is the more substantial point — we demonstrated over the Christmas period that, although there were issues with the initial response and the initial performance of contractors, that situation was, in my view, substantially turned round because of hands-on management from the Department and the Housing Executive to ensure that, as fully as possible, contractors fulfilled the tens of thousands of contract orders that were placed over that time. Therefore, although there are clearly issues with contract management and contractor performance — that covers the full range of Housing Executive contractors — the hands-on, active and robust management of contractor performance, particularly after the weakness of the initial phase of response by the Housing Executive, demonstrated that we can turn a situation that was not as good as it should have been into a much better situation.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. It is incumbent on the Minister — I appreciate that the Chairperson raised the issue — to come to the House with a statement on the failures over the Christmas period. It is not only members of the Social Development Committee who have concerns about that; I am sure that members of his own party were lobbied about it over Christmas.

I have more questions about the Minister’s statement, as I am sure others do. They will proceed as they get into the detail. Given that, on appearance, there was no relationship between the Housing Executive and Land and Property Services, can the Minister clarify whether part of that ongoing review involves the disposal of land? Can he also advise whether features or elements of this investigation are connected to the issue that is subject to the internal and external investigation that is under way?

Lastly, I find it extraordinary that, on his party’s watch and almost at the end of its tenure, it is only now realising that there has been systemic failure at senior management level of the Housing Executive. That is absolutely extraordinary.

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

I thank the Member for her various observations. When I came to the House in the autumn to discuss this matter, a member of another party put it to me that a range of issues in the Housing Executive were not being handled or managed properly and asked what I, as Minister, was going to do about it. At that time, I made the point that at virtually no time in the previous three years and certainly not in any structured, substantial or evidence-based way, did the member of that party bring to the Housing Executive or to the then Minister for Social Development, Margaret Ritchie, the point that Ms Ní Chuilín has made about what she refers to as systemic failure.

I do not understand how Ms Ní Chuilín can say that she finds it extraordinary that it is only in the latter days of this mandate that the issues around the Housing Executive, whatever they might be, are being identified. If her party believed that there was systemic failure over the past one, two, three or four years, it had an obligation, politically and to its constituents, to bring that to the attention of the Housing Executive and the Minister for Social Development, to produce evidence that that was the case and to demonstrate that publicly and politically on the Floor of the Assembly and in the Committee for Social Development. Sinn Féin had an obligation to make that argument and prove that case, and it did not do so in any substantial, meaningful, structured, ongoing, reliable or credible way. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. You must allow the Minister to continue.

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

If people are now saying that there is systemic failure in the Housing Executive, they should have been saying it six months ago, a year ago, two years ago, three years ago and four years ago. Earlier, I spoke about what Margaret Ritchie did as Minister for Social Development. There was a sense that the housing sector in Northern Ireland had, for one reason or another, become detached from government and the Department and that, by and large, it was able to manage its own affairs with less political, ministerial or Assembly oversight. One of Minister Ritchie’s first actions was to create a new architecture in the Department to address that issue. You do not increase the size of housing division by 100% if you are not putting down a clear marker and structures to ensure that there is greater governance and proper accountability and oversight of the housing sector in Northern Ireland. All of what we have been able to do since then with the Housing Executive and housing associations is a consequence of that.

The Member said that there was systemic failure in the Housing Executive, and I said that that Member and her colleagues had not made that point in any serious or credible way previously. If there are failures in any public body — in this case the Housing Executive — it is the responsibility of Ministers who are in government and in power to go about addressing that, not to stand back and watch emergencies develop and step in long after the horse has bolted. I demonstrated that responsibility on my watch, building on the work of Margaret Ritchie. You do not conduct a fundamental review of the Housing Executive unless you are asking fundamental questions about the way forward. You do not conduct a rigorous gateway review unless you think that there are issues around contract management that need to be addressed. You do not have a governance audit to the extent that we have seen in the report unless you believe that there are issues and that you will have to drill down to ensure governance in the short term of the next weeks and months and next year or two while the fundamental review works itself through.

The Member might choose the words “systemic failure”, but the report says that the Housing Executive has good processes and structures in place and that there is a challenge function from the board to senior management but that that is not all that it should be and that, in an exhaustive and extensive way, we are addressing the failures. I will not use the words “systemic failure”. In my view, there were substantial failures that needed rigorous and robust correction, and that is what we are doing.

The Member asked about the disposal of sites. As she is undoubtedly indicating, there are references in the reports to the disposal of sites, especially in the governance report. There are references to the processes for the disposal of sites generally and the process that applied to two or three disposals in particular. As I said, I have tasked the Housing Executive to have an implementation report in respect of all of those matters endorsed by the February board meeting. I will share that implementation report with the Committee for Social Development, of which Ms Ní Chuilín is a member, and there will be full answers to all of that. However, the Housing Executive is not waiting for the February board meeting to take those matters forward. For example, the governance review stated that questions were asked about possible duplicate invoices, and the Housing Executive is already taking that matter forward.

The Housing Executive put in new systems to ensure that disposals of whatever value are handled appropriately. It has created a new principle that there should be a full economic appraisal of all disposals over £5,000 and another appraisal of any disposals of less than £5,000. The systems for the information that is given to the board of the Housing Executive and to the chief executive’s committees are already in place. If there are other issues around the disposal of sites, I reassure the Member that those questions will be asked and answered.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I congratulate the Minister on commissioning the report; it shows that he has a grip on the problem and that he will deal with it properly. It will be published openly, and that is to be welcomed. The Minister said that the Housing Executive will implement the recommendations, but when will an implementation plan be produced, and will it be made available?

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

I thank the Member for her question. The reports are being published, and, drilling down into them, one will see the significant scale of the recommendations, as well as the acknowledgement of the good processes, structures and management in the Housing Executive. Some sensitive matters are subject to investigation and, no doubt, will be of interest to a wide range of people. Given the importance of this matter, I said that I would come back to the Assembly on it. The full report should be published and not redacted so that, as Mrs Bradley said, everybody knows where things are and where they need to be and to ensure that there is a grip on all of that.

I have been provided with a draft implementation plan. I advised the Housing Executive’s acting chief executive and his senior managers that we require an implementation plan that responds fully and in detail to all the recommendations in both reports and has a timeline for the implementation of all the recommendations, mindful that many of them are already in place or are substantially in place. That should all be done in time for the February board meeting so that a report can come to me and then go to the Committee.

At all times, everything will be subject to external oversight, initially by the gateway review team looking at the implementation plan in respect of the recommendations to ensure that they are fit for purpose. The panel led by the permanent secretary will have an ongoing, hands-on oversight accountability role for all the recommendations.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome the two reports and the fact that they have been done so speedily. I also welcome the Minister’s decision to delay the Egan contract process. Members have received constituency enquiries about maintenance and repairs work.

The Minister mentioned the implementation plan that, hopefully, will be agreed in February. How long will the implementation plan take, and will there be a dedicated monitoring team to ensure that the implementation actions are taken? Also, how will that impact on the fundamental review of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which will, I hope, report soon?

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

I thank the Member for her questions. I want to emphasise her first point, which is that that work was done speedily. It came to the Assembly in mid-October 2010 and was turned around in good time. No matter how anyone wants to interpret the content and conclusions of both reports, they are extensive and exhaustive. They cover all bases and provide a pathway forward.

The best way to answer the Member’s question on how quickly all of this will be done is to take what I said in my opening statement about the gateways review’s recommendations on contracts. A number of tender processes for Egan contracts are ongoing. I could let them run their course, and, at their conclusion, contractors would be appointed to carry out a number of Egan responsibilities. However, that would be done on the basis of the old regime, of which the gateway review is critical.

I am not prepared to leave it to chance or luck that, at the end of that process, the disciplines, processes and accountability recommended by the gateway review would be built into the Egan contracts. That is why, as I said in my opening statement, the third option outlined in the concluding paragraphs of the gateway review report is the one that I will take. That will bring about a new tender process for Egan contracts, which will be initiated in late summer. That tender process will implement fully and faithfully the gateway review’s recommendation for the partnership model and will introduce into those contracts all necessary contractual terms and conditions, enforcement mechanisms and processes to ensure that there is a robust model that builds on the strengths of partnership and builds in enforcement disciplines. Between now and late summer, all of that will be done. With reference to Ms Lo’s question, that indicates the importance of the issue and the timeline.

I dealt with the issue of the dedicated monitoring team, which is external to the Housing Executive. The Member asked an important question about how that impacts on the fundamental review. The review is due to come forward with recommendations during March 2011. That work is ongoing and substantial. Consultants appointed to do that work are extremely active in attending to their business. If the fundamental review recommends a reconfiguration of the Housing Executive’s various functions and responsibilities, that will require discussion in the Assembly, agreement in the Executive and public consultation, followed by legislation. Unfortunately, as we know, in the Assembly — as is also the case in the Scottish Parliament — it takes at least two years for an idea or concept to mature into legislation. Consequently, independent of the fundamental review and any decisions that the Assembly might make in the fullness of time, the Housing Executive must put in place, now and in the weeks and months ahead, certainty and reassurance that it is able to carry out all of its functions, governance, contracts and everything in between. The fundamental review will make its recommendations, which, I believe, will be substantial and material. However, in the meantime, we must ensure that the Housing Executive reassures everyone in the Chamber and, in particular, its tenants, that, in all ways, it is fit for purpose.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I always encourage Members to come to their questions much sooner. In the debate, Members have been asking multiple questions. Therefore, quite obviously, the Minister feels that he must answer them all as far as possible because, on occasion, Members have accused Ministers of not answering questions.

Standing Orders are clear on ministerial statements: it is a question to the Minister on his statement. Quite a number of Members want in on the statement, so let us see if we can come to the question and the answer much sooner.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement. He said:

“Crucially, however, the report says that contract management: ‘has become reliant on the effectiveness of relationships with contractors’.”

Will the Minister outline the concerns with the relationships and the contractors and say why it is highlighted as a major issue of concern in the report?

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

I thank the Member for his question. I try to answer the questions that are asked; I do not try to pick and choose the easy from the hard, Mr Speaker. Mr Easton asked one question.

The Egan contracts had their birth in two reports in the 1990s. The Egan report was produced in 1998, and it was rolled out in Britain, particularly in MoD contracts. In the early part of this decade, it was rolled out in Northern Ireland. The Egan model has become the version used by the Housing Executive, government Departments and public bodies in the North.

The theme and mood in public life at that time was that, rather than government telling people that they had to perform in a certain way, they were to be encouraged to work in a partnership model. This Chamber, our Government and our society are testament to the need to have a partnership model. The partnership model is, therefore, valid and useful. The gateway report says that the partnership approach became the primary method of managing the Egan contracts and, therefore, the relationships between the contractor and the Housing Executive — and the individuals, the contractor and the Housing Executive — were paramount. The quality of the contract was informed and influenced by the quality of the partnership and relationship, one to the other. That is what is referred to. The partnership relationship became the primary mechanism to manage the contract.

The gateway report says that that is not a good model. Even in its purest sense, Egan is a partnership model, but, at the same time, it has within it the robust mechanisms to ensure that, where the partnership does not work, where the contractor is not performing or where the public body — in this case, the Housing Executive — is not able to rail at the contractors about how they should do their business, there is written into the contract the strict terms, conditions and enforcement mechanisms that enable action to be taken to rectify a situation in which the body has been let down. In the case of the Housing Executive, it has been let down, and the tenant has been let down even more. That is the point that was being made.

As I said to Ms Lo, we are going to extend the existing contracts for a short time and remodel the contracts to ensure that we welcome and encourage partnership as a method of dealing with contractors but, at the same time, put discipline into the contracts to ensure that there are means and ways of enforcing against any contractor who fails to fulfil the letter or spirit of the contract, to make sure that they do their job properly. If they do not, appropriate action will be taken.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Minister for his speech. We all hope that the board of the Housing Executive will be equipped with the tools to challenge all aspects of housing development and policy at the end of this procedure.

I am surprised that the Minister was surprised that there were serious problems with maintenance contracts in West Belfast, given that he is a Member for the constituency. Local community groups met two and a half years ago to discuss this issue and the local Housing Executive management was completely aware that there were serious problems in the delivery of maintenance contracts in west Belfast and other places. My colleague was one of the first people to bring to light the question of the sale —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Is there a question here?

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

There is a question somewhere in there. Will the Minister tell us whether the Egan maintenance contracts have been abused in their delivery by contractors or Housing Executive officials?

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

I thank the Member for his opening remarks. He thanked me and hoped that, at the end of this procedure — I do not think it is quite an operation — the board of the Housing Executive will be equipped to challenge its management. As the report states, it does challenge. However, let there be no doubt about it: it needs to challenge a lot more. I have spent a lot of time — some people would say a disproportionate amount of time — since the first week in July challenging the Housing Executive board and its senior managers about how they do many aspects of their business.

I did not use the word “surprised”, and Ms Ní Chuilín did not use the words “serious problems”. She used the words “systemic failure”. That was not about the contracts in west Belfast but about the Housing Executive per se. If Sinn Féin wants to make a point, it should at least make a consistent point. I challenge Ms Ní Chuilín on her use of the words “systemic failure”. There are substantial failures, but I am not going to beat up the Housing Executive recklessly.

In respect of the serious problems with the management of contracts, not only do I concur with the Member but my predecessor Margaret Ritchie also concurs with him. It was Margaret Ritchie who went to the Housing Executive, on the basis of advice and information that she had received, and said that she believed that the management of certain contracts needed to be investigated. As I have reported to the Chamber before, an exhaustive and extensive investigation was initiated and concluded a short while ago. As I indicated to the Social Development Committee last week, the investigation report has been passed to the contractor, who has been asked to reply by the end of the month.

Without prejudice to whether there are serious problems or not, an argument was made, and, as a consequence, action was taken by Margaret Ritchie. That process continues. I am not going to speak any further about that, because there is a process ongoing, and I have to make sure that I am on the right side of proper process in that matter. However, if there are serious problems, whether in relation to that matter or any other, let everybody be reassured that there is more than sufficient proof that, where issues were identified, action and intervention was taken by me and by my predecessor.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the fact that the Minister is here reporting back to us, and I welcome some of the recommendations in the report. I find it interesting that we are now looking at another level of oversight for the Housing Executive. What I cannot welcome is the fact that we needed the report. It is a condemnation of the Housing Executive and the way in which it has managed projects. In relation to the major projects and the failures that have been highlighted with regard to servicing those contracts and following up on issues and problems with them, the one thing that I do not see in the report is how outside bodies, that is, elected representatives, housing associations —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Member to come to his question.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

— other bodies or even tenants are able to report to or give feedback on the process. That would highlight the difficulties and problems that still exist whenever a contractor has walked away from a project and left it in a state of disrepair, which the public purse is then supposed to correct.

