Northern Ireland Assembly, 10 October 2011

330 contributions from 70 members. The official report.

Ministerial Statements

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Minister of Education has indicated that he wishes to make a statement.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Thank you, a LeasCheann Comhairle. With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement, in compliance with section 52 of the NI Act 1998, regarding a meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in education sectoral format. The meeting was held in the joint secretariat offices in Armagh on 21 September. I represented the Executive as Minister of Education, along with the Minister for Social Development, Nelson McCausland MLA. The Irish Government were represented by Ruairí Quinn TD, Minister for Education and Skills. This statement has been agreed with Nelson McCausland, and I make it on behalf of us both. I will now summarise the main points from the meeting, ranging across all the agreed areas of education co-operation.

First, on the issue of teacher qualifications, the two education inspectorates gave an informative joint presentation on the co-operation in the professional development of inspectors that has developed between them over many years. In more recent times, the link has placed particular emphasis on the professional development of inspectors. Arising from their work together, a joint inspectorate report on how best to promote and improve literacy and numeracy in schools was published in December 2010. The inspectorates also highlighted the ongoing contribution of exchanges, including the publication of a report on the North/South inspector exchange programme.

The Council noted that the ninth annual standing conference on teacher education North and South was to take place over 29 and 30 September in Cavan under the title of ‘Promoting Literacy and Numeracy through Teacher Education’. I understand that the conference was very well received by all who attended.

We also noted the recent initiation of a North/South community of practice that supports Irish-medium teachers. An action plan to support Irish-medium schools for the 2011-12 academic year is being considered by both Education Departments.

The Council discussed collaborative work between the Regional Training Unit and the Professional Development Service for Teachers on issues of school leadership. We noted that a report entitled ‘Leadership Matters’ is being examined by both Departments with a view to its being published.

We welcomed the ongoing liaison between the two teaching councils on issues relating to teacher mobility in both jurisdictions. We also learned of progress on the provision of information on pension issues for teachers who wish to transfer to work in the other jurisdiction. The Council welcomed the publication of literacy and numeracy strategies by the Education Departments and their commitment to tackling underachievement in literacy and numeracy, especially among those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds.

We welcomed the collaborative work being taken forward by those Departments. That work included a successful joint conference entitled ‘Promoting Literacy within and beyond Schools’, which took place in February 2011. There has been continued support for maths week Ireland: a series of events took place last October aimed at promoting the awareness, appreciation and understanding of mathematics for all.

Other possible areas for 2011-12 include further work with Children’s Books Ireland. The aim is to develop a programme with a specific focus on re-engaging 10- to 14-year olds in reading and on opportunities for joint working on common priorities set out in the Departments’ respective literacy and numeracy strategies. There is also a proposal for a peer learning event on school attendance, with a focus on post-primary pupils.

The Department of Education has commissioned research into good practice and partnership approaches between school and family in deprived areas in promoting the regular school attendance of pupils of compulsory school age. I expect a report on those matters by March 2012. I also expect the task force on Traveller education to present its report and recommendations to the Department of Education. My Department is working on a draft action plan, with a view to carrying out a consultation between January and March 2012. The Council also welcomed collaborative work on developing a toolkit for diversity to support the professional development of middle management in schools.

The Council welcomed the continuing progress made by the Middletown Centre for Autism, including the delivery of training to professionals and parents. That includes developing links with special education support services and the Inter-Board Autistic Spectrum Disorder Advisory Service, as well as a continuing programme of research. The centre’s most recent publication documents relevant research on autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) in girls and the continuing research on sensory provision and working memory for those on the autism spectrum.

The centre has also worked with the Department of Education on capacity building for special educational needs. We welcomed the progress made by the centre and the two Education Departments on the development of a multi-annual plan for the future development of the centre. We looked forward to the continued efforts of all parties in the months ahead. A paper is due to be presented to both Ministers in late autumn. The Council noted that discussions are at an advanced stage between the centre and both Education Departments on finalising the overall budget allocation for the 2011-12 financial year, recognising the need for the centre to operate on a sustainable basis.

The Council noted that the first paper from a comprehensive study on North/South co-operation in the education sector has been agreed and finalised by the two Departments. In preparing for part two of the study, we recognised that the current budgetary climate presents opportunities for joint school planning in border areas. We agreed that the two Education Departments should jointly design and conduct a survey to establish the current and future schooling capacity and need in border regions and the level of demand from parents and young people for the option to choose a school across the border.

The Council noted that the second year of the pilot enterprise strand of the dissolving boundaries programme has been successfully completed. We look forward to receiving a joint report from both inspectorates when they complete their formal evaluation of the programme.

The Council discussed a review of the work and remit of the North/South education and training standards committee for youth work that is being considered by both Education Departments. We also noted the ongoing discussions on future co-operation on the endorsement of youth work qualifications to ensure and support best practice and facilitate professional mobility and exchange, North/South and east-west. We welcomed the proposals for the 2011-12 North/South student teacher exchange project.

The Council agreed that the North/South Ministerial Council in education sectoral format should meet again around November or December.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement this afternoon. Given the detail, or lack thereof, that he gave about the Middletown centre, why, after a number of years, do we still not have an updated, phased multi-annual plan? It was set out in the agreement by the North/South Ministerial Council that such a plan would be produced. Seven months into the current financial year, why are we being told that work is still ongoing on finalising the overall budget allocation for this year:

“recognising the need for the centre to operate on a sustainable basis”?

Is the Minister coming to the conclusion that many in the House came to a long time ago, which is that the centre at Middletown is no longer sustainable?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for his question. No, I have not come to the conclusion that the centre is unsustainable. As with all areas of work in the Department of Education, I want to be sure that the work is sustainable. Until contrary evidence is brought to my attention, I am of the view that the centre is sustainable. A lot of good work is going on in the centre, and young people with autism and their families have benefited from that work.

The reason for the delay in the multi-annual development plan is that I am awaiting a report from my colleague Minister Ruairí Quinn and his Department. I have spoken directly to Minister Quinn, and my officials have spoken directly to his officials, about that proposal’s coming forward. I await that proposal, and once it is on my table we will be able to map out a clear and defined way forward for the Middletown centre.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

Is the Minister attempting to use children to dismantle the border by some other means? In his statement he reported that:

“the two Education Departments should jointly design and conduct a survey”

to establish what the demand would be for children to choose a school across the border. What exactly are you up to, Minister? Where does that move sit with the audit that you have just commissioned?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am about educating children, and I want to assure myself and my Department that the border is not an obstacle to education. Whether the Member likes it or not, families and communities cross the border all the time and have no knowledge of a territorial boundary being there. They see themselves as being one community, they move back and forth, and it is only logical that, if we can provide schools that are of mutual benefit to both sides of the island, we should do so. We have established a survey to register the demand for cross-border school planning and to decide how we can remove obstacles to that. Currently, around 250 children transfer across the border on a daily basis. If we are moving forward and planning a new schools estate, I and Minister Quinn want to be able to build schools that are of mutual benefit to people on both sides of the border and to build them in the right place. That is what it is about.

It will have no bearing on the audit that I have asked to be conducted. It may have a bearing on future area planning, and it is common sense that if we can share resources to our mutual benefit we should do so.

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

Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis as an ráiteas a thug sé anseo inniu. Ba mhaith liom ceist a chur air faoi na moltaí atá sa tuarascáil a d’ullmhaigh an cumann ar mhalartuithe [Interruption.]

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

How long are you going to take to ask this question?