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

I thank Mr Craig for his question. In my view, there are times when, in order to move good public bodies to a far better place following difficult times, you need to have quite significant oversight structures and, as Mr Bradley said, quite a hands-on approach to get a grip on things.

I accept that the structure that we are creating of ministerial, permanent secretary and wider oversight of the Housing Executive is substantial. However, that is absolutely necessary. My experience over recent months has been that there are times when you have to manage what is going on in arm’s-length and public bodies more actively and robustly. That is the difference between Ministers being in government and being in power. There were examples in the recent past of Ministers certainly being in government but certainly not in power.

The Member knows that, if he brings a particular case to my attention, I try to look at it. That applies to all Members. In fact, it is in particular cases that you can begin to identify deeper issues or problems. So, if the Member is referring to a particular case when people walked away from their responsibilities, I would like to hear about it. Given the unprecedented weather over the past four or five weeks, the burdens and responsibilities that fell to the Housing Executive and its contractors and the experiences of too many tenants, I would be keen to hear of particular cases. Through particular cases I and others have identified wider weaknesses in the Housing Executive response. So, if the Member is referring to a particular case, I would like to hear about it so that we can reply in the particular as well as draw any wider conclusions.

With regard to the situation that we had in the autumn with political and wider comment, internal and external investigations and police involvement in one or two matters and given some of the headlines, it seemed to me that we needed to move quickly and decisively. That may not be a process that brings everybody with you, but it is necessary to ensure that all that should be done is getting done, and done in good time.

I came to the Assembly about this matter. I have come back to the Assembly, and I said that I would go back to Committee about the implementation plan when it is ready. I do not think that that will be the end of the conversation in the Chamber or in the Committee. If that has to develop and escalate further, I would welcome that.

I note what the Member is saying about tenants. I will look at that to see whether as a consequence of this work there is at least a wider notification, consultation or circulation of information and conclusions that can go to representative bodies, tenants’ groups and other organisations for them to realise that this is a work in progress. Indeed, we welcome any observations or comments that they have.

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

I welcome the Minister’s thorough statement and congratulate him on it. Here is one Minister who does not ignore or avoid problems and does not sleepwalk through his ministry.

Given the findings of those reports, particularly about procurement, can any general lesson be learned for the public sector? Those are pertinent to the way that procurement is carried out across the public sector.

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

I thank the Member for his observation that I do not sleepwalk through the Ministry. There were one or two occasions when I went into the Lighthouse Building after my children were up overnight, as Simon Hamilton would appreciate, when I wondered whether I was sleepwalking into the ministry.

My intuition tells me that there are general lessons to be learned from this. I encourage Members to spend a little time reading the reports, because there will probably be a need for a sea change in how government generally tenders, completes and appoints contractors. There is a need for a sea change.

At meetings of the Executive subgroup on the Budget, I raised questions and asked for a discussion — it has been agreed that we will have one — of how procurement in Northern Ireland works. In too many instances, procurement in Northern Ireland is process-driven and, in contrast to procurement in the European Community, does not acknowledge the need for sustainability in the appointment of tenders, which, when translated to a Northern Ireland context, would mean protection for small and medium-sized enterprises.

There is a need for a sea change in procurement. We should have competition, but we should also have legitimate mechanisms that protect indigenous suppliers and contractors, including the third sector and small and medium-sized enterprises. That is a broader point, over and above the gateway review of the Egan contracts.

I am writing to the Minister of Finance and Personnel on the issue and will enclose a copy of the report. The permanent secretary has brought the report to the attention of his colleagues in other Departments. There will be wider implications for any other Department that uses an Egan-type approach. My understanding is that, in the Department for Regional Development and the Department of Education, there is an Egan-type approach, subject to correction, as you can imagine would be required for Departments that deal with the maintenance of schools, roads etc. If there is any learning that can apply to those Departments or to any other Departments that have adopted that approach, it should be applied urgently. That also applies to Departments that have used Egan contracts or any of the other variations in contracts that need more rigour built into their terms and conditions.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the Minister explain why it has taken so long to report on one of the contractual arrangements involving the Housing Executive, namely the west Belfast maintenance contract? I have been asking him and his predecessor questions on that issue since March 2009. I also raised it with the Audit Office prior to that, because I thought that that was the proper procedure that all Members were supposed to follow. I have been asking questions about that ever since. To wait almost two years for this report is too long. The Minister has let down the people of west Belfast and the west Belfast district office of the Housing Executive. What is the Minister trying to hide? Is it the lack of leadership that he and his predecessor have shown on the issue? Or, is there something more sinister involved, such as a conflict of interest between senior Red Sky officials and senior Housing Executive officials? When will we be able to see the outcome of the report’s findings? I have been asking questions on the issue since 2009.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I ask the Member to come to his question.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

When I asked Margaret Ritchie about the Red Sky contract, she said that she was unable to provide an answer because it was an operational matter for the management of the Housing Executive. That proves that I have been asking questions on the issue since 2009, contrary to what the Minister said.

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

I note the press release that has just been read out to the Assembly.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I was asking questions.

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

I note the press release. The Member said that I am letting down the people of west Belfast, but that is not what the ‘Andersonstown News’ says.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

That is what I say.

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

I know that that is what you say, and we can all draw conclusions about why you say that. That is not what the ‘Andersonstown News’ says. The ‘Andersonstown News’ says that I have got the balance right.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage Members to make their comments through the Chair.

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

It says that I have the balance right between taking initiatives that count for local people and being strategic. People will probably understand that the ‘Andersonstown News’ is not necessarily closely linked to the SDLP. It is a very fine newspaper, and it is one of the best community newspapers on these islands. The voice of the ‘Andersonstown News’ is not consistent with the voice of Paul Maskey, and people can draw their own conclusions about who is letting people down as a consequence.

People need to be very, very careful when talking about such cases. The Member will know that criminal investigation and proper inquiry must not be compromised.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I have been asking since 2009.

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

As the Member is well aware, there have been a lot of cases in Northern Ireland since 2009. If we are to be exhaustive, follow due process and be seen to be independent and impartial, it takes some time to investigate such cases.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

You said that —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member must allow the Minister to continue.

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

I will deal with all Fra’s points. People must be careful that an ongoing inquiry, such as the Member referred to, or any other criminal or internal investigation is not compromised. That is why the suggestion that people are trying to hide something is inconsistent with the facts and the ongoing process. It is simply headline grabbing for political purposes, without responsibility to bear down on the issues to get to the truth or to draw conclusions from the evidence.

There have been occasional passing comments from Mr Maskey and his colleagues about a lack of leadership. However, those do not amount to a thorough response to what Mr Maskey’s colleague called a systemic failure. Such comments are a slapdash, casual and superficial approach, not a serious attempt to deal with the issue. If there was systemic failure, Members should be shouting from the hills and demanding special meetings of the Committee for Social Development, yet they have failed to do so. Those Members should not try to cover their tracks belatedly because of their failure to deal with the issue as they now claim it should have been dealt with. They should not portray anyone as demonstrating a lack of leadership, especially not Margaret Ritchie. The ongoing investigations stem from her input and concerns.

As I said, a report on one issue was concluded some weeks ago, and the contractor concerned has until the end of the month to reply to it. Each and every time an issue arises about the Housing Executive, action is taken to ensure that anything that needs to be investigated is investigated and the truth prevails. That was also mentioned in the governance report. I have made it clear to the board, the chief executive and the chairperson of the Housing Executive that, if the evidence leads to certain conclusions about individuals inside or outside the Housing Executive, whether now or in the past, so be it. People will have to live with the consequences of where the evidence leads.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I apologise to the Minister for missing the first part of his statement due to unforeseen circumstances. In his statement, the Minister twice referred to the wider governance review and the imbalance in the workforce of the Housing Executive. The Minister will be aware that opportunities for employment in the housing sector were central to some of the early problems of the Troubles 40 years ago. Then we had no monitoring of the workforce, Equality Commission or rigid and robust guidelines to ensure that employers offered equal employment opportunities. We now have all those things, yet the Housing Executive has reported a year-on-year under-representation of the Protestant community in its workforce for the past 12 years. Will the Minister ensure that the wider review addresses that issue and does something about it?

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

I welcome the Member’s question and the implication of what he said. Having rigid guidelines, an Equality Commission, equality and equality enforcement architecture in Northern Ireland has helped to move us to a situation whereby, although there is not a balance in all workplaces, there is more balance across most workplaces. I welcome what appears to be a belated endorsement of the argument made by many over the past 30 or 40 years that we needed equality law, architecture and enforcement to create a better situation.

This was a no-holds-barred process, and the gateway review and governance audit teams were explicitly and clearly instructed to say what needed to be said. It would have been easy for me, Mr Campbell, to get someone to whisper in someone else’s ear and advise them not to get involved in certain issues. The people involved in the review were given a clear mandate to comment on any issues of governance, audit and contractual performance that they deemed necessary. We are in a better place. Consequently, they acknowledged, as have Mr Campbell and I and as the House has debated before, that there is an imbalance in the workforce. Consistent with best equality law and the rigid guidelines to which Mr Campbell referred, the Housing Executive has in place the means and tools to address the equality issue. That is work in progress, and I hope that it will improve the overall balance. I trust that Mr Campbell will support tackling the much wider issues of imbalance, especially in the senior ranks of the Civil Service and in other public organisations and Departments.

We also have to deal with other imbalances. If the Housing Executive is to mature in the next phase of its life, it needs to have the internal capacity and personnel to develop and lead the organisation. An emerging problem in the Housing Executive — it could exist in a range of other organisations — is that the age profile means that a lot of people of senior rank could move into retirement in the near future or medium term, leaving a capacity and leadership gap. There needs to be succession planning to ensure that the Housing Executive’s great work over the past 40 years can be taken forward by its leadership and by individuals over the next 20 years.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The governance report mentions a range of overspend from as little as £34 to approximately £600,000. Obviously, that is a wide spectrum. Will the Minister give us details of the numbers in between and what those amounts might total?

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

I thank the Member for his question, and I thank all Members who have taken part in the debate. My sense of the discussion and questions so far is of an acknowledgement that the review has been an exhaustive and critical piece of work in moving the Housing Executive to a different place. I acknowledge that the sense that comes from all Members’ questions is that the review was a worthwhile exercise and that, subject to full and faithful implementation, the Housing Executive and the housing sector will be in a better place.

I also want to acknowledge that the people at senior management and senior board level in the Housing Executive are absolutely committed to the process. When I met the chief executive of the Housing Executive before Christmas, he had, at that stage, drafted an interim implementation plan. Senior people in the organisation know that the measure of them and of their leadership is the implementation of all the recommendations. I am satisfied that they are applying themselves diligently to that task and will do so over the next four weeks.

I meant to say in my opening statement that because the review is so extensive, I am not fully on top of some issues. [Interruption.] I hold my hands up to Mr McCann. I will come back to the Member on particular matters that may arise. Overspend is clearly a matter that the Housing Executive board will have to address in the implementation plan. It will have to answer to me when it draws its conclusions.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Minister’s statement is very lengthy. It is just a pity that we did not receive as lengthy a statement outlining the catastrophic failings of the Housing Executive over the Christmas period, when it walked away and left some tenants to fend for themselves. The Minister’s statement may be lengthy, but I suspect that, when analysed, it does not say a lot. Will the Minister assure us today that, as a result of his statement and the latest inquiry that he initiated, the massive expenditure by the Housing Executive will stop? He sent me an answer informing me that the Housing Executive and the Department for Social Development have spent something like £500,000 over the past three years on conferences. Does he feel that that is the best way to spend money? Would it not be much better spent on front line housing services?

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

I thank Lord Morrow for his questions. Throughout the past four weeks, I have said that the Housing Executive’s response was not what it should have been during the initial phase of the unprecedented weather conditions. Unlike other Ministers, before Christmas, I rolled up my arms and tried to get a grip of the situation.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Arms or sleeves?

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

I am sorry: I rolled up my sleeves. I am a man of many skills.

I did that to ensure that the circumstances that might be developing in the run-up to Christmas were alleviated. I do not think that other Ministers did the same. Before Christmas, I tried to prevail upon London to release additional moneys to help people in need. I wrote to OFMDFM and asked for an emergency Executive meeting to help manage the situation. All of that would have added to the corporate response and the departmental responses to the situations that arose. I think that I was interventionist when it came to trying to manage the Christmas period, but I acknowledge that, even though I laid down requirements for the Housing Executive in respect of the response to the cold weather, the response was not all that it should have been in the initial phase. I said so publicly at the time, and I have said so repeatedly. I have come to Members. I went to the Social Development Committee last week to outline a number of matters and was fully prepared to speak at length in respect of the Housing Executive and housing associations’ response to the cold weather. I welcome the opportunity to come back to the Committee next Thursday in that regard. To show respect to the Committee, a written statement will be released to all Members at the same time as I meet the Social Development Committee about the winter response.

The point is that there were issues in the initial phase which should not have arisen. Questions have to be asked of the Housing Executive board and, in my view, questions can properly be raised at other levels as well. However, during the subsequent phases, the Housing Executive and the housing associations, where the problem was much less acute because of the recent character of the stock, addressed issues more substantially. I acknowledge the members of the Housing Executive staff and the contractors who stretched themselves over a difficult period to deal with tenants’ needs. Yes, there were times when tenants could have expected more. I do not walk away from that. However, the full narrative of that period shows that this organisation measured up to its task despite the earlier period, whereas, clearly, other organisations did not.

I completely and utterly agree with the Member’s last point. My permanent secretary and senior officials will confirm that I have interrogated DSD, the Social Security Agency, the child maintenance division, the Housing Executive and everyone in between about expenditure on conferences, travel and accommodation. It is extravagant and unacceptable. I have told them to reduce it, and it is being reduced. I sent out a further directive in my Department about two weeks ago to reduce spending on conferences and associated costs even further. I completely agree with the Member in that regard.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an ráiteas a thug sé dúinn inniu agus gabhaim buíochas leis fosta as an bhealach fheidhmiúil a ndeachaigh sé i mbun na tuairiscí seo a thabhairt chun tosaigh.

I commend the Minister for his proactive approach in commissioning the reports, which, presumably, will inform the wider fundamental review of the Housing Executive. Will he give an update on that review? How will those two reports feed into the wider review?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Time is almost up. I must ask the Minister to make a quick response.

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

I appreciate that advice, Mr Speaker. The fundamental review is ongoing, as I have indicated, and an interim report will be available in March. It will be a no-holds-barred report. I have told the consultants that they need to come forward with any and all options, be they conservative or radical, when it comes to the future character of the Housing Executive. I believe that there will be a Housing Executive going forward; I am committed to a Housing Executive going forward. Its shape and configuration might be somewhat different, but that is subject to the evidence gathered and the outcome of the fundamental review.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

That ends questions on the ministerial statement. I ask the House to take its ease as we move to the Consideration Stage of the Local Government Finance Bill.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that the Minister did not mention any names when he said that individual Members were not doing their work by reading the draft report. If he looks at his own office and the questions that I have posed to it in recent years on a particular contract in West Belfast, it is clear that work was not done.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. That is not a point of order, although the Member has certainly got his remark on the record.

Executive Committee Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I call the Minister of the Environment to move the Consideration Stage of the Local Government (Finance) Bill.

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

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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 and 2 and amendment Nos 4 to 13, which deal with delegated powers in the Bill and some technical changes. The second debate will be on amendment No 3, which aims to prevent the Department from reducing mid-year the amount of rates support grant awarded to a council.

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 in the Bill. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Clauses 1 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 (Security for money borrowed, etc.)

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment No 2 and amendment Nos 4 to 13. The amendments deal with delegated powers and technical changes to the Bill.

Members will note that amendment No 4 is a paving amendment for amendment No 6; amendment No 5 is a paving amendment for amendment No 12; and amendment Nos 8, 9, 10 and 11 are consequential to amendment No 7.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 8, line 27, leave out “made subject to negative resolution”.

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: In page 8, line 29, at end insert

“(10) An order shall not be made under subsection (9) unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Assembly.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 4: In clause 27, page 9, leave out lines 33 to 35. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 5: In clause 27, page 9, leave out lines 40 and 41. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 6: In clause 27, page 10, line 5, at end insert

“(9A) A council shall give the Department such information for the purpose of the calculation mentioned in subsection (5), at such time and in such form as the Department may determine.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 7: In clause 32, page 12, line 9, leave out “chairman” and insert “chairperson”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 8: In clause 32, page 12, line 10, leave out “vice-chairman” and insert “vice-chairperson”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 9: In clause 32, page 12, line 12, leave out “chairman or vice-chairman” and insert “chairperson or vice-chairperson”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 10: In clause 39, page 14, line 28, leave out “chairman” and insert “chairperson”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 11: In clause 39, page 14, line 29, leave out “chairman” and insert “chairperson”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 12: In clause 43, page 16, line 20, at end insert

“(2) Regulations and orders under this Act may contain such incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitory or saving provisions as the Department thinks necessary or expedient.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

No 13: In schedule 1, page 18, line 18, at end insert

“The Deregulation and Contracting Out (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (NI 11)

5A. In Schedule 4 (restrictions on disclosure of information), in the definition of ‘chief financial officer’ in paragraph 7(3), for ‘148(1) of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972’ substitute ‘42 of the Local Government Finance Act (Northern Ireland) 2011’.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

A number of these amendments arise from recomm­endations that the Environment Committee made at Committee Stage. I thank Committee members for their helpful recommendations and their timely scrutiny of the Bill.

All the amendments in the group are technical in nature. Amendment Nos 1 and 2 concern the level of Assembly control stipulated in relation to one of the delegated powers in the Bill. Clause 24 makes provision for security for money borrowed by a council and for the appointment by the High Court of a receiver in the event of a default. Subsection (8) provides that an application to appoint a receiver may not be made unless the amount owed is £10,000 or more. As it stands, subsection (9) enables my Department to change that amount by means of an Order, subject to negative resolution. The Committee, acting on advice from the Examiner of Statutory Rules, has recommended that such an Order be subject to the affirmative procedure.

The reason for that is that an Order under clause 24(9) would bring about a direct amendment of the Bill in respect of a jurisdiction of the High Court and should, therefore, attract a higher level of Assembly scrutiny than the negative resolution procedure currently provided for. I agree with the Environment Committee’s recommendation. Amendment No 1 will remove from subsection (9) the words that state that an Order for that purpose should be subject to negative resolution. Amendment No 2 will provide for such an Order to be subject to draft affirmative procedure. Those two amendments need to be considered in tandem, and I urge Members to support them.

Amendment No 4 is linked to amendment No 6 as they are both concerned with the means of collecting information from councils for the calculation of the rates support grant. Clause 27 makes provision for the rates support grant by bringing forward the existing provision for the resources element of the general grant for the local government miscellaneous provisions. As in the 2002 Order, clause 27(5) gives my Department the power to make regulations, subject to draft affirmative procedure, on how the grant is to be calculated. The current regulations for the general grant, which were made under the 2002 Order, include a pro forma of the information that councils need to provide for the grant calculation.

The purposes of amendment Nos 4 and 6 is to allow the means of requesting information used in the calculation of this grant to be sought by departmental determination rather than by means of a pro forma stipulated in regulations. That will allow technical updates to accounting practices that do not affect the calculation of the grant to be taken forward promptly via departmental determination and rather than through the draft affirmative subordinate legislative route. I had emphasised that the formula and calculation of the rates support grant will not be influenced by the amendment. Its purpose is to enable my Department to reflect any technical updates to accounting practices in a timelier manner and to avoid unnecessary draft affirmative legislation.

Amendment No 6 will add a new subsection, shown in the Marshalled List as subsection (9A), to clause 27, which gives my Department power to seek this information from councils via determination. As a consequence, amendment No 4 to subsection (5C) is needed to remove my Department’s ability to regulate in the matter. I urge Members to support those amendments.

Amendment No 5 is a technical amendment that is linked to amendment No 12. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will give the background to both of those amendments simultaneously. It is customary to provide that subordinate legislation made under any of the enabling powers in a Bill may contain any incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitory or saving provisions. Currently, the Bill only makes that provision regarding regulations under clause 27 in respect of the rates support grant. I recommend that it should extend to all regulations or Orders made under the powers in the Bill.

Amendment No 5 to clause 27 is technical and does not change the provision that the rates support grant regulations may include such incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitory or saving provision as considered expedient or necessary. Instead, it simply moves the provision to clause 43, where it will apply to all regulations and Orders made under the powers in the Bill. The amendment to clause 43 is tabled as amendment No 12.

Amendment Nos 7 to 11 were recommended by the Environment Committee in the interests of gender-neutral drafting. Those amendments are technical in nature and do not involve any change of policy. Part 3 of the Local Government Finance Bill updates the legislative framework concerning payments to councillors, the greater part of which currently sits in Part V of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972.

Clause 32 provides for the payment of allowances to the chairman and, where applicable, vice-chairman of the council. The terms “chairman” and “vice-chairman” were used in clause 32 as they refer to the offices established under sections 11 and 13 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972. The terms were preserved in the Bill, as introduced, in order to maintain a connection with the 1972 Act. During Committee Stage, the Environment Committee noted the use of the terms in clause 32 and recommended that the Bill should be amended to replace them with gender-neutral terms. That proposal will not change the provision permitting a council to pay allowances to its chair or vice-chair. As the Assembly is committed to the use of gender-neutral language in the drafting of legislation, I accept the Environment Committee’s recommendation. I have tabled amendment Nos 7 to 9 accordingly to amend all the references in clause 32 to “chairman” and “vice-chairman”.

Amendment Nos 10 and 11 also relate to gender-neutral drafting. Clause 39 provides for payments regarding public appeals and re-enacts without amendment the current provision of section 115(1A) of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972. Amendment Nos 10 and 11 will replace the references to “chairman” in clause 39 with “chairperson” for the purposes of gender-neutral drafting and will not impact on a council’s powers to make payments in connection with public appeals. I urge Members to accept amendment Nos 7 to 11 so that the Bill may achieve consistency.

I already explained the background to amendment No 12 in my introduction of amendment No 5. However, I will summarise by reminding Members that amendment No 12 is technical and does not affect the level of Assembly scrutiny or any regulations or Orders made under the powers in the Bill. It is simply a general provision that any regulations or Orders made under the Bill may include such incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitory or saving provisions as considered expedient or necessary.

The last amendment in this group, amendment No 13, is the addition of the Deregulation and Contracting Out (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 to the schedule of minor and consequential amendments. It will ensure that the definition of the term “chief financial officer” in that Order will refer to the Local Government Finance Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. That will not impact on policy; it is merely a matter of updating a legislative reference. I ask all Members to support these amendments.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ar son an Choiste Comhshaoil, ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Bhille um maoiniú rialtais áitiúil.

On behalf of the Environment Committee, I welcome the Consideration Stage of the Local Government Finance Bill. The Bill may not seem particularly important or relevant to the ordinary person on the street. However, having gone through a detailed scrutiny of it, I can say with confidence that the Bill has the potential to impact on every citizen in the North, because it gives local authorities more powers to handle their finances.

The main aim of the Bill is to modernise the current legislative framework for local government finance and councillors’ remuneration. It will allow district councils to have greater freedom to manage their financial affairs without having to obtain consent from the Department. However, that, of course, is a double-edged sword, and with more powers must come more responsibility.

The robustness of the audit process exercised the Committee on several occasions during Committee Stage. Before I go into detail on the amendments, I will bring your attention, a LeasCheann Comhairle, to the Committee’s recommendation that, in conjunction with the implementation of the Bill, the audit process should be reviewed and, if necessary, strengthened. We would welcome a commitment from the Minister today that that will take place.

The Bill was referred to the Committee on 28 April 2010, and, to ensure that there was enough time to scrutinise the Bill fully and effectively, the Committee sought an extension to December 2010. Even with the officials’ constructive approach and the good working relationship between the Department and the Committee, it took us almost all that time to scrutinise the Bill in depth. The Committee’s detailed scrutiny led to five recommendations, and I am pleased to report that the Minister has taken on board all except one of the Committee’s recommendations for amendments. I thank the Minister for listening to the Committee and for taking those recommendations on board. However, I urge him to reconsider the reconsider the Committee’s amendment, which I will explain in detail in the debate on the next group of amendments.

Before I talk about the amendments in detail, I wish to mention a very significant issue that is relevant to the Bill. The Committee is keen to see the inclusion of social clauses in public procurement contracts, and it questioned the Department about including the necessary legislation in the Bill. However, the Committee was delighted to learn that the restrictions to social clauses are being dealt with through subordinate legislation and that work on that is already under way. The Committee urges the Department to progress that rapidly.

I will now comment on the first group of amendments. The 12 amendments in this group have all been tabled by the Minister. However, as I mentioned, the Committee several of those amendments were recommended to improve the Bill. First, the Committee wanted to see the level of Assembly scrutiny raised to the highest level should the Department choose to exercise its powers to substitute a different sum of money for the amount at which a receiver may be appointed. The amount is currently set at £10,000, but the Bill gives the Department power to alter that. The Committee felt that, because it would directly amend the Bill in respect of the jurisdiction of the High Court, it was important that a decision to change it should come before the Assembly to be affirmed. Amendment Nos 1 and 2 make the necessary changes, and, on behalf of the Committee, I welcome the Minister’s amendments to clause 24 accordingly.

I will now skip to amendment Nos 7 to 11, which have been tabled by the Department on the Committee’s recommendation. Mindful of the Executive’s commitment to draft their legislation in gender-neutral terms, the Committee was concerned to see reference to “chairman” and “vice-chairman” in the Bill. Although members recognise the validity of the Department’s rationale that this is in keeping with local government legislation, it called on the Department to make the necessary changes to bring the legislation into the twenty-first century. On behalf of the Committee, I therefore welcome these five amendments that achieve that.

Amendment Nos 4 and 6 were brought during Committee Stage of the Bill, and the Department explained that they will allow the information it requires to calculate the rates support grant by determination rather than pro forma. Officials assured the Committee that this would not affect the formula, the calculation of the rates support grant or the elements to be taken into account of in the calculation, but they would allow the Department sufficient flexibility to adjust the new accounting practices without having to bring subordinate legislation to the Assembly for approval each time. On the basis of that assurance, the Committee accepted the amendments. On behalf of the Committee, I support amendment Nos 4 and 6.

I turn to amendment Nos 5 and 13, as one is consequential to the other. The Committee was advised of these amendments during Committee Stage and accepted that they were to allow for the addition of a further Statutory Instrument to schedule 1. I support amendment Nos 5 and 13 on behalf of the Committee accordingly.

Amendment No 12 was also brought by the Department during Committee Stage, and the Committee accepted the Department’s explanation for its inclusion. The Committee understands that it is common practice for primary legislation to contain a provision to allow orders and regulations to be made in order to include such incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitory or saving provisions as may be required. However, in the Bill as drafted, that only applied to a single clause. The amendment broadens that to apply it to the entire Bill. Therefore, on behalf of the Committee, I also accept amendment No 12. That concludes the Committees’ position on the amendments in group 1.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I am also pleased to speak at this Consideration Stage, especially as the Bill’s intent is to make life easier for councils in managing their finances. I will be very brief. My biggest concern with these eases is around asking for extra or stronger auditing of councils. There will have to be some hand-holding of councils, which all interpret things in different ways at the moment, to ensure that they fully understand how to make the most of this new freedom and of the controls and the risk element that comes with it. I do not want the Department to be seen to be heavy handed or to be the regulator or the punisher, although it will have its position in the audit. We need very strong guidance to help councils make the most of these new regulations.

I fully support amendment Nos 1 and 2, which require draft affirmative resolution to be brought if we wish to change the figure of £10,000 above which a receiver should be involved. Amendments Nos 4 and 6 are technical amendments, which relate to the rates support grant and its determination. It is good that the Department says that it will talk to councils and will have the power, through this Bill, to determine the grant. However, the report states that in-year cuts in the rates support grant or the resources grant were unique or exceptional, yet we know that, in the Budget this year, there will be a reduction of £1·2 million in the resources grant. Those grants are incredibly important to the councils. Therefore, I ask the Minister and Department to make sure that councils know of those matters well in advance.

We fully agree with amendment Nos 7 to 11, which deal with gender-neutral drafting. We also fully support amendment Nos 5, 12 and 13, which are technical.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I call Dr Stephen Farry.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker — I am sorry; Mr Speaker. I demoted you there by accident. I declare an interest as a member of North Down Borough Council. We regard the amendments in this group as being largely technical, although we obviously strongly welcome the gender-neutral language and wonder why it was written any other way in the first place. We give our full support to the amendments in this group, and there is probably little more to be said at this stage. We will have more to say about the second group of amendments.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I declare an interest as a member of Down District Council. Sinn Féin supports the first group of amendments.

The main aim of the Bill is to allow councils greater flexibility to manage their financial affairs without having to go continually to the Department, which is time-consuming for the Department and councils. Having to do that brings a great deal of uncertainty to the rolling out of council plans. With that responsibility comes a greater scrutiny role, which the Chairperson mentioned. Greater audit powers may be required, and, as Danny Kinahan said, we need strong guidance for councils in that regard.