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

— oideachais Thuaidh agus Theas, agus cén uair a chuirfear na moltaí sin i gcrích —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member ask his question and translate please?

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

Gabh mo leithscéal.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member ask his question and translate please?

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I was in the process of asking a question when you interrupted me. I shall now translate my question, as required by the rules of the House.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member please sit down?

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

No, I refuse to sit down.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member please sit down?

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

Ní shuífidh mé síos.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I am chairing this event today. Will the Member please sit down?

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

Is cuma liom.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member please sit down? I wish to speak.

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

Bhí mé ag cur ceiste nuair a chuir tú isteach orm toisc gur chuir an fear sin isteach.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Is the Member challenging the Chair?

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

The Member is challenging the Chair.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member please sit down?

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

Yes.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I remind everyone that the Chair is chairing a meeting of the Assembly. If the Speaker or a Deputy Speaker asks someone to sit down, I ask that people respect that. I gave the Member a degree of time to ask his question, but I did not hear that question. I then asked for a question and for a translation. I ask the Member to ask his question and to ensure that there is order in the House. I ask that everyone please respects the Speaker.

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

Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Thank you for that ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased that you are in authority here rather than Mr McNarry.

Will the Minister state what action is being taken to implement the proposals prepared by the North/South Exchange Consortium on educational exchanges? When can we expect to see some movement on that report?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The Member will be aware that, since the establishment of the North/South Ministerial Council and the sectoral meetings, there has been an opening up of the border in regard to education. Many matters that were once forbidden are now being developed across our education sectors. The report he refers to is only one of several that my Department is dealing with and implementing sections of. As I outlined in the statement, several major pieces of work are ongoing or developing in relation to the cross-border and all-Ireland educational format. I am aware of the reports of that body. A number of its proposals are being implemented, as are proposals from reports by several other sectors.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

It is with some trepidation that I ask a question about the Irish-medium sector. The Minister referred to an action plan to support Irish-medium schools for the 2011-12 academic year. Will the Minister expand on that slightly? Does it mean that there is a question of favouritism towards a particular sector? The Irish-medium sector is not the only one in need of an action plan or extra funding.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

No favouritism is being shown to any sector. I am meeting the legal obligations of the Department as set out in legislation and the principles of the Good Friday Agreement. That item is on the agenda of the North/South Ministerial Council sectoral format meeting because my colleague Minister Quinn and his Department have resources that we wish to access in regard to supporting the Irish-medium sector. They have a much more advanced sector than we have, and it is only logical that we learn and garner support from them in relation to the Irish-medium sector.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I note from the agenda that teachers’ superannuation was to be discussed at the meeting but has not been reported on. Will you give an explanation for that?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Superannuation is an ongoing issue in discussions between my Department and that of Minister Quinn. We want to reach a point where both jurisdictions recognise and work within the superannuation framework. We want to ensure that we are removing the obstacles for teachers flowing back and forth, so that they can take advantage of job opportunities. When there have been further developments, I will report to the Assembly and the Committee.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I noted with interest the section of the statement on special educational needs and the Minister’s commitment to continue with the Middletown Centre for Autism. Will you assure the House that Middletown will be asked to work much more closely with existing autism organisations than it has done in the past, and that you will look after those with special educational needs? In my constituency we face the closure of a special educational needs unit.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I assure the Member that, where appropriate, the Middletown centre will and does work with relevant statutory and non-statutory agencies on both sides of the border. I cannot comment on the matter he raises regarding his constituency. If he writes to me I will respond, but I have no detail before me as regards it.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

I note that the Department has commissioned research into good practice and partnership approaches between schools and families in deprived areas. Has the Minister considered looking into the results of neighbourhood renewal projects that are ongoing between schools and colleges, including those in Craigavon in our constituency?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The Member raises a good example of how Departments and agencies can work together. A number of the projects ongoing in the Craigavon neighbourhood renewal scheme are worthwhile and are showing results for young people from deprived areas, as well as showing the benefits and value of education. All examples of good practice will be explored and shared at the North/South Ministerial Council meetings.

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

What meetings has the Minister had to date with his colleague Michael Gove and his counterpart in Scotland?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I have had no meetings to date. I have said in the House previously that I am more than happy to meet Michael Gove or my counterpart in Scotland, but I have had no request to meet either counterpart on those matters. I have been in correspondence with them regarding matters of mutual concern and areas that Mr Gove announced on television before letting us know formally, but that appears to be his style. However, I have no difficulty working east-west or North/South and building relationships.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

The Minister referred to a conference on promoting literacy within and beyond schools. I wonder whether he has an opinion on the Book Buddies initiative, which has been undertaken in the American state of Oklahoma, in which an old people’s home has become a centre of learning, with one-to-one engagement, resulting in higher literacy rates for the young people and a reduced reliance on medication for the older people.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I do not have detailed information regarding the matter to which the Member refers, but I would be happy if he could share it with me so that I can examine it. Even from the commentary that he has made about the issue, I think that it is an interesting proposal because we have to break education out of the classroom and the school playground back into the community, and imaginative ways, such as the one that he suggested, are worth exploring. Regardless of the best efforts of our teaching profession, we cannot expect teachers to take on the whole burden of education, as strange as that may sound, because various reports have shown that up to 80% of a young person’s educational attainment takes place outside the school and the classroom, and community initiatives such as that one are worth exploring.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Minister said that he has no difficulty working east-west, but this statement, like so many, is a litany of collaboration between North and South on all these issues. Under the Minister or his predecessors, when has there ever been such collaboration with the education authorities of the nation of which we are a part — the United Kingdom? Why has he not been meeting the Ministers of the United Kingdom? Does he not think that that might be a more useful usage of his time?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

There are several questions there. You risk only one being answered.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I will respond to the first question. The clue is in the title: North/South Ministerial Council meeting.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement, and I welcome the part that explores joint school planning in border areas. Is there any indication as to the possible savings that could accrue from that part of the statement? How long might the survey take to carry out?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The savings element of the work has not yet been conducted. The reason why we are carrying out the survey is because we wish to identify demand. Once we have identified demand, we will work on the financial implications and whether they are negative or positive. However, it is interesting to note that, at the meeting, Minister Quinn said that it should be cost-neutral. His proposal was that each Department, regardless of the jurisdiction, should still cover the costs of pupils or children as they cross the border. Therefore, in that sense, it appears to me that any proposal should be cost-neutral.

If we move towards possible joint development of schools, that may be more complicated to resolve with regard to costings, capital builds and so forth. However, we wish the survey to be completed between now and April, and we want the results back in so that they can be studied and we can move on.

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

There is a surplus of places in many of our border schools, which, according to the Minister, could threaten their viability, and there is also a shortage of school places in many parts of the Republic. Will the Minister tell me whether he has specifically discussed with Ruairí Quinn TD the possibility of making school places in the North available to Southern students to ensure the viability of our border schools?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Yes. It has been a topic of debate with Minister Quinn on several occasions. This is not simply about a cross-border issue and about ticking a box. This is about providing real education to real young people who live in border communities. If we can secure a number of smaller rural schools on this side of the border, I am happy to implement that policy and move it forward. However, we have to carry out the survey first to see where the demand is. We also have to deal with a number of legal matters, such as free travel and provision of services, to determine whether we still comply with European legislation. I have asked my Department to explore that further. I have also asked the Attorney General for guidance and information on the provision of transport, et cetera, across the border. All of those matters are being explored.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. In light of the joint inspectorate report published in December 2010, what are the next steps for literacy and numeracy?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I must say that the presentation from the two inspectorates was very good. It is clear that the inspectorates are working closely together and have obtained mutual benefit from their collaboration and sharing of good practice across the board. It has been a productive piece of work.