I joined the Committee for the Environment relatively late in the Bill’s Committee Stage, so most of the Committee work had already been carried out — luckily enough, says the Chairperson. One of the main issues that I raised came about when a NILGA delegation gave a presentation: social clauses regarding procurement by council. When councils carry out major procurement for the likes of leisure centres, headquarters and stuff like that, meaningful apprenticeships and job opportunities should be given to the long-term unemployed from the area. I am glad to hear that the subordinate legislation will deal with that, and I look forward to it coming through the Committee.

Finally, amendment Nos 7 to 11 deal with the gender-neutral terms in the legislation. That has to be welcomed, because the titles “chairman” and “vice-chairman” are not appropriate in this day and age in relation to equality for our female colleagues who are councillors, MLAs or whatever. If women are to be encouraged into politics, a neutral atmosphere needs to be provided. When I became my council’s chairman, I wanted to be known as the chairperson. That caused a great deal of difficulty, which was all down to dinosaur local government legislation. As I say, we need to promote a good neutral environment for women in council chambers. Sinn Féin supports the amendments.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank Members for the issues that they raised during the debate. I will cover them quite quickly. The issue of audit is always available for review. Audit procedures need to be effective, efficient and understandable so that councils know exactly where they stand, what they are permitted to do and so forth. On some occasions, there has been a degree of confusion, which has not always led to best practice. Sometimes, there have been attempts to resolve issues in a very ham-fisted way, so audit procedures need to be reviewed constantly. Should matters arise, we would be quite happy to look at those issues.

We are finalising the consultation document on the social clauses introduced by the subordinate legislation, and it will be issued in the near future. I am very keen that local authorities are able, as far as possible, to use local businesses, so long as they provide and demonstrate value for money. However, sometimes, only very small savings — a few pence or a few pounds — can be achieved in the process. Ultimately, that leads to the loss of local jobs, which does not benefit local communities, so we will look at all that to see whether we can move the issue forward.

My officials have been working on supporting councils in the early stages of the new financial regime, and we will continue to work with our local government counterparts to ensure that councils are assisted, and, where necessary, we will offer further assistance with the introduction of the new financial regime. So, we are very happy to address the matter raised by Mr Kinahan, and I thank Members for their support for the amendments thus far.

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

Amendment No 2 made: In page 8, line 29, at end insert

“(10) An order shall not be made under subsection (9) unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Assembly.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mr Poots).]

Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 (Rates support grant)

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

We now come to the second group of amendments for debate. There is only one amendment — amendment No 3 — which aims to prevent the Department from reducing mid-year the amount of rates support grant awarded to a council.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to move amendment No 3: In page 9, line 26, at end insert

“and shall not be reduced during the financial year in question”.

I shall explain the Committee’s reasons for tabling amendment No 3. On 23 July 2010, during Committee Stage, the Department announced that the rates support grant was to be cut. For those more familiar with the old terminology, that refers to the resource element of the general grant. The Minister was at pains to stress that it was not a common occurrence and that it was not something that he took lightly. Nonetheless, 18 councils in receipt of a rates support grant received an in-year cut of 5·9%. The impact on councils varied, but, in total, it amounted to £1·1 million being taken out of the local government economy overnight. Not all councils receive the rates support grant, which is calculated using a formula in order to support councils whose wealth per capita falls below the national average. Consequently, only councils that are already under financial pressure receive it.

The problem does not lie in the formula. Indeed, based on submissions to the Committee, it would be fair to say that councils are generally happy with the present statutory formula under current local government arrangements. The problem lies with the fact that the grant can be cut during the financial year. As anyone here who has been a councillor knows fine well, an in-year reduction in funds is very difficult for a council to manage. Once a council has struck its rate for the year, it cannot go back to its citizens to ask for more until the following year. This was a clear case of the Department changing the goalposts mid-game, which the Committee believed was not acceptable or fair. Members certainly recognised that the Department’s budget was under pressure at the time, but the in-year monitoring-round process gives more flexibility than councils have.

The Committee was informed that the Minister told councils recently that, due to the severe financial challenges facing his Department, he cannot rule out further in-year cuts in future years. That could lead to some councils that are in receipt of the highest support grants losing millions of pounds, result in rates going up by as much as 25% and put ratepayers in those districts at a distinct disadvantage. The Committee, therefore, felt that the opportunity should be taken to prevent such a decision being taken again. Members fully acknowledged that the Department has to cut its cloth accordingly and, indeed, acknowledged the necessity for that in its recent scrutiny of the budget proposals. However, that should be done at the start of the year, allowing councils to strike their rates accordingly. The amendment will mean that once the rates support grant has been agreed, it will be ring-fenced, and the councils will be able to budget in the certain knowledge that that will not be altered during the year.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

At the start, I should declare an interest as a member of North Down Borough Council. However, other Members might have an even greater interest because, directly speaking, the rates support grant does not financially aid north Down in any way. One can draw conclusions on whether I have an interest in the matter or not.

I will oppose the amendment. However, I do not do so without sympathy towards it. I and others have been in the position of looking at finance and setting rates at council level, and, understandably, we do not want a situation in which something is imported in the middle of the rates process that could affect it. Consequently — I am sure that the Minister will agree — we should, as far as possible, avoid any situation in which there is an in-year cut; it is not something that would be embraced by the Minister of the Environment or any other Minister, because it is not good practice.

However, there is a distinction between what is broadly good practice and what should be a legislative requirement. The problem with the amendment is that it ring-fences that to prevent it ever happening from a legislative point of view. That is not the case with any other part of the Minister’s budget or with pretty much any other Minister’s budget. The amendment would put us in a unique situation in which one aspect of the budget could not be touched but any other aspect is open to be changed in-year. As we have seen from experience, there can be circumstances whereby a financial tsunami hits Northern Ireland, and we could end up in a situation in which we are overwhelmed by circumstances and in which action needs to be taken quite swiftly.

Perhaps a more likely situation is that we may yet get hit by another, unannounced, cut from George Osborne that is simply imposed on the Executive and through which £100 million, £200 million or £300 million is suddenly dragged back and taken out of the Budget. That has happened with the emergency Budget, and it could happen again. Consequently, Ministers — the Environment Minister no less than any other — may well be faced with having to make in-year cuts in circumstances that would not be welcomed by the Minister or, indeed, by any Minister. That would have to be faced up to and the Minister, when deciding his budget, would have to look at all the aspects of the Department and identify areas for cuts.

Are we saying that, if there are to be cuts, the support for local government will be sacrosanct and, for example, the road safety budget will not be ring-fenced but the resources grant cannot be cut by a penny? Are we to say that environmental protection is to be completely open to any degree of in-year monitoring or in-year cuts but we cannot touch local government? Are we to say that the money for waste support and similar issues can be taken away but we must legislate for and ring-fence this one aspect so that it cannot come out of the budget? That, to my mind, is not a logical position.

As I said, any Minister will strive to avoid that situation. However, some circumstances can be entirely outside a Minister’s control and can overtake events. Although I think that it is good practice to not have in-year cuts, it is a step too far to legislate for that. That is why, on reflection, I believe that the amendment is unwise and we are better to not have such a rigid position but to give a little bit of flexibility to the Department, the Minister and the Executive. It is not even the case that bits of health spending or education spending are so ring-fenced that they cannot be touched from a resource point of view, so it is beyond me why this is being put in a unique position, which would be the case if the amendment went through. Consequently, although I understand the sentiments behind the amendment and its practical implications, it does not merit support, so I oppose it.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Business Committee has arranged to meet immediately upon the lunchtime suspension. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The next Member to speak to the Bill after Question Time will be Danny Kinahan.

The sitting was suspended at 12.30 pm.

Justice

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

1. asked the Minister of Justice for an update on the new police training college at Desertcreat, County Tyrone. (AQO 865/11)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Since becoming Minister, I have made a strong case for the establishment of the joint public services college at Desertcreat. Recognising its importance to the delivery of public services in Northern Ireland, my colleagues in the Executive have joined with me in ensuring that the project goes ahead. Therefore, all the capital funding required to construct the training college has been provided in the Department of Justice’s draft budget.

Subject to the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) approving the business case, the design, completion and procurement pre-qualification stage will take place between February 2011 and November 2011, and the detailed procurement process leading to the appointment of a contractor will be completed by April 2012. The construction of the college will begin in May 2012 and will be completed by June 2014.

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

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for his answer. It is welcome news for the constituency. I am sure that other Members, not least you, a LeasCheann Comhairle, will welcome that news. Can we have an assurance, in so far as an absolute assurance can be given, that no further delay by any Department will cause any aspect of the project to be held up and that it will happen within the time constraints outlined by the Minister?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The project is good not just for the constituency; it is extremely good for Northern Ireland, although there will be particular economic benefits for mid-Ulster.

In so far as I can give an assurance, given that the Department of Justice’s capital budget has now been allocated entirely, there is still work to be done in respect of the Fire and Rescue Service, which is not part of my Department but reports to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS). We will seek to ensure that the timetable that I have outlined is stuck to.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Following the statement that all the funding was in place to get on with the project, some of the Minister’s colleagues tried to cast doubt on that funding. Can the Minister assure the House that the total funding for the construction of the Desertcreat police training college is now in place and that the project is going ahead?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I can confirm that the capital funding is entirely in place if the draft Budget becomes the final agreed Budget. The issue that I suspect the Member is hinting at is the exact amount available for recurrent expenditure in connection with the running of the Fire and Rescue Service part of the college. My officials continue to work with officials in DHSSPS on that issue, but my understanding is that, in total, the extra funding, in resource terms, in the Budget period for the first three years amounts to £72,000, £197,000 and £92,000. I hope that the Fire and Rescue Service will be able to meet that commitment.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

As a member of the Committee for Employment and Learning, I am particularly concerned about how the House responds to the challenge of job creation and training opportunities for the region. Will the project create apprenticeship opportunities for the area?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Under the social clauses requirement of the procurement toolkit, there is an opportunity to stipulate the level of apprenticeships or even the numbers of long-term unemployed people to be taken on by a contractor for a particular contract. Although we cannot specify which businesses in the locality might get the contract, most jobs are likely to be created from the mid-Ulster area.

Some recent examples have shown a social clauses requirement as high as one apprentice per £2 million of capital spend, which could be a significant boost for training young people in mid-Ulster for employment. I am committed to make the best possible opportunity and to use it.

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

2. asked the Minister of Justice what action he intends to take to address the problems identified in the recent report by the Criminal Justice Inspection on corporate governance arrangements in the NI Prison Service. (AQO 866/11)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I previously made it clear to the House that I recognise the importance of the report, and I am grateful to Dr Maguire for helping to crystallise the main difficulties and the scale of the challenge that lie ahead for the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS). However, the report’s conclusions came as no surprise, which is why I made Prison Service reform one of my key commitments when I took up office. Work to that effect is already well under way.

The independent review of prisons is expected to produce an interim report in February 2011. The review team is considering the overall operation of the service in order to map out the strategic direction that change must take. I am satisfied that that work, and the outworkings of any recommendations from the review, will need to bring fundamental transformation to the Prison Service. Work is also under way to bring forward the Prison Service’s own strategic efficiency and effectiveness programme, which is also one of my ministerial priorities. That programme will drive and deliver change that will, ultimately, flow from the recommendations of the independent review.

Dr Maguire’s report highlighted many areas for improvement throughout the Northern Ireland Prison Service. New management will help to bring a fresh perspective to how those might be tackled. I am aware that the new director general has made it a key priority to work with governors to get the basics right throughout the entire service. Change is already under way: governance arrangements are being reviewed and improved; the new director general has made senior management appointments to fill the governor-in-charge posts at Maghaberry and Magilligan prisons; and a recent agreement with the Prison Officers’ Association (POA) sets out how it and management can best work together to overcome the challenges of the next few years and to deliver significantly improved, more appropriate and effective regimes for prisoners.

Effective reform of the scale that is required will need time, patience and resources. Crucially, it will need support from every side of the House. The prize will be an effective, efficient, reliable and modern Prison Service.

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

I thank the Minister for his answer. Given that a new director general of prisons has just been appointed, what direction has the Minister given to that new office holder in order to commence the absolutely rigorous reform agenda that is so clearly necessary?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I have not given direction to the new director general on operational matters; it is up to him to manage prisons operationally. However, I will certainly work with him and with other senior managers when we have seen the outcome of the review by Dame Anne Owers, which we expect to receive in February. I will work with the director general to ensure that the review’s recommendations are implemented.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Can the Minister assure the House and the public that whatever he does with regard to Dr Maguire’s report, recruitment to the Prison Service, whether at the new Magilligan prison or at Maghaberry prison, will be carried out solely on merit and that that will be the position from now on?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

We need to be careful when we talk about recruitment, especially when it might be more a matter of downsizing the number of Prison Service staff. However, the key principle of recruitment to the public service is, surely, recruitment on merit. I have supported that principle throughout my entire business life, and I will certainly continue to do so.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as na freagraí sin. Is the Minister satisfied that, whatever the outcome of the Owers report and Dr Michael Maguire’s observations, his outline budget proposals will give him the necessary resources to ensure that the Prison Service fulfils future need?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for his question, which highlights the challenge ahead of us. The challenging budget that is being set in accordance with the draft Budget will give the Department the opportunity to deliver a more efficient and effective model that does better work to rehabilitate prisoners and for which costs are comparable to those of prison services in adjacent jurisdictions. However, the Member is right to highlight the challenge. That is why I mentioned the need to ensure that consensus is reached in the House to implement necessary reforms.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

3. asked the Minister of Justice what progress has been made in securing the bid, from Treasury reserves, for policing security needs identified by the Chief Constable. (AQO 867/11)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I have been working with the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State to secure the additional security funding that is required by the PSNI. Agreement on the devolution of justice to the Assembly recognised that access to the reserve would be possible for exceptional security pressures. That is the current situation. The Chief Constable has made a compelling case for additional funding to help to keep the community safe and to bear down on those responsible for terrorist attacks. I acknowledge the Secretary of State’s support for the bid. The additional requirement is for about £245 million over the four-year period. The Executive have agreed to provide additional funding for justice of £45 million over the four-year period, and I welcome that.

I have determined that all the extra resource should go into the police budget to fund its work to tackle the security situation. The amount being sought from the Treasury reserve is slightly less than £200 million. That is in line with the amount of additional support required in 2010-11, which has amounted to £50·3 million. However, I want to stress that the PSNI has been subjected to rigorous scrutiny and challenge in respect of that bid and the use of resources more widely.

In respect of the main police grant, I have already made it clear that I have sought to protect the PSNI budget in recognition of the pressures that it faces, but all parts of the Department must make a contribution. The PSNI has accepted that it can achieve efficiencies. The draft Budget sets the PSNI the challenge of delivering £135 million efficiencies over the four years. I fully support the bid for additional resources that has been made. I have made it clear that my ability to accept the draft Budget is conditional on the additional security funding being received. I met the Secretary of State yesterday, and I have impressed the urgency upon him. I expect to hear the outcome shortly. I know that the case is being discussed at the very highest levels of government.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his response. It is of some concern that we have a draft budget for the Department that is based upon getting an additional £200 million-plus from the Treasury. It is, therefore, a concern that that has not been rectified. Hopefully, the security situation will not deteriorate any further. However, if we achieve the additional money for the next four years, has an assurance been given that we will be able to go to the Treasury to access yet further money from the reserves if the situation does deteriorate and extra money is needed?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

My understanding of the agreement that was reached between the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the previous Prime Minister is clear. Access to the reserve is possible, if required, for security funding. We have sought to ensure that the necessary funding, as currently perceived for the four years, is in place, but I do not believe that that restricts us from making a further application, should it be required.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

What management and accounting arrangements are in place for the additional money? Will the Chief Constable have direct and convenient access to those funds?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The arrangement is exactly the same as that for all funds that are awarded to the Police Service. They will be for the Chief Constable to manage on the basis of the normal accounting arrangements that he operates under.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Minister provide his assessment of the current security situation? What would be the consequences for that situation if the funding were not forthcoming?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Bradley puts me in a slightly difficult position, since I suspect that I would probably annoy Mr Bell and Mr McNarry were I to go too far down the first part of his question. I can, however, agree with him that there would be extremely serious consequences if we did not get what is seen as the minimum funding necessary to deal with the particular circumstances in which the Police Service is operating. That is why I have been pressing hard and having regular contact with the Secretary of State. He has assured me of the discussions that he has been having with the Treasury and the Cabinet Office to ensure that the point is made at the highest level in London.

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

4. asked the Minister of Justice for his assessment of the need for an independent statutorily based Prisoner Ombudsman. (AQO 868/11)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I believe that there is a need to have an independent office to investigate prisoner complaints. In line with the reference in the Hillsborough Castle Agreement of 5 February 2010, I am committed to placing the powers with the Prisoner Ombudsman on a statutory footing. In the meantime, I am satisfied that the Prisoner Ombudsman is carrying out her functions in an open, transparent and effective manner, and I am confident that the officer’s ability to operate independently of the Department and the Northern Ireland Prison Service is in no way compromised.

With the devolution of justice, we have the opportunity to develop local solutions that better suit the needs of Northern Ireland and enable us to take account of the need to make the most efficient use of scarce resources.

I am seeking the views of the First Minister and deputy First Minister on how any wider review of ombudsman services, including those of the Assembly Ombudsman, might influence decisions on the future of the Prisoner Ombudsman’s office. I am also aware that the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister is consulting on updating legislation to reform the Office of the Northern Ireland Ombudsman. I want to take account of any relevant developments in that area before coming to any final decision.

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

Will the Minister elaborate on his reply and assure the House that when we talk about an independent and statutorily based Prisoner Ombudsman, we mean just that — not a subservient ombudsman of another ombudsman, but a separate, independent, standalone ombudsman, capable of meeting the real challenges of scrutiny within the prison estate and the Prison Service as it stands today?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I agree with the point that the Member is making, but he needs to be careful not to suggest that there is any restriction on the independence of the ombudsman at the moment. The reason why I said that we are reviewing the operation of the ombudsman is that given the financial stringencies that we live within, I believe that it is incumbent on every Department to look at issues such as back office co-ordination and to ensure that matters are dealt with in a way that makes most efficient use of limited amounts of public money. On that basis, I am seeking the views of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and their Committee to see what is the best way in which we can ensure that we get value for money. However, there is a fundamental issue of ensuring that there is full independence for the Prisoner Ombudsman’s functions, and that is something that I am absolutely committed to.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Given the answer that the Minister gave to my colleague regarding the Prisoner Ombudsman, does he not agree that the fact that corporate manslaughter has now been brought on to the statute book almost strengthens the argument to give statutory powers to the Prisoner Ombudsman?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The simple answer is no; I am not sure that the issue of corporate manslaughter actually makes a significant impact on the question of statutory powers. The issue of statutory powers is part of the Hillsborough Castle Agreement and is in need of addressing, in any event. The important thing is that we do it in a way that ensures value for money. The arrangements are well in hand. If there is a particular crossover when, during an investigation, the ombudsman feels that it is appropriate to make a reference to the police, the ombudsman will make that reference, should that also include something such as corporate manslaughter. That is compliant with our obligations and is in place in an appropriate way. However, the overall structure of the office clearly needs to be looked at.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

5. asked the Minister of Justice what measures he has considered to assist victims of domestic violence when accessing justice, following his announcement of changes to legal aid for people applying for a non-molestation order. (AQO 869/11)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

13. asked the Minister of Justice what steps he intends to take to ensure that people who have experienced physical abuse within a household, who do not meet the criteria for legal aid and are lacking in financial means, have access to justice. (AQO 877/11)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 5 and 13 together. The Northern Ireland Legal Services Commission has responsibility for administering legal aid in Northern Ireland. As part of its programme of reform, it is considering the introduction of a change to the legal aid financial eligibility rules for those suffering from domestic violence. However, I have announced an interim action that will ensure that those who are at risk of not being able to seek an order because of the potential for having to pay will be supported in the work that they are doing. That is why I announced, given the number of incidents that occur, an immediate change to the legal aid function to provide that increased protection for victims of domestic violence.

Prior to that announcement, those seeking legal aid to apply for a non-molestation order had first to pass a fixed means test in order to receive funding. Those with earnings above the statutory threshold would not have been entitled to legal aid. I have now removed the upper earnings and capital thresholds for anyone applying for those orders. That means that no one should be refused legal aid to apply for a non-molestation order in the Magistrate’s Court because of their financial status.

A contribution towards legal costs will be required from those who take advantage of that waiver, but it will be a fixed, one-off amount linked to an individual’s financial circumstances and payable subsequent to a court case, rather than being required upfront, as has sometimes happened in the past.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s clarification on that, considering that the majority of people who apply for non-molestation orders are women and suffer all forms of domestic violence and abuse. I am just concerned that it will add to their suffering. I appreciate the Minister’s commitment to ensure that it does not necessarily depend on financial arrangements. Is the Minister confirming that anybody who applies for legal aid for a non-molestation order — either male or female — will not be impeded because of their financial arrangements?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

No; the position is quite clear. Anyone who applies for legal aid for a non-molestation order has the waiver of the upper limits, which means that they are entitled to legal aid but will subsequently have to pay a contribution based on their income and their assets. The key thing is that they can get the legal aid for the non-molestation order immediately. In the past, there have been reports of individual firms of solicitors seeking significant cash payments in advance of assisting people with orders. That is what I have sought to prevent by allowing this route into legal aid on a wider basis.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I relate this question to a case that I was involved with in my constituency recently. A young woman felt fear, worry and stress due to the fact that someone who was charged with domestic violence was out on bail. Does the Minister agree that special care should be taken to make sure that those charged with domestic violence are released on bail on the strictest possible terms to ensure the safety of the alleged victim?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am being encouraged to start to interfere in the rights of the judiciary to set the terms for bail. I will resist that temptation. However, we are all concerned to ensure that those who require protection, that is, those who are victims of violence of any sort, are given the best protection available. However, the precise details of any individual case have to be left to the relevant judge.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his clarification on the legal aid issue. How much will that cost, and what effect will it have on his budget?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Legal aid is not designed to be something that will either add to or reduce costs. Those who would perhaps not have been eligible for legal aid in the past will receive it and pay an appropriate contribution for it. We are looking at a potential cost to the Department of a few tens of thousands of pounds per annum. I think that that is entirely justifiable in the context of our seeking to protect vulnerable members of society.

Allan Bresland (DUP, West Tyrone)

6. asked the Minister of Justice what steps he intends to take to increase public confidence in the Prison Service. (AQO 870/11)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Members will be aware that the Prison Service has been at the centre of a series of highly regrettable failings. Last month’s report on the governance arrangements highlighted that those failings were symptomatic of deeper problems that can be addressed only through fundamental reform. I have said previously that our prison system developed in response to the issues of another day. However, although society and its expectations of NIPS have changed, the service has not kept pace with those changes.

The challenge for me, as Minister, for the leadership in the Prison Service and for the political leaders of this House is to deliver the necessary reforms to turn the Prison Service into a modern, effective and efficient service. That is why I made reform one of my key ministerial priorities, why I support the work of the strategic efficiency and effectiveness programme, and why I commissioned the review of prisons to scope out the direction that change must take.

However, change is happening already. Management has reached agreement with the POA on how to work together to deliver change and improvements; progress is being made to fill the governor-in-charge posts at all three establishments; governance arrangements are being reviewed and enhanced; and where mistakes have been made, they are being taken seriously and lessons are being learned. I have said that change will take time. Rebuilding public confidence will also take time, patience and resources. However, I am committed to driving forward reform, and I know that the director general of the Prison Service shares that conviction. I will be seeking the support of the House in that absolutely essential task.

Allan Bresland (DUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Prison Service running costs are very high, and they are far higher than those in England, Wales and Scotland. Will the Minister outline how the costs for each prison might be reduced?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Again, I suspect that that question will take rather longer to answer than the two-minute limit that you have given me, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have to acknowledge that the way that prison costs are calculated in Northern Ireland makes them different to those in England, Wales and Scotland. For example, we include matters, such as headquarter functions and education, that are not included in other jurisdictions. We are also on a smaller scale, which makes things different.

However, the reality is that we still have higher costs. A key element is that the construction of the prison estate and historical reasons mean that, in many measures, we have significantly higher staffing levels than is the case in other jurisdictions. For historical reasons that we all know about, our prison officers are also paid significantly more than those in other jurisdictions. Those are the sorts of issues that need to be addressed to get the necessary reforms in place and to ensure that we can move to a system that meets the needs of the future rather than continuing to act as though it were dealing with the needs of the past.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Does the Minister agree that public confidence in the prisons would be enhanced by a clearer understanding of the purpose of the prison system, which is not to simply lock prisoners up and throw away the key, but to rehabilitate them and ensure that the level of reoffending is much reduced, thereby enhancing community safety?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

It is absolutely clear that there are some people in this society who believe that locking people up and throwing away the key is the solution to our problems. Personally speaking, I do not think that we will make society safer unless prisoners who are discharged have been rehabilitated while in prison. That means that we need to spend money in a number of areas that might not have been considered in previous ages when all that mattered was the security at the perimeter.

If we are to make society safer and offer reform and rehabilitation, it is clear to me that there are a number of areas in which spending is required. Individuals might take cheap shots at such action, but it is absolutely essential to rehabilitate and reform those who are in our care.

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

The Minister referred to an agreement between prison management and the POA, which I welcome, because it is progress. How confident is he that such an agreement will be fully honoured? It is very important that the POA plays a positive, constructive and progressive role in the reform of the Prison Service.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I entirely agree with the point that is being made. We will reform the Prison Service by engaging management and staff in ensuring that we work to make the reforms and changes that are vitally needed.

The POA, which represents the great majority of uniformed prison staff, is a key partner in that process. That is why I am extremely pleased that management and the POA are discussing a pilot on a more efficient and effective way of using staff within the different institutions. I regard that as a sign of positive engagement, and I welcome the constructive engagement by both sides on that. Obviously, I can give no guarantees on whether that process will succeed, but I will continue to work with both sides, in my role as Minister rather than as an operational manager, to ensure that that process continues.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

7. asked the Minister of Justice, in light of the discovery of mortar devices in County Kildare, for an update on threats to Northern Ireland from terrorists in the Republic of Ireland. (AQO 871/11)

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

8. asked the Minister of Justice for an update on the dissident republican threat. (AQO 872/11)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 7 and 8 together.

The threat from terrorists to Northern Ireland remains at a severe level. I am sure that Members will join me in condemning all forms of terrorist activity, including threats and intimidation, from whatever organisation it comes. The attack on the Derry/Londonderry city of culture office on 17 January is just one example of that distorted approach. I applaud the response of the local community to that attack.

There is no doubt that terrorists are planning and preparing for misguided operations north and south of the border. That makes cross-border co-operation absolutely essential, and there is excellent co-operation. In launching the cross-border policing strategy, the Chief Constable said that he was deeply indebted to his colleagues in an Garda Síochána for the level of support and co-operation that the PSNI receives on a daily basis.

For my part, I had regular discussions about security matters with Dermot Ahern, the previous Minister of Justice, Equality and Reform. I look forward to working with his successor, Brendan Smith, whom I met last week. The most recent contacts with Dermot Ahern were in relation to the Garda operation in County Kildare, which Mr Bell referred to in his question. The success of such operations is in no small part due to the continued excellent cross-border co-operation and information sharing between law enforcement agencies, North and South.

The PSNI and the Garda Síochána are alert to the threat and the capacity of those groups and remain resolute in their determination to disrupt and to prevent their activities. I commend both services for their continued success in apprehending those responsible. In 2010, security force activity resulted in 210 arrests and 80 charges. To date in 2011, there have been 11 arrests and one person has been charged. In addition, 26 people associated with terrorist groups were charged before the Special Criminal Court in Dublin in 2010. To date in 2011, one person has been charged.

The commitment of the two police services to work together is reflected in the cross-border policing strategy, which was published on 13 December 2010. It demonstrates that the breadth of co-operation that exists across the full range of policing areas and the commitment of both services to ensuring that those who seek to exploit the border for criminal ends do not do so.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Minister’s time is up.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Will the Minister ensure that the men and women of our Police Service are adequately resourced? Will he also ensure that the border is secured against those who would come across to tackle them with either mortars or under-car booby trap devices?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

As I made clear in my answers to earlier questions, I am doing my best to ensure that the Police Service and the other agencies of the Department of Justice are adequately resourced.

However, I am not sure what he means by securing the border, because, in the circumstances in which we live, the border area is not the only area where those problems arise. What is most important is co-operation across the border between the PSNI and the Garda Síochána, and I see that being carried through at the highest level.

Regional Development

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

1. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline the estimated cost and length of time it would take to bring NI Water’s infrastructure up to a European standard. (AQO 878/11)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

European Union standards for drinking water focus on providing high quality drinking water for consumers. Although there is no single fixed EU standard for water infrastructure, challenging water quality standards continue to drive investment in water mains and treatment facilities.