One of the benefits of the inspectorates’ working together is, as I said, that they examine best practice across that field. They share that knowledge so that our inspectorate can come back and help the Department to develop policy. That also allows its Southern counterpart to help to develop policy by taking on board the good work that we do, especially that which relates to our newest policy on numeracy and literacy.

The inspectorate is one of the key elements in improving numeracy and literacy. It inspects schools; it sees teachers’ practice at work; and it sees leadership in the classroom, the principal’s office and from the senior management team. Therefore, its development can help us to develop numeracy and literacy skills.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas. Will the Minister update the House on the issues facing those who wish to become teachers on the other part of the island? What is being done to harmonise all-Ireland teaching qualifications?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The teaching councils in both jurisdictions are conducting a study and producing a report on the obstacles to teacher qualifications on either side of the border. I hope that the report will soon be completed. When it has been delivered to both Ministers and we have agreed on action points, we will move expeditiously to remove any barriers that may exist.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

That is the end of questions on the ministerial statement.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I wish to make a statement on the Londonderry to Coleraine railway line. As many Members will be aware, there has been considerable interest in that issue over recent weeks. That is due to the large number of people in the north-west and, indeed, throughout Northern Ireland who have a strong desire to see that railway line upgraded.

The mayor of Derry City Council organised the meeting that took place on 24 August 2011 in the Guildhall in Londonderry. It was convened to allow representatives of political parties, community groups and the business sector to discuss the importance of the local railway line to the north-west area, particularly in view of the year of culture activities, which are at an advanced stage of planning, and the impact of Translink’s proposals to maintain safety standards on the line in light of the limited capital made available in Budget 2010.

On hearing about the planned meeting, I asked to be allowed to attend to hear at first hand the views of all local representatives, including you, Mr Speaker. The meeting lasted for about two hours. All those who spoke were direct and to the point. As I said to Members during the Adjournment debate on 12 September, the strength and depth of feeling expressed at that meeting and the validity of arguments made required me to consider what, if anything, could be done.

Following the meeting, I tasked my officials to work with Translink to consider all options. I want to update the House on the outcome of that work. Let me begin with a little background information. The regional development strategy and the regional transportation strategy both refer to the need to improve public transport links between Belfast and Londonderry. Given the continued investment in new trains and the clear growth in passenger numbers, investment to secure the condition of the railway track was seen as crucial.

The original business case to justify the investment in the Coleraine to Londonderry line was approved by the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) in November 2010. The approved option was single track relay with a passing loop and appropriate bridge works, at an estimated cost of £75 million. Had funding been available from year 1 of Budget 2010, the project would have begun immediately and been completed during 2013. The project aimed to deliver a 30-year design life and the removal of existing speed restrictions, with a capacity for an hourly train service initially.

Under that option, the line would have been closed for about 12 months for relaying to take place. The option of working evenings and weekends rather than closure would have more than doubled the cost and may have quadrupled the time.

In February, my predecessor decided to defer the commencement of work on the Londonderry to Coleraine railway line until 2014-15. Some £20 million was set aside in the current Budget to commence the work. That decision was confirmed through a written answer to an Assembly question asked by the Member for East Londonderry Mr George Robinson.

As we all know, doing absolutely nothing is rarely an option. There are major issues with the condition of the existing track that need to be addressed if safety risks are to be managed properly. Therefore, Translink officials developed plans for immediate safety work on the worst part of the line at a cost of £7 million. Even under that understandable make do and mend approach, train speeds would still have to be reduced to avoid risk to passengers. That meant line capacity for only five return trains a day, because of the lack of a passing loop and the interdependence with other train services on the network. It was the release of that detail that precipitated the discussions on 24 August, which I referred to earlier.

As I said, because of the concerns expressed, I tasked my officials to work with Translink to identify other options. As a result, I am pleased to inform the House that it will be possible to re-phase the project. That will mean relaying the end section of the line at Coleraine and Londonderry and completing essential bridge works on those parts, a phase of the project that will cost around £27 million; completion of re-signalling works between Coleraine and Londonderry and construction of a new passing loop in 2015, which is estimated to cost around £22 million and should deliver hourly services; and full relay of the track by 2021 at an estimated cost of £36 million, which should lead to the introduction of half-hourly services.

That option was tested by updating the original economic appraisal. The appraisal indicated that the new phased option is comparable to a full relay in net present cost terms and, in the current circumstances, has a better non-monetary score. Specifically, the 2013 City of Culture factor and the opportunities to promote major sporting and cultural events have also been considered. Critically, the phased option is considered affordable within the parameters of my Department’s current budget.

Translink officials have assured me that, if they get the go-ahead by the end of October, the first phase — the relay — could be completed in April 2013. We need to be clear that there are risks. For example, the proposed timetable is on the basis that the procurement process can be completed without complication.

I also want to make it clear that the line will be closed completely for about nine months from July 2012 until April 2013. The line, therefore, will be closed for the start of the City of Culture year. However, it will be open for most of the key events in the City of Culture calendar, with eight return services a day.

The recommended option in the updated appraisal was approved by the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company board and its accounting officer and submitted to my Department on 19 September. My officials and I gave it urgent consideration and agreed that the economic case for the phased option was acceptable in the circumstances. The addendum has been submitted to DFP Supply, with whom there has been constructive engagement. I do not expect any issues to arise with DFP approval.

I will now turn to funding. The updated appraisal makes it clear that about £27 million of capital funding is required in 2012-13 to allow the first phase of the project to go ahead. I realise that the Executive’s capital budget is under pressure, so I am prepared to find that capital from my existing budget by re-profiling some planned strategic road schemes. I stress that the re-profiling will mean that there will be merely a six to eight-week delay in starting those projects. I estimate that that will provide about £22 million of the required sum, and I am looking to Translink to re-profile its current and future capital expenditure to provide the rest.

The choice of road schemes to be re-profiled will have to take account of the commitments made by the Republic of Ireland Government to the A5 and A8 schemes, the current state of progress on those and other road schemes, including the A2 and A6 schemes, risks arising from procurement, and, critically, the capacity of the construction industry to deliver on the roads programme.

I know that many Members will agree that there remains a strong economic case for ensuring that the roads budget is adequately funded. I realise that there are other competing priorities for the £22 million, not least capital investment needs in water and sewerage systems in my own Department’s budget. Under present plans, however, some £50 million would have been required to complete the full relay option in 2015-16. That will no longer be directly required for this project and could be switched back to the roads budget if required at that time. That would, of course, be subject to Executive consideration in relation to the next Budget period.

I am sure that colleagues will agree with me on the compelling case for investment in the Londonderry to Coleraine rail line. The arguments in favour of the proposal are based not on a narrow economic analysis but on the wider imperative of completing that phase of track enhancement in time for the 2013 City of Culture. The work will also complement and assist the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s efforts to secure major golf tournaments and other prestige events for the area.

I am aware of previous problems with the Belfast-Bangor line relay, including poor specification and project management, as well as budget overruns, which led, rightly, to criticism by the Public Accounts Committee. I am determined that that will not happen in this case, and I will task my officials accordingly.

At the Executive meeting on 6 October, I asked Ministers to agree that I re-phase the Londonderry to Coleraine rail line project, doing the relay and essential bridge works first and the signalling, passing loop and remaining bridge works after the 2013 Year of Culture. There was full agreement to that proposal.