By the end of this financial year, the Executive will have invested almost £1 billion in our water and sewerage infrastructure, which needs to continue if we are to catch up on years of past underinvestment. Going forward, the Utility Regulator has determined the level of investment that NI Water should make, and, despite overall budgetary constraints, I have made proposals in my Department’s draft Budget to ensure that substantial levels of investment continue. As a result of the investment that has been made, the North now enjoys the highest drinking water quality compliance that it has ever had, waste water treatment standards are also the best they have ever been and even overall leakage has been reduced.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I heard what the Minister said, but I am not sure that he answered the question. We had a horrendous time over Christmas with what happened with Northern Ireland Water (NIW), and are continually told that it will take something like £4 billion to bring our water infrastructure up to standard — which may not be European standards. Will the Minister confirm whether there is any truth in those figures and whether we are only currently one quarter of the way there in our investment?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Member is correct. There are some European standards, but they change frequently and not all of the investment that NIW makes is set against those particular standards. Indeed, if it did it would never finish its work, as the EU always improves and adds new regulations and requirements that require continued investment.

As I said, there has been an investment by the Executive and by me of almost £1 billion, which is a substantial improvement. The Member may remember 2007, when we were on the brink of infraction costs from Europe due to pollution and a large number of our water treatment facilities were not up to the standard that Europe demanded and required significant investment. We have now moved well beyond that.

A substantial investment has been made. The Member, like all other Members, will be aware that we have been playing catch-up due to a lack of investment over many decades. It is not possible to put a final figure on it, as there will be a continuous need for further investment in the water, sewerage and waste water treatment infrastructure. There has been an investment of £1 billion, and something in the region of £660 million is proposed over the next four years of the draft Budget period, which has yet to be agreed. No doubt we will need to make further investments in water and sewerage services after that.

Billy Leonard (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister had just started to answer my question. Will he further outline the Department’s spending plans for NI Water over the next four years?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As I said in answer to the previous question, I am committed to ongoing investment in the water and sewerage infrastructure. However, unfortunately, as people will know, budgets, and particularly capital budgets, have taken a significant hit. The money that I was allocated in the draft Budget fell substantially short of what was required to fund NI Water in years two and three, and I have, therefore, proposed that additional funding be reallocated within my draft Budget to partially address that shortfall. If that position is agreed at the end of the Budget discussions, that will bring the total investment over the four years of the draft Budget to some £660 million.

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

I heard what the Minister said, but whatever way we look at it there will be a shortfall of £48 million compared to the amount that the regulator, Northern Ireland Water and the Minister agreed as necessary for the modernisation of Northern Ireland Water. How can that modernisation be achieved if there is such a shortfall?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The shortfall is greater than the Member outlined. The agreed figure was some £200 million a year, which would have brought the total to £800 million through the allocation that I have received and the amount that I have proposed to add internally in the Department for Regional Development (DRD). In years two and three, there was a £100 million shortfall in the allocation that I received — a total shortfall of £200 million. I have allocated additional internal resources because it is important to maintain investment in water and sewerage services. Those additional moneys bring the total up to £660 million over the four-year period, if that is agreed at the end of the period.

I sympathise entirely with the Member’s view, but many worthy projects — water and sewerage, roads, rail, public transport and concessionary fares — require investment. I have put forward draft proposals for consultation for my budget over the next four years, and I look forward to comments from others. However, if people are making the case that additional investment is needed in one particular area, as the Member appears to argue, they are obliged to tell me from which area the money should come.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Does the Minister think that greater flexibility for NI Water’s annual finance would avoid underspend and improve the organisation’s ability to use all capital funds available for water network improvements?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

NIW has been fairly successful over the past number of years in spending its allocation and in making sure that projects are initiated: £1 billion is a significant investment, and the vast majority of that money has been spent on time and in acccordance with plans. A couple of projects were tripped up this year by planning or land acquisition issues. Sometimes, in big capital projects, unforeseen or unpredictable issues affect whether money can be spent.

When money is allocated to projects that, for whatever reason, do not go forward, it is the normal practice in the Executive that those moneys are surrendered. That is the case across all Departments. The Executive have the flexibility to decide then, as a whole, whether the moneys need to go back to NIW to another investment or should be allocated to another area or applied to pressures that may arise in a particular year. Last year, some of the money that was surrendered after the swine flu outbreak was reallocated.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

2. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline any discussions that he has had with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about NI Water since 1 December 2010. (AQO 879/11)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I met the Secretary of State on Wednesday 29 December and again on Thursday 30 December to discuss options for assisting Northern Ireland Water.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his prompt reply. I am glad to hear that the Secretary of State was at least aware of the situation. Can the Minister tell the House whether any assistance was offered from central government?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

When I met the Secretary of State on 29 December and on 30 December after the Executive meeting we had a general discussion about what support could be offered. I seem to recall that on the Wednesday he offered us every assistance except finance. That, of course, is the big issue that NI Water faces. The Tory-led Government in Britain is cutting finance in the form of capital allocations. We had discussions on Wednesday 29 December when the Secretary of State offered to make whatever assistance he could — other than finance — available to us, and we continued those discussions on Thursday 30 December.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Does the Minister agree that the cuts imposed on Northern Ireland by the Conservative Government in coalition with the Liberal Democrats will pose a major problem for us in ensuring that our water infrastructure is up to speed and ready for the twenty-first century?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Member will be aware that part of the problem that the Executive have been dealing with collectively is the lack of investment over many decades of direct rule Governments, Conservative and Labour. We have made a substantial contribution, particularly to water and sewerage services, and have moved on since 2007, when we were in danger of having to pay infraction costs and fines from the European Union for pollution. The Executive made a significant investment of £1 billion. Obviously, a 40% cut to our capital budget presents significant challenges. As Members identified during the discussion that followed my previous question, the money that the regulator agreed was required by NIW has not been made available to me under the draft Budget, because the Executive are grappling with capital cuts across all areas of departmental spending, including health, education and regional development. I have had to reallocate money internally to try to meet some of that pressure, but it is not the amount that the regulator agreed was required for NIW.

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

Does the Minister intend to meet his Scottish, Welsh and English counterparts to seek a strengthening of the UK water mutual aid scheme? Does he have plans, or has he taken any action, to meet his Southern counterpart to discuss an all-island scheme of a similar nature?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

In relation to meeting my counterparts in Britain, the mutual aid arrangements operate between water companies, not between Departments. The Deputy First Minister of the Scottish Government and I had a conversation to try to ensure that those arrangements, particularly in relation to the Scottish water supply, were put in place as seamlessly as possible, and we tried to apply some political support for action. However, it is, essentially, an arrangement between Scottish Water and NI Water. All other mutual aid arrangements also operate between the companies themselves, not between Departments. Nonetheless, as part of the review, I expect that NIW will examine the mutual aid arrangements and, if there is any need to improve or alter them in any way, it will consider that.

As far as the South is concerned, my Department has suggested that network issues be examined as part of the St Andrews review. In the South, the water supply is operated not by a Department or an agency within a Department, but by county councils. Nonetheless, there is an argument, particularly in the border areas, for looking at whether the networks can be harmonised in any way to ensure that any loss of supply to a particular area would be sustainable. I thanked Louth County Council, which offered a supply to Newry and Mourne in the middle of the recent incident.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

3. asked the Minister for Regional Development whether businesses which experienced leaks on their properties during the recent adverse weather and water shortage crisis will be charged for the additional water. (AQO 880/11)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I have been advised by NI Water that damage or defects that result in leakage from customer supply pipes can occur at any time of year. That is why NIW makes a considerable effort to remind customers of the need to check regularly for leaks on their properties. That message was restated continually during the recent freeze and subsequent thaw.

NIW has advised that it developed its current arrangements for dealing with payment for water lost from customers’ pipes in 2008. Under those arrangements, non-domestic customers who are billed on a metered basis will be charged for the water that has been recorded by the meter, whether used or lost through leakage within the property. However, billed customers who have experienced a leak and who are connected to the public sewer can apply for a reduction of the sewerage bill, in recognition that the leaked water would not have returned to the sewer. NI Water is not responsible for the supply pipe within the customer’s property and encourages property owners to protect and maintain their private pipes. It is not reasonable to expect other customers or the taxpayer to bear the cost of water wastage arising from leaks to private pipes.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his answer. When there is a burst in the public water infrastructure of Northern Ireland Water, everyone has to pay for it. Will the Minister give us some indication of the amount of water that leaked from the public pipe infrastructure of Northern Ireland Water during the recent crisis?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As the public water infrastructure is owned by the public, they should pay for leaks. It is not reasonable to suggest that the public or the taxpayer should also pay for a fault in someone’s private supply.

During the recent freeze-thaw incident, 70% of the bursts were on the private side, but what that equates to in volume is still being worked out by NIW. When the figures are available, I will provide them to the Member.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

The Minister is aware that, following his previous statement to the House, I asked him what consideration could be given to people living in rural areas when there are leaks in their properties, particularly in an agricultural setting. In light of his previous answer, has any further consideration been given to those who are not connected to the public supply?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As I said, the difficulty is that the position that has been in effect since April 2008 — a position that compares favourably with companies operating in England and Wales — means that if the leakage occurs on the private side of the meter supply, it is an issue for the property owner. People who are attached to the public sewer can discuss that part of their bill with NIW.

I am afraid that the position is that people are responsible for their private pipes. During the freeze period, and during the thaw when problems were becoming more and more identifiable, a substantial appeal was put out for people to check their private supply to ensure that it was turned off. Indeed, where it came across leaks, NIW turned off many properties’ supply itself. However, a general appeal was regularly issued for people to check their supply and ensure that it was stopped if there was a leak on their property.

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

The Minister issued a general direction on 30 December that had the effect of denying customers their right to seek legal redress from Northern Ireland Water for damages caused as a result of loss of supply. What alternative compensation methods does the Minister propose to introduce to ensure customer rights so that customers are not the big losers from the crisis?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I have explained this to the Member on a number of occasions now, particularly in Committee where I had this very discussion with him. I fail to see his priorities. Rotation of supply — where NI Water deliberately stops the supply in places to maintain a certain level of supply — is a common practice in Ireland and Britain. It is done to protect vital supplies.

Mr McDevitt’s priority appears to be the ability of some people possibly to pursue NIW through the courts for costs. That priority is set against maintaining vital supplies for hospitals, care facilities and other places in and around Belfast. To be honest, if the same situation were to reoccur, I think that the correct decision, time and time again, would be to ensure that NIW had the authority to stop supplies to protect vital supplies. That would ensure that people’s lives were not put in danger. Mr McDevitt appears to be arguing in favour of allowing people to continue to receive their service, regardless of the consequences, so compensation claims can be pursued.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

4. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail the arrangements in place between Translink, Roads Service and the education and library boards in the event of adverse weather conditions to ensure the safety of pupils travelling to school. (AQO 881/11)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Translink has an extreme weather procedure which outlines its processes in adverse conditions. Given the likely localised nature of problems, the key contact on public transport is between the local bus depot and its schools. They deal with issues such as the closing and reopening of schools, possible bus route changes and any withdrawal of services. They should also formally liaise with divisional Roads Service offices.

Education and library boards are responsible solely for the safety of pupils who are eligible for transport assistance. Boards have devised guidance for contractors, schools and parents on pupil safety during periods of adverse weather. The guidance is available on the websites of the North Eastern Board, Southern Board and South Eastern Board, with the remaining boards to follow.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

School principals, parents, bus drivers and, indeed, Translink managers have contacted me to say that there are a number of roads that are not treated in times of ice and snow, yet are school bus routes. Can the Minister assure the House that he will review the gritting policy to include that small number of roads so that we can protect our children as much as is physically possible?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Gritting criteria were agreed by the Assembly in 2001-02. They have been amended slightly to take into account some rural issues, particularly in relation to schools. Bear in mind that we spent twice as much last year as is normally set aside for winter, and I am sure that this year it will probably be the same again. There is a very significant cost attached to gritting roads, so criteria were set based on the number of vehicles that travel along a route. Under the criteria, school buses account for 40 vehicles. It is not possible to salt every single route on which a school bus travels, but there is certainly an attempt to provide as good a quality of service as is possible within the constraints currently in place in Roads Service.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I seek some clarity from the Minister. Does that mean that the school salting policy has been revised or adjusted during this time?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The school salting policy has been revised during this period and, indeed, during my period in office in DRD. We asked for information from the education and library boards about which rural schools, in particular, had a difficulty opening over the winter period. In September 2009, I made a statement to the Assembly on the outcome of that examination of winter services around rural schools. In that statement, I announced that there would be enhanced communications and priority secondary salting for the 46 schools that were most affected by the weather conditions throughout the winter of 2008-09.

We asked the education and library boards themselves for information about which schools had difficulties. The names of 46 schools were forwarded to us, and those are earmarked for particular attention. Some of those schools might not have been affected this winter, and others will have been. There is flexibility in the arrangements to ensure that it is brought to the attention of the local Roads Service division if schools are having particular difficulties with opening and getting pupils in.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I will follow up on Mr Frew’s question. The pavements in the areas surrounding schools can be dangerous for everyone who walks on them. Has the Minister had meetings with the Minister of the Environment to discuss resources or guidelines on how the pavements around schools, and other such public places, should be gritted in times of such awfully cold weather?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Department and Roads Service have worked with NILGA and spoken to local government about the priority areas for the gritting of footpaths. The Minister of the Environment issued a public statement in the earlier part of the winter that encouraged councils to become involved in that process.

It is a difficult area. Councils that are involved are faced with a question of priority. Roads Service supplies schools with salt boxes to salt the areas around their premises. There is a recognition that it can be difficult for people to come in. However, the resources that are used for that come out of the budget for road maintenance and things like that. The use of resources for whatever number of weeks of cold weather has to be weighed against the use of resources for road safety measures, traffic-calming measures, structural maintenance and so on. The Department and Roads Service have to make the choice of whether to allocate resources to this issue as opposed to allocating resources to ensuring road safety in all the other weeks and months of the year, when cold weather is not the issue.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

5. asked the Minister for Regional Development for his assessment of the impact of the cancellation of the proposed A2 Greenisland road-widening scheme on traffic congestion between Carrickfergus and Greenisland. (AQO 882/11)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

In recent years, Roads Service has continued with the development of the A2 Shore Road/Greenisland scheme. However, as I have stated previously, the final statutory notice, vesting order and progression of the scheme to procurement will be subject to the availability of resources in future years’ budgets. As the Member will be aware, a reduction of 40% in the Executive’s overall capital funding from Treasury in the 2011-15 period means that there are now funding constraints.