In my view, this decision secures the Londonderry to Coleraine rail line’s future. Indeed, I will wish to see further investment in that railway line so that, in years to come, a high-speed and frequent railway service will operate between the north-west and Belfast and onwards to Dublin and Cork. Rail services will operate eight trains a day for most of the City of Culture year. When the other two phases of the project are complete, the opportunity will exist for increased and more frequent services.

This decision sends out a clear message that the Executive are determined to ensure that opportunities arising from potential cultural, tourism and sporting events will be fully supported. It also clearly demonstrates that we can and do listen to what people say to us.

I thank Catherine Mason and her team at Translink for their help in making this proposal a reality. I know that they all put a lot of work into the project in recent weeks, and I am grateful for their assistance. I also pay particular tribute to my own officials in the Department for Regional Development, who worked exceedingly hard in the past few weeks to make this proposal possible.

Today’s announcement is good news for the people of the north-west, the people of Northern Ireland and the many hundreds of thousands of visitors who come to this fine land and use that scenic railway line. I am sure that they will all join me in supporting this good news. I am also pleased to inform the House that I have given Translink officials permission to proceed, and an advert will appear in the European journal within the next week or so.

I look forward to being on the train to Londonderry in April 2013, and I trust that as many Members as possible will join me in visiting the Maiden City during the City of Culture year. I commend the statement to the House.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I welcome the Minister’s statement and thank him for briefing the Deputy Chair and me earlier. I believe that this is a common-sense approach to a critical part of our rail infrastructure. I will not rehearse in full my comments in a debate on the Londonderry line on 12 September, other than to say that this will represent a major boost to the economy of Northern Ireland in the year of the UK City of Culture.

I note that the Minister refers to commitments of the Republic of Ireland Government in respect of the A5. Will he advise the House whether he has any further update on the availability of resources from the Republic of Ireland Government? Will he also assure the House that, despite Translink’s indication that the upgrade “could” be completed by April 2013, he will do all in his power to ensure that the works will be completed for 2013?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Chair, Mr Spratt, for his encouragement and that of his Committee. I agree that the announcement will give a huge boost to the local economy in the north-west and has the capacity to generate significant opportunities for culture and tourism as we move towards 2013 and beyond.

The Chair of the Committee has made reference to the A5 and A8 schemes. He will know, as the House knows, that I am awaiting the inspector’s report to update me on views on the A5 and A8 schemes. That is my standard response. I am not in a position to comment, and it would not be sensible or proper for me to do so; the Chair of the Committee and other Members understand that. However, I believe that the upgrade is possible by 2013. I hope, and will work positively to ensure, that works are completed in time for the celebrations in April 2013.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

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

I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome his clear statement of commitment — indeed, the Executive’s clear commitment — to the Derry line. From his visit to the Guildhall in August, the Minister knows the importance that people place in the railway line as a key piece of infrastructure for the regeneration of the north-west and for the City of Culture.

The Minister noted some concern about the procurement process. What steps can he take to ensure that there are no glitches in that process so that, as he arrives on the first train into Derry in April 2013, we can all be there to welcome him?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I welcome the Member’s comments, which represent significant progress on his behalf. He will no doubt recall the statement he issued on 24 August 2011, in which he said:

“It would seem that Danny Kennedy — true to the historical Ulster Unionist Party approach to everything that would benefit Derry — is determined to dismantle all of the foundations for progress”.

The Ulster Unionist Party got the blame for basically everything that had gone wrong over a generation, when he said that it was:

“All denied to Derry by the Ulster Unionist Party!”

I am sorry that the Member, in his contribution, was not a little bit more aware of what he had said earlier, but I welcome the fact that he has at least given grudging approval to my announcement, because, in his response to the announcement, he was out like Linford Christie. The ink was not dry on the Executive decision before Mr McCartney had a statement out welcoming it. I hope that it nails the false and offensive allegations that were peddled by Raymond McCartney and others from Sinn Féin in relation to how the Ulster Unionist Party approached issues around the north-west. His contribution, though late, is welcome.

It is my intention to monitor progress on procurement issues. Obviously, if legal issues arise, they will be subject to their own timetable, but I am very hopeful and optimistic. I, as Minister, my Department and Translink will want to see the progress that we have indicated here, the necessary work carried out and the line reopened in April 2013.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. He referred to previous difficulties with the Bangor to Belfast relay. Will he ensure that detailed plans are approved for this relay before the contractors come on site, so that the relatively tight timetable can be met? Will he ensure that the proper procurement process occurs when appointing contractors?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Yes.

Joe Byrne (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

I wholeheartedly welcome the Minister’s statement. He has responded to the genuine concerns of the people of the north-west. I am happy to say that I said at the last debate on the issue that some sort of rescheduling was surely possible, and I think that has now happened. Will the Minister assure us that the procurement process will be expedited, so that there are no bottlenecks, as Roy Beggs said? Secondly, can he give an assurance that the A5 will in no way be delayed unduly?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his contribution. He has perhaps shown a little more faith in me than others have done. I understand from both the Member for East Antrim and the Member who has just spoken that procurement issues are important. It is important that my Department and Translink work together to ensure the smoothest possible outcome that meets the required deadlines. I have already indicated the restrictions on what I am able to say about the A5, and I think that the Member understands that.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Thank you, Minister, for your statement. It is a very welcome statement indeed. I wish to press you, as others have done, with regard to the procurement process. It is generally given that the construction work will probably flow well to a timetable, but we have had hiccups in the past in relation to the procurement. Will the Minister assure us that the procurement process will be scrutinised regularly, if not daily, by his officials to ensure that it meets the timetable set down?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Yes.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I join in welcoming the Minister’s statement. I also thank him for coming to the Guildhall in Londonderry in August, which he did of his own volition, and for responding to the adjournment debate that was tabled by my colleague Adrian McQuillan several weeks ago.

The Minister will be aware of the old saying that just because we are not paranoid, it does not mean that they are not out to get us. Taking account of that and setting it to one side, however, the one issue that I hope he can respond to is that his Translink officials, at the time of the Guildhall discussion and subsequently, said that, even if the money were available there and then, there would still not be enough time to get the line open and up and running for 2013 UK City of Culture. Will he explain to the House, now that the money is available, how the work will be done in time?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his contribution. The context of the remarks that were made in the Guildhall meeting was absolutely clear. In the context of the overall scheme, the estimated cost of which was £75 million, it was simply not possible to meet the timescale. The fact that we are now phasing the work makes it possible for the essential relay and bridge strengthening to take place. Effectively, that will allow us to get the work done over a nine-month period so that we will be up and running from April 2013.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement and for the briefing that he gave to me and the Committee Chairperson earlier today. I also welcome his belated commitment to the north-west; developments like that are always good. I understand the constraints of the independent inspector’s report. It is my understanding that, of the £27 million required, £22 million will come from the A5 project. That will lead to a delay in the start of that project by six to eight weeks. At what point will the £22 million go back into the A5 project?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for at least having the good grace to welcome the statement and the announcement. I shall ignore his backhanded compliment about commitment to the north-west. My view, and that of my party, is that we have, and always have had, a strong commitment to the north-west and to the great city of Londonderry, and that remains. Today’s statement is proof of that.

I have had to re-profile moneys from within my budget. Therefore, the £22 million that is being used for this work will, or could at some stage in the future, technically, because it is a transfer from roads to rail, transfer back as necessary. It is about management of my budget to enable this sensible and appropriate decision to be taken forward.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his very positive statement. The current journey time between Belfast and Londonderry is approximately two hours and 15 minutes. Will the Minister indicate whether the work that is hopefully going to be done before April 2013 will have an impact on that journey time?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his welcome, and I thank him for it. The relay work is essential for safety, and, to a limited extent, it will also help with journey times. However, there are other factors, such as where in Belfast those journeys begin and their speed. The long-term intention is that we not only improve the line and introduce a loop system that will increase the number of trains on the line but shorten journey times. The Member’s point is well made, and we are conscious of it, but we want to build on that positively.

Michael Copeland (UUP, Belfast East)

Will the Minister advise when he expects to get the final Department of Finance and Personnel approval for the commencement of the work?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for welcoming the scheme. [Laughter.] We have worked and engaged constructively with officials and, indeed, the Minister of Finance and Personnel on this matter. It shows a degree of joined-up government. I am also pleased that the Executive gave their approval to the recommendation. I think that it is good decision for not only the House but the Executive. Members should dwell on one issue: had the work not been brought forward and we faced the prospect of Londonderry’s being the City of Culture in 2013 without any serious kind of rail link between there and Belfast, we would all have been numpties and would have been branded as such. That applies not only to Members of the Executive but to Members of the Assembly. I think that the public understand that, and it proves that we are listening and are capable of listening to public opinion. It also proves that we are capable of moving forward on a value-for-money basis.

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

I also welcome the Minister’s statement and the commitment that he gave this afternoon with no ifs, no buts and no begrudgery. I am absolutely delighted. I fully understand the difficult circumstances that the Minister inherited from the previous Minister. Can he give us a guarantee today that the stop-start approach to the renaissance of that most wonderful railway is now definite and that we can have, in as short a time as possible, a decent intercity service between the cities of Derry and Belfast?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for his acknowledgement of today’s announcement. I know that he has an abiding interest, which he has shown in the House, in the upgrade of rail services between Belfast and Londonderry. I reassure him that the announcement gives clear confidence to the long-term viability and future of rail services between Belfast and Londonderry. That is to be welcomed. There is much more work that we can do and get on with. The Member knows that this is a positive day and that it should be seen as such. Many people, including Michael Palin, love the journey and make it not only to conduct business but to enjoy tourism and the scenery, which is very special. I hope that word will have reached Michael Palin that we are able to do something and that this parrot is not dead after all. [Laughter.] We have been pleased to put life into the project. So, I thank the Member for his very positive comments.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I, too, welcome the Minister’s statement this afternoon. I remind him that, to get to Coleraine, he has to go via the Ballymena and Ballymoney stations in north Antrim. However — there is a “however”, of course, in all these things — the Minister referred to risk. He outlined the issues on the re-profiling of some planned strategic road schemes, such as the A8, the A5, the A2 and the A6. Will he assure the House that that re-profiling will not in any way inhibit or stall the A26, which is, equally, a very important part of the transport infrastructure of north Antrim?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his words of welcome and his timely reminder that anyone who uses that line has to travel through his constituency, which is really what he meant. [Laughter.] The A26 is, at this point, still within his constituency boundary.

As they know, all Members have put forward many projects for consideration. I hope very much that, given my overall budget, we will be able to bring forward projects to deal with road improvements, strategic and otherwise, as we move forward.

I am not in a position today to say that upgrading the line will impact on a particular scheme, but my commitment is to upgrade the roads infrastructure all over Northern Ireland and, likewise, to improve rail services.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I welcome the Minister’s statement, and I congratulate him on this significant development. I welcome the fact that he has found the funding from his existing budget. What is his assessment of the increased tourist potential that the upgrade will bring to the entire north-west, the north coast, Ballymena and Ballymoney? What is his assessment of how the railway line can be seen as a legacy from Londonderry’s time as the UK City of Culture?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for his welcome for the statement. The upgrade will help to unlock the potential for significant investment in tourism and cultural and sporting opportunities. My Executive colleague the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is actively pursuing how we can bring a major golf championship to the north-west. I have no doubt that an effective and efficient rail service between Belfast and Londonderry would contribute to that. To that extent, I am hopeful that it will be seen as a clear signal not only of the development of the north-west but of promoting cultural, economic, sporting and other links in Northern Ireland generally so that all of us can benefit.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I also welcome the Minister’s statement, which will be extremely well received in my constituency. I congratulate him on listening to and acting on the measured arguments that were made by the people of Derry. Are attempts ongoing to access European funding that might enable the project in its entirety to be completed more quickly? Should the total cost estimate include the cost of the renovation, reconstruction or even relocation of Waterside train station to ensure that it is fit for purpose and to maximise the service’s potential?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his initial comments and warm welcome for the announcement. Having received half a loaf, he now wants all of the bread. I understand the points that he made. We are pursuing whether there are any European funding opportunities that the three-phase scheme could avail itself of. Early work is being carried out on how the possible replacement or upgrade of the rail station at Londonderry might be brought forward. However, given the significant challenges in the budgetary situation, I have to be realistic about that.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

It is good that a start to the upgrade has been made. It surprises me that the full upgrade has slipped to 2021, and I trust that it will be completed. Will the Minister agree that, rather than merely reprofiling the A5, if that is what he intends, if he were to radically revisit it, he would have an abundance of money not only to complete the rail link to Londonderry much sooner but to do the other vital projects such as the further dualling of the A26? Another of those simple yeses would do.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for what I at least thought was a positive welcome for my announcement. I have already given my response on the A5. Sensibly and rightly, I am constrained about what I can say, and even the Member knows that.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

I also welcome the Minister’s statement and his commitment to the project. Is nine months the minimum or maximum closure of the railway line?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his welcome. Our estimated time frame is nine months. If that can be improved on, we would welcome that. There are procurement issues, which take time to work through, and we need to make sure that the contracts are signed and sealed and everything is correct. I am happy to monitor the situation to see whether it is possible to improve on that time frame. However, at this stage, the best estimate is that the work will take nine months, allowing the line to reopen in April 2013.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Aire. I thank the Minister, and I, too, welcome the proposed delivery of the project, most of which is in my constituency.

The Minister alluded to the thousands of visitors who would benefit from the panoramic views across Lough Foyle and Donegal. Does he also recognise the hundreds of thousands of travellers who do less than benefit from the views of the car in front as they get snarled up in Dungiven because of the lack of a bypass there and the people of Dungiven who are breathing in on a daily basis 10 times the nitrous dioxide level recommended by the European Union?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for welcoming my statement. He refers to the A6 project, and he will be aware that my Department has been carrying forward that work on an ongoing basis. We will continue to do that.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I, too, join all those who welcomed the Minister’s statement. Although I have no constituency interest in it whatsoever, it is certainly good news for Northern Ireland.

The Minister referred to the reprofiling of some roads, and, although I understand that his Department has to look at that for the different areas, from a constituency perspective I am happy for him to save money and not waste it on the dualling of the Randalstown to Castledawson road. I ask him to reconsider whether that is a necessary option for that community.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for welcoming the announcement. Obviously, all politics is local. He raised an issue of concern in his constituency, and I have had recent meetings with other elected representatives on the same basis. We will, hopefully, bring forward our views on that in the coming months.

Committee Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The next item of business on the Order Paper is the motion to annul a statutory rule. As is normal in debates on legislation, there will be no time limits for Members wishing to speak.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I beg to move

That the Housing Benefit (Amendment No 2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2011 (SR 2011/293) be annulled.

As I understand it, since the first mandate of this Assembly, only six prayers of annulment have been proposed and only four have been passed by the House. In that context, as the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development, I come to the House to seek its support for the annulment of the statutory rule.