My Department is now faced with the difficult task of having to allocate finite resources to numerous demands for the maintenance, management and development of the transport network. Unfortunately, when those competing priorities are taken into consideration, I am unable to progress plans to start construction on the A2 Shore Road scheme during this Budget period. The impact of the postponement of the scheme will mean that the bottleneck between Jordanstown and Seapark, as identified in the Belfast metropolitan transport plan, will remain until such time as highway improvements can be implemented.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. However, in prioritising the roads expenditure programme, how is the Minister taking into consideration the level of daily congestion on that route at Greenisland and its effect on emergency response? Response police officers are now based not in Carrickfergus but in Whiteabbey. The A&E is no longer at Whiteabbey, and, therefore, people sometimes have to travel from parts of east Antrim not to Whiteabbey or Antrim but to the Mater or the Royal.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Very difficult choices have had to be made. My proposed budget is out for consultation, and I am sure that the Member and, indeed, other Members will be able to put forward their views on it. We have to weigh up the very significant capital cuts that we have received from the coalition Government in Britain. The A2 is a very worthy scheme. No one doubts the congestion there or the requirement for a scheme, which has been well established. However, that has to be weighed up against sinking a substantial part of the Department’s budget over the next four years into one scheme. Doing that would involve neglecting structural maintenance right across the Six Counties and neglecting the investment that is required in public transport. Additional investment also needs to be made in water and sewerage services. Those are the types of choices that the Department is faced with in setting a budget that is very significantly constrained by decisions taken elsewhere. I put it forward in the draft Budget. I very much appreciate that people will be disappointed that the proposal is that the A2 scheme should not now go ahead. They can certainly make their point about that. However, as I said, the Member should bear in mind that the inclusion of that scheme would have a detrimental effect on other areas of spend across the Department’s budget.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that very comprehensive answer. Given the level of opposition to the A5, will the Minister tell the House whether it will be possible to transfer funding for the A5 to the A2, which, as he just said, is a necessary scheme and which has been going on for such a long time? Failing that, I remind the Minister about the CAF trains that are due to arrive. Could they perhaps not be an alternative?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Road schemes are decided according not to popularity, but on a whole range of measures. The A5 Derry to Aughnacloy road scheme is an agreed project between the Executive, in their entirety, and the Dublin Government. Funding has been set in place and rolled out for that scheme. That continued to be the case until as late as last Friday’s North/South meeting, at which all parties in the Executive were represented. I continue to approve that project. As I said, the Executive set that priority down in their dealings with the Dublin Government through the North/South arrangements.

As part of both the investment and the Department’s attempt to move money around to allocate it according to priorities, there has been a continued prioritisation of investment in the additional trains. I hope that those will be in service as soon as possible, as scheduled, on the Larne line and that they will add to the public transport network in that part of the North.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Minister give details of which proposed strategic capital projects are being given priority in the draft Budget?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

A range of projects are involved, some of which I have identified. Those include the A5 and A8 schemes, which are agreed projects between the Executive and the Government in Dublin. As regards investment in the railway, we have 20 additional trains. There is also an investment in the Derry to Coleraine line. As I outlined in response to an earlier question, there is some £660 million of investment in water and sewerage services. We have managed to protect the concessionary fares schemes, even though no money was allocated against it in the draft allocation that I received. We have also put more money in to public transport to protect jobs. The Executive agreed generally to make it a priority for Ministers to try as best they could, with the resources allocated to them and the additional resources that they identified, to protect public services and jobs. I have certainly tried to achieve that in my Department, and I hope that all Ministers have tried to do the same.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

6. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he will consider legislation to allow NI Water engineers to gain entry to a property, with a police escort, to shut off a water supply when a leak is affecting neighbouring properties. (AQO 883/11)

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Water and Sewerage Services Order 2006 provides a range of powers to deal with the waste, contamination and misuse of water. It allows NI Water to disconnect premises in certain circumstances where there may be damage to property. NI Water can also require remedial work to be carried out to take those steps itself and to recover expenses where there is some waste, misuse or contamination of water. In some circumstances, powers of entry already exist to inspect water fittings or to take remedial measures. In addition, it is an offence to contaminate, waste or misuse water. Although I am content that powers exist, the review into the severe weather emergency could examine that.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Will the Minister tell the House whether domestic properties that are affected by a leak from a neighbouring property, such as a business property, can be supplied with priority bottled water until the leak is repaired?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Executive have instigated a review into the particular incident that occurred at Christmas. As regards the substantive question about powers of entry, NIW has the power to stop a water supply to premises where it can clearly identify that water is being lost. However, it is sometimes difficult to identify the source of a leak in a building with multiple occupants. I think that there were issues with the availability of emergency supplies and with the lines of communication about how people could avail themselves of those supplies. Those carrying out the investigation into that incident will want to look at that. I hope that we will be better placed at the end of February to discuss those issues and to decide what steps need to be taken in the future.

Health, Social Services and Public Safety

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, given today’s media coverage on the leaked report into standards of care at the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children suggesting that there may be a very real risk that children will come to harm, to outline the main recommendations in the report and to give an assurance to patients, parents and staff that the services are up to standard.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I wish to state that the reports in the media on this issue in the past 24 hours have been inaccurate and unhelpful. The review was not triggered by any serious adverse incident (SAI) but was undertaken as part of the normal performance and service improvement role of the Health and Social Care Board. The Belfast Health and Social Care Trust asked the interim management and support (IMAS) team to visit the trust’s urgent and emergency care programme for children to compare it with known good practice and to make recommendations for improvements and modernisation. The IMAS team stated that it was impressed by the huge commitment and enthusiasm of clinical and managerial staff in all departments. In particular, it was apparent that there was widespread commitment to team working, multidisciplinary care and a very real patient focus. Daily inpatient reviews and consultant-delivered care were as expected in a paediatric hospital and clearly helped to facilitate timely discharge.

The team also identified that the children’s hospital clearly requires redevelopment. The emergency department is cramped, with insufficient space to deliver modern care processes. The main areas identified for improvement by IMAS were medical staffing, nursing staffing levels, triaging issues, governance and admission of children to adult wards. The Health and Social Care Board has provided additional resources to increase staffing levels, locum staff and a middle-grade doctor are in place, and the consultant post is being filled. All other recommendations have been addressed by the trust and the Health and Social Care Board.

There is no suggestion that any child has been exposed to any untoward event, and, on the basis of the report, I can assure patients, parents and staff that services in the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children are up to standard.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am highly disappointed that, over the past two weeks, I have had to use questions for urgent oral answer to get information from the Minister. I am a member of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, but I have not seen the report that the Minister says is being reported inaccurately in the media and, therefore, cannot make a judgement.

Information in the public domain states that the report says that the Belfast Trust, when compared with other training hospitals, needs an appropriate number of senior decision-makers. It is also stated that staffing levels fall well below what is considered safe and acceptable and, indeed, were:

“very low in comparison with other hospitals we have visited”.

Ten months on, staffing levels have not improved. Given that it has been identified, on the basis of comparisons, that 20 additional middle-grade doctors and a number of consultants are needed, the situation has not improved. How many SAIs involving the children’s hospital have been investigated over the past five years?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

The Member asked a number of questions. Given that the children’s hospital is a regional centre, SAIs are normal because very sick children are referred there. Deaths, sadly, do occur, but SAIs are usually referred from donor hospitals.

Staffing levels are in the public domain, but I am happy to furnish the Member with those details.

The Member refers to a report, but it was, in fact, a one-day visit by IMAS, which prompted a letter. IMAS is a consultancy made up of UK-wide National Health Service managers who make suggestions about improvements. Suggestions were made about the children’s hospital. IMAS said not that the service was unsafe but that the rota was unsafe. The rota was unsafe in that, when it was unable to be filled, locums had to be brought in.

There was an issue around nursing staff levels, which has been addressed. Similarly, there was an issue around medical staffing levels, which has been and is being addressed. Resources have been made available.

Other issues were raised about the admission of children to adult wards. If you had listened to Dr Paul Jackson this morning, you would have been able to hear him say that no child under the age of 13 was admitted to an adult ward. There are issues about accommodation, and those issues have been well made by me, over and over again. I have asked Ms Ramsey and others in this House to give me the support to build a new children’s hospital. To date, this House has failed to give me that support.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The money was there.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I am trying to give an answer, Mr Deputy Speaker, without the heckling. This is a very serious issue, and it is unfortunate that it should descend to that.

There were also issues around the triaging of patients — those who should go to their out-of-hours service or GP surgery, those with minor injuries and those who are suitable for an emergency department. Those issues have also been addressed. IMAS has visited a number of trusts. That is normal business, because the board has been charged with performance management and improvement of the Health Service. I told the House on a number of occasions that I will improve performance in the Health Service; we are doing that, and the staff are responding magnificently.

Suggestions that an unsafe service is being operated by our clinicians, doctors and nurses in the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children are entirely wrong. I think that it is very unfair on the staff, who were described as very enthusiastic, very patient-focused and skilled. They are providing a first-class service in a building that should have been replaced long ago. It is substandard accommodation. The letter from IMAS gave some suggestions, and there is a report in the media that the service is unsafe. I note that some MLAs commented on it in the newspaper. They complain that they have not read the letter, and then they complain about the contents —

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

We cannot get it.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

It is available. I will publish it today. If you want, I will publish every single report, every single letter and every single piece of paper. However, I assure you, as I said yesterday, that you would need a lorry to carry away the paper.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Today provides just another example of the flippant attitude of the Minister towards the scrutiny of the Health Committee. This is the second time in as many weeks that we have heard detailed and worrying reports in the media.

Minister, according to John Compton on media outlets this morning, you became aware of the report only in the past number of weeks. Given that the report was published in March 2010, I do not think it good enough for you, as Minister, to be made aware of something only because it was going to be made public. Perhaps you will say whether you are aware of any other IMAS investigations ongoing and what services it has been reviewing, and maybe you will tell the House more about that today.

Also, Minister; given the fact that the RQIA has a role to play in ensuring quality in the Health Service, are you concerned that it has not picked up on the serious issues that have been identified? You have referred to the fact that staffing levels were not of concern. The IMAS report states that the current staffing levels within the hospital fall:

“well below what we consider safe and acceptable, and indeed are very low in comparison with other hospital that we have visited”.

That is not good enough, and that is what you need to answer in the House today.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

First, talking about “worrying reports” spreads undue alarm. It was actually a letter written as a result of a one-day visit, which made suggestions on how we could improve the service. Those suggestions have been actioned. That is not unusual. Indeed, you mentioned the RQIA, which routinely reports and carries out inspections. I do not routinely see its reports on nursing homes. I see them when they are adverse or when there are issues or major problems. IMAS has also visited and advised the Northern Trust, Southern Trust, Western Trust and the board. It advises on good practice and performance.

It is not an unsafe service. Some of the staffing and nursing levels were raised, but, as I said in my answer, there is no suggestion that any child has been exposed to any untoward event. On the basis of the report, I assure patients, parents and staff that services in the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children are up to standard.

I refer the Deputy Chairperson of the Health Committee to what that Committee is supposed to be about. If she wants to micromanage the Health Service and wants every single report and letter, thousands of which are generated each week, I could probably furnish her with those. However, I do not see how that would add in any way to what the Committee is required to do. The functions of the Committee are laid down quite clearly, and I try to provide it with all the information that I can, as is required.

Ms Ramsey said that this was the second time that she has had to come to the House. If she has to ask a question, she should ask it. Alternatively, she can come to my office. The door is always open, and she has been in my office routinely. The notion that I have to stand here and —

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Why not make a statement and be proactive?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I can make as many statements as the Member wants. I have made countless statements to the House. However, this issue arose in a morning newspaper. As I said, that morning newspaper report is inaccurate and unhelpful. It is particularly unhelpful in respect of staff morale. They are doing their absolute best and are working very hard, which is recognised in the letter. If the Member wants to do so, she should talk to me. I talk to her daily. I do not see any reason why she cannot do that. If she wants to do that formally in the form of a statement, I can do that by all means. However, if the Member wants statements every time a newspaper writes an inaccurate and unhelpful report, we will all be here all day every day.

Executive Committee Business

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

Amendment No 3 concerns not reducing cuts in funds during the financial year. It is a shame that we had to stop earlier because a good debate was bubbling just before the break. Mr Weir made some good points that need to be refuted and discussed.

As we all know, the rates support grant is absolutely vital for councils, particularly for the less wealthy, which excludes Mr Weir’s constituency and probably mine. It is absolutely vital for all the others. It is vital for their financial health and to allow them to provide the basic statutory services that all councils must provide. I accept that, from time to time, there may be a need to change funds or to cut throughout the year. However, it is wrong to do it in the middle of the year because councils will need to find the funding from other means but not the age-old one of trying to hit the Health Service, which is so vital to us all. I find the plastic bag levy slightly unusual, as it would mean that the more we spend on plastic bags, the more funds we will have. I am sure that the Minister will say more about that. There is always room for cuts in other places, but it is completely wrong to finance it from councils in the middle of the year when they do not have any means within a year, other than by cutting their plans for that year, to raise funds.

Mr Weir spoke about the possibility of a tsunami of cuts and said that we needed to act swiftly. Over the past few months, however, we have seen that we have not acted swiftly when probably the biggest tsunami ever is coming towards us. Yes, there is a need to cut back — it is sad that we have to do so — but not from council budgets in the middle of the year. I do not think that we —

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for giving way. Is it not the Conservative Government, for whom he was campaigning a number of months ago, who have imposed those huge cuts on Northern Ireland? Does he not feel a sense of shame that he has brought to Northern Ireland a manifesto that has cut our public services —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I remind Members that we are talking about the Bill. The election has not started yet.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. If I was casting a fly, it was well and truly taken by Mr Bell. We know that the only reason why we have these cuts is the bad spending of the previous Government, which his party supported.

Going back to amendment No 3, I remind everyone that we are talking about stopping it being possible to cut back on vital funding to councils. I know that some Members who are councillors know what it is like when Land and Property Services suddenly decides that a council has not paid enough rates. On Antrim Borough Council, we had to find £1 million and then £0·5 million in the middle of a year, ending up with the council having to cut back on all the things it had been doing until we got to the absolute basics. Today, we are trying to protect councils so that we do not throw them into disarray in the middle of the year but have proper budgeting and proper consultation before setting the rates for next year. We have seen, in the process that budgets are going through at the moment, that we can plan it for the next year with cuts in other areas at the moment. I support amendment No 3.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. As a member of the Environment Committee, I, too, support the Committee’s amendment.

The very idea of in-year clawback has raised an awful lot of concern on councils, particularly those west of the Bann, which are the most likely to be affected by clawbacks. In fact, that widespread and growing concern about the increase in departmental powers to make in-year cuts to the rate support grant could, if you like, in terms of its implications for management in councils, lead to chaos where schemes have already started and budgets have already been determined in compliance with an evaluation of incoming rates and outgoing expenditure for the coming financial year as already authorised, with the consequent impact on the level of rates in each district. Therefore, the ability afforded to government to claw back some of those moneys could have serious implications, particularly in areas of higher deprivation. Of course, we know that the rate support grant is paid only to councils whose wealth per head of population falls below the Northern Ireland average. For areas of high deprivation, therefore, we are talking about targeting social need in reverse, because, at the stroke of a pen, we could open the door to the potential to inflict further deprivation, as acknowledged by the calculation of the wealth in those areas.