Although all Committee members expressed serious concerns about the rule, there was no consensus in the Committee when voting to seek a prayer of annulment. Largely, that was because of the question of parity. Members who voted against the motion to annul did so in the belief that any annulment would lead to a breach of parity, and they did not see that as an option. Those who voted to annul believed that the matter need not be a breach of parity and that there is a record of accommodation on the operation of parity to allow, at the very least, the matter to be looked at again.

In Committee, the motion to annul was carried by four votes to two, with a number of members choosing not to vote or to abstain. That vote reflected the uncertainty with which, the Committee felt, it ought to proceed. In such circumstances, it is right and proper for the Committee to seek the opinion of the Assembly. All Committee members agree that this statutory rule has serious consequences, and the House has the opportunity to voice its overall opinion on the issue and, more importantly, on the way to proceed. As Committee Chairperson, I am content that this is the right thing to do.

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

Statutory rule 293 — the rule we are debating today — amends the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006. It changes the definition of what constitutes a “young individual”. At present, a young individual is deemed to be someone under the age of 25. If the statutory rule is accepted, that age group will be raised to include all those under 35 years of age. The consequence will be that, whereas, at present, a single person over 25 is entitled to housing benefit at a rate that allows them to live in, for example, a privately rented, single-occupancy one-bedroom flat, the entitlement threshold will be raised to the age of 35. It means that a single person under 35 who is entitled to housing benefit and is seeking accommodation in the private sector will be entitled to rent only a single room in shared housing — in other words, accommodation in a HMO. There is provision for exemptions in specified circumstances, but they will not protect the vast majority of people from the change.

According to accepted figures, the statutory rule will immediately affect around 6,000 of the 8,000 individuals who already live in single occupancy accommodation. Their housing benefit will be cut from around £80 a week to £40 — a 50% reduction. In our view, a 50% reduction is tantamount to a notice to quit their current accommodation. To those 6,000 individuals will be added, year on year, all those who will join the list — those who would have been but will no longer be entitled to housing benefit for a single flat rather than a single room. The number of people rendered homeless is 6,000, and that figure will grow.

It is interesting to note that the statutory rule will apply only to the private rented sector, which currently accounts for 20% of available housing here. If those 6,000 people and all the others to follow could access suitable public housing, their housing benefit would be paid. However, we all know that public housing provision cannot meet that need here. The private rented sector offers the only viable option for most single people who are in need of accommodation, and that is one reason why Committee members as a whole viewed the rule as particularly harsh in the context of our local circumstances.

During consideration of the rule, the Committee heard from organisations that deal with housing issues and homelessness, and their evidence was truly shocking to many of us. I thank the Voluntary Sector Housing Policy Forum, which gave a lot of time and energy to provide important information to Committee members. The plain fact is that there is not enough shared accommodation to provide a roof over the heads of those whom the rule will render potentially homeless. Our hostels for the homeless are already filled to capacity and are turning people away. The Department accepts that argument. If we are forced to resort to emergency accommodation — B&Bs, hostels and so on — it will cost more than the housing benefit that it will replace.

Many of us would argue that the real motivation behind this is worth taking on board. People such as Iain Duncan Smith, the British Government Minister, have argued that this has nothing to do with cuts. He believes that providing public support for single occupancy tenancy for those under the age of 35 “erodes the incentive to work”. Many of us believe that he is wrong. Again, that addresses the issue of whether this is a change, whether it is about cuts or whether it is to further an ideological argument. Homelessness, insecure housing and rough sleeping undermine the ability of people to seek secure work: it renders them less employable, not more employable. Men under the age of 35 will be most adversely affected in our broader community, and this is the group in the North that carries a high risk of suicide. Many who will lose their home will not have the family ties and support that will see them through a crisis. Although the figures for women are lower, the loss of their home will be just as traumatic.

The debate is not about party politics, and it is not a criticism of the Minister or the Department. All members of all parties on the Committee have expressed serious concerns about this statutory rule and others. Some in the House will see this as an issue of parity and nothing else. Let me reassure them that it does not have to be. Different arrangements could be made, and we argue that, in other circumstances, different arrangements have been made and have not, in effect, been a breach of parity. Those who support the motion believe that, if the Assembly were to support the Committee on this prayer of annulment, it would allow that conversation to take place between DWP and DSD.

I will depart from speaking on behalf of the Committee to make a couple of points in my capacity as a party member. As I said, some Members believe that this is simply an issue of parity and that parity cannot be breached. I remind Members that parity is based on equality of input, output and outcome. In other words, people can be told that they pay the same national insurance and tax and, therefore, get the same level of benefits. However, parity has also been defined as parity of outcome. No one here has argued that properly. In fact, most people argue the reverse, which is that, because people here have a lower standard of living but higher costs, the outcome of adopting such a resolution from Westminster would be inequality for those in this region.

Members of the Committee who voted to propose the prayer of annulment are of the belief that the statutory rule does not represent parity in its strictest sense. We believe that there is and should be considerable room to manoeuvre, given that our housing infrastructure will not meet the needs of those who will be affected by the implementation of the statutory rule. We argue for maximum support from the Assembly. We ask the Assembly to support the motion. The motion is not a criticism of the Minister or the Department, but other Committee members and I feel that, too often, the Department takes the strictest definition of parity. It needs to be more creative in its approach.

In proposing the motion on behalf of the Committee and supporting it as a member of Sinn Féin, I ask Members to support the motion to annul the statutory rule on the basis that it is not, in effect, a breach of parity. It would allow a formal negotiation to commence between DSD and DWP to see whether we can find a more suitable accommodation — no pun intended —to meet the needs of the people whom, collectively, we in the House represent.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I do not think that there is any doubt in the House or among Committee members about the sense of division that will be felt by those who will feel the most direct impact of this statutory rule. I certainly did not hear any raised in Committee. In every comment that I heard was a broad acceptance that it will unfairly disadvantage young males between the ages of 25 and 35, in particular. The Chairman stated so, too. The amount of money that a breach of parity would cost the Department and the taxpayer here is, I suppose, the more relevant issue.

I am content that the Committee made the decision to allow the debate to come before the House. We can spend some time talking about the implications of the statutory rule. The rule and the impact that it could have are important matters that need to be discussed by public representatives. However, if we all fail to address how parity is assessed, they almost become side issues. Mr Maskey, the Chairman of the Committee, said that it did not have to be an issue of parity, but, unfortunately, that is the nub of the issue. Whether Members believe this to be a parity issue is not relevant. We can have views about that, and we can express them strongly or otherwise, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether the Minister for Social Development in discussion with the Department for Work and Pensions in London — they are the paymasters — conclude that there has been a breach of parity. That is what matters, not what I, the Committee or anyone in the Assembly thinks. We wait to hear what the Minister will say.