The internal management issues can probably be worked through in councils, but the knock-on effect for projects, communities and community and voluntary sector organisations funded by councils could be inordinate and have serious implications for areas of high and growing unemployment across the North. The districts and communities affected most by potential clawback are those least able to afford it. Therefore, in moving amendment No 3, the Committee has got it right: we cannot open the floodgates to further hardship in areas that have suffered enough, are recognised, according to the Government’s assessment method, as having deprivation indices above and beyond other areas and need, therefore, to be supported. Therefore, in conclusion, from the SDLP’s point of view and as a member of the Committee, I support the amendment.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I declare an interest as a member of North Down Borough Council though, as Mr Weir said, that is probably a technicality in this case in that we have not received resource grant for quite some time. However, it is important to acknowledge that this is not just an issue of councillors fighting their own corner. I am certainly here to speak on behalf of the Alliance Party and to take a cross-Northern Ireland perspective on the issue. It is important to acknowledge the differences in the relative rates base across councils in Northern Ireland, and it is important that central government funds are used to equalise, to an extent, the lack of equalisation in rates bases in different councils to, at least, provide the potential for parity in how the citizens of Northern Ireland receive government services.

Like others, I noted Peter Weir’s comments with interest. My party is inclined to support the Committee’s amendment because it sends a positive signal to local government as a whole. Mr Weir cites the concerns about the potential for clawback to happen during the in-year monitoring process and that, although no one particularly envisages that, it is important that the flexibility is on the books. In return, I could cite many other examples across government, not just in councils or the Department of the Environment, where there are already inescapable pressures or contractual obligations. Whenever government faces such a clawback, there are areas that are, for those reasons, off limits. It is important that we do not send a signal to the councils that they are simply there for picking off. As others have said, councils have a responsibility, in turn, to plan their own budgets for the year and to fund local community groups and other organisations as well as provide continuity of services from those budgets. Therefore, it is important that councils have some degree of surety.

Mr Weir set out an economic catastrophe on a huge scale, and, to some extent, we have had a major economic disaster over the past number of years. Councils already suffer in a range of ways outside the context of any potential clawback of resource grant. For example, we already have a situation where there is variation of the rates base through the penny product, which is based on the property market. That impacts on areas such as building control fees and can have a major impact on councils. Furthermore, councils receive money from other aspects of government and arm’s-length bodies for other functions that can already be clawed back in-year or through which grants can be withheld. Therefore, there are quite a lot of ways in which councils suffer during economic downturns, just as central government does. We should not make that any worse. We already have a situation where the Department has identified the resource grant as an area for potential savings.

I could almost accept the argument that it is important for the legislation to be flexible. However, we have to accept the wider context of the tension between central government and local government, and it is important that we send a signal of partnership, as far as possible, and, indeed, try to develop wider contact between central government and local government. In some respects, it does not really matter to me whether services are funded by the local rates or by taxes. Ultimately, people pay out of their pocket to fund government services regardless of whether a council or central government provides them, with the one rider that we do not control the block grant, which is linked to overall taxation, but have some influence over levels of rates.

At present, more and more functions are being passed to local government, and there are already Bills working their way through the process, including the Dogs (Amendment) Bill, the Welfare of Animals Bill, the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill and others that are further down the pipeline such as those on planning responsibilities, all of which will make local government fulfil more and more functions that were previously fulfilled by central government or not fulfilled at all. However, there is a concern about the funding that will come with those functions. There is also a desire to ensure that no undue burden is placed on the ratepayers. Again, I could accept a shift in taxation towards the local rates, as long as that was done transparently and not as part of a stealth agenda.

In turn, if we were to ask local government to do a lot more without necessarily providing the finance, the expectation would be that the Assembly and, particularly, Ministers and the Executive would not then point to the fact that they were running very tight budgets and that rates in local government were rising well above the rate of inflation and it needed to get its act together. It would be wrong for us to end up in that situation, because we have to disaggregate the reasons why rates were going up at local level. Would it be because of inefficiencies in local government, which would be very wrong and would need to be addressed? Alternatively, would it simply be a reflection of the fact that local government was being asked to take on more responsibilities and there would be a shift in the balance between central government and local government, which some of us would welcome as an enhancement of local democracy and something that is benign?

The notion of what happens in-year and with the resource grant is part of a wider picture. It is important that we build a sense of partnership between the two levels of government in Northern Ireland, that we see that we are all working towards the same objective and that we do not have the situation where people are being cut short and abandoned or where fingers are being pointed in either direction.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I declare an interest as a councillor on Down District Council, which receives the rate support grant.

I support amendment No 3. In summer 2010, the Department announced the cut to the rate support grant. As a councillor, I know that that brought great anxiety to and great pressure to bear on the council. The rate had been struck, plans had been put in place, and officers from different departments in the council were then faced with the great difficulty of having to cut front line services.

Eighteen councils received the rate support grant, which was cut by 5·9%, resulting in £1·1 million being taken out of councils’ financial plans when, as I said, councils had already set their budgets. We are talking about front line services being affected. Sometimes that is glossed over to mean something different, but, usually, community projects and front line services are seen as easy options to hit. That must be borne in mind. A cut such as that definitely puts the councils in a serious position, especially when it happens in the middle of a financial year.

As has been outlined, the grants support councils that have less revenue for each person in the population. The grant subsidises the council to deliver services on the ground for ratepayers. Those services are essential and — I will say it again — are front line services. The formula is very fair, as it takes a number of factors into account, including unemployment, the working population and areas of deprivation, as well as a lot of other issues. Councils already find it difficult, and, as Mr Farry said, responsibilities are coming from central government to local government. Those will increase with the enactment of the Dogs (Amendment) Bill, the Welfare of Animals Bill, the Planning Bill, the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill and the High Hedges Bill. Indeed, the functions in a number of different pieces of legislation are coming to local government.

I understand that the Department has to deal with cuts to its budget, but councils do not have that flexibility in the financial year. They cannot bid for extra resources to the Executive or the Assembly, so there is no recourse for local government but to cut services. We felt that we had to take the opportunity to protect vulnerable councils and ratepayers. A number of members of the Committee, including those on the opposite Benches, found that cutting the support to vulnerable councils in the west was totally unacceptable.

Therefore, the Committee took the decision to bring the issue to the Floor of the Assembly so that we can air our concerns and express our serious reservations about it.

In conclusion, any reductions to the grant should be carried out at the start of the year, and councils can then cut their cloth accordingly. The intention of the amendment is to ring-fence the grant once it has been agreed. It will bring certainty to the process for local government and for everybody concerned. Sinn Féin supports the amendment. Go raibh maith agat.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I have given careful consideration to the amendment proposed to the rates support grant, which is currently called the resources element of the general grant by the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment. It is reflective of recent correspondence between my Department and councils, in the wake of the reduction to the funding for the grant in July 2010.

I have considered the amendment, which seeks to protect from in-year reductions the funding for the rates support grant to councils. In the current financial climate, when we face significant reductions to the levels of public funding, there remains a degree of uncertainty in respect of what funding will be available for the delivery of vital public services. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment.

The setting of budgets and allocations is part of a wider budget process, and rates support grant funding cannot and should not be automatically exempt from that overarching process. In practical terms, the amendment is overly restrictive and financially imprudent, impairing my Department’s freedom to manage the effects of changing financial circumstances over all its business areas by exempting any one area of spend from the cuts during the financial year.

I will give a brief history of what happened in the last year. Our Department had its funding set for the year and had no intentions of making any cuts to councils or anybody else. However, lo and behold, we got a new Government — the Conservative/Liberal Democrat Government. The franchisee — the Ulster Unionist Party — is to my right, and the Alliance Party, a Member of which was speaking a moment ago, is the sister party of the Liberal Democrats. They imposed the cuts on the councils and the people of Northern Ireland, not this Department.

Some Members spoke in a very hypocritical fashion about the cuts to the councils when it was their sister parties that imposed those cuts on the people of Northern Ireland. They should hang their heads in shame for the stance that they are taking on this issue. We, the people of Northern Ireland, have to bear the cuts that they have imposed on us. The SDLP cannot get away with it either because it is the sister party of the Labour Party, and it was the Labour Party that got us into this financial mess. If Mr Kinahan wishes to look at the record, he will identify that his party’s MP voted more often with the Labour Party than the DUP ever did. We were the real opposition in Westminster.

The impact of the cuts on our Department was 6%. We had a meeting with representatives from the councils, and officers from Ards Borough Council told us that the impact on their council was 0·27% of its overall budget. Strabane District Council was worst affected at 1·12%. Derry City Council was also represented, and we were told that the impact on it was 0·23% of its budget. Does anybody here want to make a rational argument as to why any of those councils could not absorb that degree of a cut within the year when we as a Department were cutting by 6%?

If Members go into the Lobbies to vote in favour of the amendment, they will be saying that it is a good idea to cut the road safety budget and the budget on environmental regulation, which will potentially put us into a position of infraction proceedings, but it is not a good idea to ask councils or local government to share some of the burden that is involved here.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Will the Minister give way?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I will give way in a moment.

I mentioned that Derry City Council’s reduction was 0·23%. A Member submitted a question to me about staff who are paid more than £50,000 per annum. Derry City Council has 21 members of staff who are paid more than £50,000 per annum.

Compare that with Lisburn City Council, which is actually larger: only six members of its staff are paid over £50,000 per annum. With regards to budget, it would be extremely easy for some councils to find the necessary finance in-year. A great deal of fat exists in local government, and councils are quite capable of absorbing the miniscule cuts asked of them. I am happy to give way.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for giving way. I must challenge him on his point that it is a good idea to cut the road safety budget. Minister, it is up to you to outline your budget. The Committee will scrutinise it. The buck stops with you with regard to what you bring forward. If you suggest that the road safety element of the budget will be cut, that is up to you. However, the Committee will challenge that. At no point did I, or any other Member, say that it was a good idea to cut the road safety budget. Go raibh maith agat.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I certainly did not say that it was a good idea to cut the road safety budget in-year. I said that if my Department is asked to find funding and it excludes one element of its budget, that puts an onus on the rest of the Department. Therefore, it is you people who will walk through the Aye Lobby to support the amendment who will be saying that it is OK to cut the road safety budget.

Just imagine if there were another crisis in health that was even more significant than swine flu, that a call was made to Departments to find funding to support the Department of Health and that a future Minister of the Environment said: “I cannot cut a particular element of my budget, so you can count me out”. Would Mr Farry’s party say that it was a good idea to cut the budgets for policing and the Prison Service but not the budget for local government to support the Department of Health in such a crisis? God forbid that republican terrorists actually achieved something and caused real damage in the community, and the Assembly had to put significant funding into policing. Would the Department of Health, which Mr Kinahan would want to defend, have to stump up money to support the Department of Justice while local government would not have to do so? Members, you really must look at the matter logically instead of trying to score political points that will not benefit the public or ratepayers in the long term.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

The Minister is missing the point. There is fat in councils that needs to be cut. Minister, you are playing politics by asking Members whether we want to see this or that cut. Cuts could be made in plenty of areas. What Members are trying to get across is that although councils have ways of making in-year cuts, you will not see that happen until the end of the year. Therefore, why not wait until the end of the year and budget properly for the following year? Councils could make cuts where possible out of fat in the middle of the year and budget correctly for the next year. That would, therefore, be only a short stop-gap for six or nine months. That could be done easily.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Before the Minister responds, I remind Members that they must make all comments through the Chair: the only “you” in the Chamber is me. [Laughter.]

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. The longer the debate goes on and the more I make my case, the more pathetic, perverse and stupid I find the arguments in favour of the amendment. The Assembly should not go down that route; it is not good legislation.

It is difficult to change one’s position after one has stated it publicly. However, I ask Members to reflect that if they do that and the Assembly faces a future crisis or the Tory/Liberal Government go the way of the Fianna Fáil/Green Government in the South and has to introduce several Budgets in one year and impose cut after cut, are Members really saying that only local government should be exempt? Are we saying that the Department of Health, the Department of Justice and the Department of Education are not exempt and nor is any other Department? Are we saying that we can cut their budgets but that the only budget we cannot cut is that for local government?

I will go through the list of cuts: 0·22%; 0·23%; 0·5%; 0·58%; 0·27%, and so on. They are miniscule; they could easily be absorbed. Any council that has not put in place a prudent finance regime to absorb such cuts in one year should question its finance officer.

All of the councils were well capable of absorbing it, and the piece of legislation that is being proposed through the amendment is damaging to good governance, and Members should reflect on that.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Following that soapbox effort, I will try to bring some sense into what we are trying to do. I will go through Members’ comments, and I will leave the Minister’s comments to the end so that we can see exactly what he was trying to explain to the House.

Mr Weir talked about the problem with the amendment. He said that ring-fencing could not be done from a legislative point of view and that, perhaps, it was not good practice. He sat on the Committee with me for the past four years, so I will not be bringing up anything about legislation. It is up to the House to legislate, and there will be an opportunity to change that at any time. I want to take that a wee bit further. In a couple of years’ time, when there is a proper transfer of powers to local councils, they can look at their budgets and implement them in whatever way they wish.

Mr Weir also talked about local government being sacrosanct. He must have had a bit of a rehearsal from the Minister, because he mentioned road safety. The Environment Committee has been very strong in supporting money for road safety and rolling out the road safety programme. The Committee will not support reducing money for road safety, and it should not be used as an argument in the House. The Minister mentioned taking away money from road safety to give to councils. That is not the argument.

Mr Weir also said that it was good practice not to have in-year cuts. In the Assembly, there is, at least, an opportunity through the monitoring system to recover some moneys. Councils, however, strike their rate and set their programme for the year at the start of the year; they get only one crack at it. The Minister’s suggestion about having that is a wee bit unfair.

Mr Weir also talked about flexibility. Flexibility is OK within central government, but they do not have it at local government level.

Mr Kinahan talked about how vital the funding is for local councils. He also gave examples of what has happened in his council area. I agree. His main argument related to the fact that this whole thing is about trying to protect in-year cuts. Minister, your colleague Mr Weir mentioned tsunami. I know that your budget is not one of the biggest in the House, but you said that £1 million is a substantial amount of money from your budget to be dished out to councils on a yearly basis. It is not a substantial amount of money. The actual benefits of that money to the councils are tenfold.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

In the past few days, one council that did need it has decided that its chief executive is not being paid enough in this financial year. It has increased the chief executive’s wage to over £100,000 a year. That is a rise of over £10,000. It does not seem as if there are starving councils out there, when you see examples of that type of behaviour.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Far be it from me to comment on an individual council. Obviously, you have had an opportunity to discuss that with councils in recent days. We are trying to secure the funding. It is not the case that any of the councils have said what they need. You are playing politics with it. Maybe you should take a look at trying to run your budgets properly and financially.