The key point in the debate is that, if the conclusion is that parity has been breached, on this issue alone, we are told, £9 million a year would have to be found from elsewhere in the budget to make up for that breach. We heard from senior DSD officials that, if there were a breach of parity and if, in other matters of welfare reform, there were further breaches of parity, the figure could rise to £4 billion — that is four thousand million, in case anybody thought that they misheard me. However, for this issue alone, £9 million would have to be found if the assessment of the Department for Work and Pensions and DSD is that there has been a breach of parity. Whether I think so is largely irrelevant. Whether the Committee Chairman thinks so is not really relevant either. However, if the Minister responsible determines that it is a breach of parity, it is a breach of parity, and we have to find the money. That is the unfortunate and invidious position that we find ourselves in.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for giving way. Is the Member suggesting that, if the matter were considered to be a breach of parity, the entire £4 billion subvention for social security benefits would fall as a result?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

No, that is not what I said. I do not know if the Member was listening, but I said that the senior DSD official was very clear that, if this breach of parity were to be replicated across the realm of welfare reform, the figure could be up to £4 billion. We are talking about this statutory rule, which could, in itself, cost £9 million. The point that I am making — I repeat this point because I cannot overemphasise its importance — is that it does not matter whether Gregory Campbell thinks that this is a breach of parity or whether Alex Maskey thinks it is, but it does matter if the Westminster Government say, “We have listened to what you have said, and it is a breach of parity”. We would then have to find £9 million. I have not heard anyone, either in Committee or elsewhere, say where they think we will get that £9 million. I wait with interest to hear anyone outline that on the Floor of the Assembly. People are good at saying, “Find the money”, but, when you ask where they suggest we should find it, suddenly there is a dust cloud as people disappear and say that it is over to the Minister to get the money. However, somebody has to get it. If it is a question of parity, we have to take a decision about whether we are prepared to be upfront about finding £9 million to make up for that breach and the consequences that would follow.

The other issue that other members and I raised in Committee is almost as important as the one I have just outlined — it is a pretty close second — and it is as follows: is there any wriggle room for us to delay introduction of the measures to try to ensure that we can find accommodation, whether through private sector or public sector housing providers, for those who will be most directly affected by the changes within a period of, say, 12 months? Again, the Minister’s answer will be crucial because, if there is no wriggle room or room for manoeuvre, no deviation or obfuscation regarding delaying for another year or so, that will concentrate our minds. We may be told that the answer to both those questions is that DSD and DWP, regardless of what everybody else may think — that is the key — are of the mind that there has been a breach of parity and that there is no wriggle room as regards delay or phased introduction around raising the age either to 30 or possibly 35. If the answer to both those questions is a very direct “Yes, there has been a breach of parity” and “No, there is no wriggle room”, I am afraid that, inevitably, there can be only one responsible response from MLAs in the Chamber.

Michael Copeland (UUP, Belfast East)

It would be unwise to underestimate the importance of what is going on in the Chamber this afternoon. In the Committee for Social Development, this matter was raised, discussed, chewed, digested and recycled, and a decision was eventually taken. Almost universal concern was expressed in Committee at the effect that acceptance of the rule would have on potentially 6,000 of our most vulnerable citizens. This is not something that we should or did treat lightly. Indeed, when the issue was taken to a vote, only one party, almost without comment, voted to accept the rule. That act potentially reduced the ability for this matter to be brought to the House, where it should perhaps be more properly and fully examined. As Mr Campbell said, the issue is simple: if we accept the rule, it may adversely affect up to 6,000 of our most vulnerable citizens. No one in the Chamber should or will do that lightly.

I received correspondence in response to questions to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Uncharacteristically for me, I will read from it:

“The potential implications are that tenants may have to downsize in terms of the accommodation they occupy”.

They must lift themselves, against their will, from a place where, presumably, they are reasonably happy and comfortable and for reasons beyond their control remove themselves to some other property that may or may not be available. The Housing Executive went on to state:

“but the availability of that accommodation in the right geographical location may be problematic.”

That is a simple phrase, unless you happen to be put out of the house where you live and find it problematic to find alternative accommodation. The Housing Executive cites a range of barriers that deter tenants from moving. Those include sectarian and religious divides, which is peculiar to Northern Ireland, and the need for various types of support in a geographical location, such as family, welfare and education. The Housing Executive also refers to:

“separated parents, where both have access to children and may have children staying with them, even occasionally, which necessitates an extra bedroom.”

As stated earlier, the availability of appropriate accommodation in the appropriate location is also such a barrier. In the words of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive:

“The potential implications are that if they remain in under-occupied accommodation, then there will be a financial shortfall which could lead to possible financial hardship, rent arrears, potential evictions and more homelessness.”

Those are serious issues that are properly brought here for our consideration today.

If we fail to accept the rule, we may break parity and cost the citizens of this part of the United Kingdom billions of pounds. Again, that cannot be taken lightly. We seek the Minister’s assurance that our failure to accept this rule will indeed break parity, because his opinion and that of those who advise him is the paramount basis on which we must make our decision. We also ask the Minister to examine the effects that accepting the rule will have on those of our citizens who will be most affected and to take whatever measures he can to lessen the damage, should the rule be accepted, by ensuring that proper safety nets are in place and taking steps to assess the current urban and rural supply of accommodation that qualifies for the single-room rate.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Every time departmental officials come to the Committee, they speak of parity and tell us that in no circumstances can parity be broken. However, as the Chair of the Committee said, there have been a number of occasions in the House when it has been broken. Indeed, it was broken twice in the Committee for Social Development alone, despite our being advised that it could not be broken, and there were no consequences. There were also indications that parity has been broken a number of times by Scotland, which was able to renegotiate some of the issues that were being dealt with.

If we were to listen to the Department every time, there would be no movement forward, and we would not be able to do anything. What I am asking — I was certainly thinking of this when I put forward the proposal — is that we look at it, go back and renegotiate and try to get a fair crack of the whip for our constituents. Alex said that, in many ways, we are worse off. That needs to be taken into consideration, as do the 6,000 people who could end up being made homeless.

Michael Copeland (UUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for his comments, his intervention and his previous contributions in Committee. The Scottish example that he quoted is slightly difficult in that these provisions are not devolved in Scotland, and the issue on which it challenged parity led to parity being re-established across the rest of the United Kingdom. That is perhaps a slightly different issue.

We are faced with taking a decision today that is based on the Minister’s opinion, and his is the only opinion that I can take as a stated point of fact. With respect, what you have suggested, sir, could be a gamble, and the implications of that gamble could be considerable.

We do not intend, without comment, seriously to disadvantage 6,000 of our citizens. If an alternative can be found, let us hear about it. However, if the issue does break parity, to do so would be tantamount to irresponsibility; we cannot do that.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I support the prayer of annulment. I agree with the proposed change in the definition of “young people” to include those under 35 years of age, but, unfortunately, that is about it.

Much of today’s debate has been, rightly, about the issue of parity and whether the prayer of annulment would be a breach of parity. It clearly will be a breach, but it is how we reach that breach that is important. Although I fully recognise the importance of the issue and the implications of a breach, it is important that we look at the real issue that we are discussing and why we have brought it to the Assembly. We cannot lose sight of that. We cannot just tut and shake our heads in disapproval while allowing legislation such as this, which we know will have catastrophic effects, to pass. If we simply let it pass, we will fail those who elected us. Therefore, we must focus on the potential consequences of allowing the legislation to pass so that Members who are not on the Committee and who have not heard the arguments or the implications are more aware of the issue at hand.

The impact of the legislation on many young people and those who are over 35 years of age and, as a result, their families will be huge. The one section of our population that will be particularly affected — a couple of Members referred to it — are young men under the age of 35. I would narrow that even further to young fathers under the age of 35 with shared access arrangements for their children. Many non-resident fathers will be consigned to reside in shared accommodation and in houses of multiple occupation, often with total strangers. That will obviously have major implications for child protection, and for many it will make overnight access to their children impossible.

In London, where the legislation was dreamt up, the Victorian architecture lends itself to being used for houses of multiple occupation. Here, we are more likely to end up with people living in Victorian conditions than in Victorian houses, as people accept substandard accommodation just to keep a roof over their heads.

I just received an e-mail with an answer from the Minister to a question for written answer that we submitted a couple of weeks ago regarding HMOs in my constituency, Foyle. Of the HMOs inspected last year, 52% failed. Even the approved HMOs are failing inspections, never mind the houses that people will be forced to move into due to the fact that there are not enough HMOs in the first place.

In Committee, Gregory Campbell raised the point that the problem may be further exacerbated as owners of empty properties face an increased burden of rates and will come under pressure to rent them out in a substandard condition in order to generate some income.

The legislation also threatens the rural fabric of our region, as ever-increasing numbers of younger people from rural communities will be forced further away from their families. The Government in London appear to have no appreciation of the make-up of society in Northern Ireland. Figures that we received during the week indicate that there are only 82 HMOs in rural settings in Northern Ireland.

The rationale behind the legislation is obviously to effect a reduction in the sums of money paid out in housing benefit. However, it displays absolutely no concept of the financial, social and human cost of the increase in homelessness that it will inevitably create.

My party believes that the Assembly should resist implementing the proposals until a full equality impact assessment and a cost-benefit analysis are carried out and effective measures are put in place to mitigate the hardship that the legislation will, undoubtedly, cause.

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

Although I did not vote for this statutory rule to be brought to the Assembly to be annulled, it was not because I did not have concerns about its impact. Such was the strength of my concerns that I put them in writing to the Chairperson of the Committee, as the rule was originally due to be tabled at a meeting that I could not attend and I wanted to ensure that my thoughts were recorded. My party colleague Naomi Long was also wary of the implications of the outworking of this statutory rule and voted against it at Westminster.

If the Assembly believes that we should be exempt from this statutory rule, surely it is for the Minister for Social Development to have made the case to DWP as to why Northern Ireland should be treated differently. From what I have been told, DWP has assessed that that should not be so. Therefore, I am sure that the Minister is disappointed not to have had the support of his MLAs at Committee Stage, given that the stakes are so high. I know that others have chosen to misrepresent my position in the press, but our constituents will not fall for such childish political gesturing.

When this statutory rule was brought to the Committee for a second time, I had the opportunity to raise my concerns. For example, at the outset, it appears that those who suffer from severe mental health issues, such as schizoaffective disorders, will be bound by this rule and unable to find suitable accommodation. However, the Department has confirmed that those in receipt of severe disability premium will be exempt from the rule. I also sought assurances from the Department that discretionary housing payment will be extended beyond six months and was informed that the discretionary housing payment budget will triple from 2012-13. Though that will not cover all of those affected by the change to this rule, it will lessen the blow.

At this stage, I take the opportunity to press the Department and the Executive to ensure that those who are affected are provided with advice and support in accessing suitable housing options and that potential wriggle room is fully explored.

My party has sympathy with housing benefit claimants. However, we believe that this is an issue of parity, and the cost of breaking parity, with regard to the shared accommodation rate, prohibits that course of action. We are honest enough with our electorate to say that that is the case. Unfortunately, the impacts of this rule are minimal compared with what is likely to be coming down the line.

Today, the Alliance Party will be responsible and sensible, as our voters expect. No doubt the DUP will support its Minister. Perhaps some will publicly oppose the welfare reform parity measures, safe in the knowledge that others will vote them through. Parity will be maintained, but those who opposed it will not be tarnished in the eyes of their supporters. If the issue had gone to the Executive, perhaps there would have been collective responsibility for it.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the Committee for Social Development’s motion on the prayer of annulment. I do so because of the particularly harsh impact that the ruling will have on the people whom we represent. Several weeks ago, at my suggestion, the Committee agreed to bring the matter to the Assembly to allow Members to voice their concerns, or otherwise, at the passage of this statutory rule and to come to a decision on how we can deal with this attack on the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.

As the Chairperson explained, statutory rule 293 will reduce the entitlement to housing benefit for single occupancy and, in doing so, put thousands of people out of their homes. In the future, it will undermine the ability of some of our most vulnerable citizens to secure appropriate accommodation.

Recently, a British Minister likened the plight of those who could lose their homes to that of students sharing accommodation while at university or young professionals sharing while they save for a deposit on a home. Nothing could be further from the truth. The lives of students and professionals do not mirror the experiences of the poorest in society. They cannot choose who they live with; they might not even know the people with whom they are forced to share. Those who have worked in housing for many years know the reality that the poorest in society face. In some shared accommodation, drug addiction, alcohol abuse and even violence are the norm. Imagine the plight of a single woman or vulnerable man who is driven by fear of destitution into accepting a room in a house where they do not feel safe.

I have had occasion to deal with people living in shared accommodation and know the problems that they face. They describe the chaos that such accommodation brings to their lives. Their cry for a place of their own goes unheard because the system will not allow it. They speak of constant parties in houses, bullying, intimidation, arguments over bills, repeated fights and the police never away from their door. I dealt with one person whose cry went unheard, and he attempted suicide. Is that the road that the Assembly wants to go down? Is that really the best that we can do?

To be honest, I did not come into politics to put people out of decent homes and push them into untenable situations or on to the streets, and I know that the vast majority of Members in this Chamber did not do so either. However, it is a fact that those could be the consequences of a decision that we make here today. As we speak, 5,892 people —

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Yes.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

In my opening remarks as Chairperson, I made comments that were echoed by Gregory Campbell and other Committee members. We all endeavoured to be fair about the motivation of all members who voted or did not vote at the Committee meeting. On behalf of the Committee, I made it clear that members of all parties had expressed reservations and that the question of parity was the basis of their decision to vote for or against the prayer of annulment or to abstain. Does the Member agree that it is unfortunate, therefore, that Judith Cochrane introduced party politics and suggested that other Members might make their decision for the wrong reasons? That was unfortunate, and it was unfair, because at no time during my remarks did I give any subjective interpretation of others’ behaviour at Committee.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

That is a fair point. One of the other comments that was made —

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

No. She seemed to minimise the impact that it will have on 6,000 people by saying that there will be further problems down the line. The possibility of 6,000 people becoming homeless should be on all our minds.

As we speak, 5,892 people aged between 25 and 35 are claiming the one-bedroom rate of local housing allowance. Those people will not be able to afford to make up the shortfall in their rent. On top of housing benefit, many already pay a top-up to their landlord for accommodation. How will they afford the additional money? Will they turn to crime? People will do whatever it takes to protect themselves. Will they end up sleeping rough on the streets?

On 7 October 2011, the MP for West Belfast Mr Paul Maskey and I visited the Welcome Organisation. It has premises in the Divis area, where it deals with many vulnerable people. The organisation spoke of its concerns about the impact that statutory rule 293 will have. It has already seen an increase in the number of people who attend the centre and it is afraid that that number will increase further.

Unlike in Britain, there has never been a history of shared accommodation here. From what I gather, the level of that type of accommodation required to make moving possible is not available. Throughout the North, there are 4,000 registered houses of multiple occupation and many that are unregistered. Many of those houses are used as student accommodation. Several years ago, I read a report that commented on the atrocious conditions in the HMO sector, especially among unregistered HMOs. Is that the sort of accommodation into which we wish to force our constituents? Of the 4,000 registered HMOs, only 84 are in rural communities. What sort of impact will the statutory rule have on those communities? I stress again that the majority of HMOs are unregistered and unsuitable and provide substandard accommodation.

We have also been informed by the Department that there will be an increase in the money available for discretionary payments to help those who are affected by the changes. However, the word “discretionary” speaks for itself; the payments are at the whim of district managers. They are also temporary and last for only 13 weeks.

Official figures tell us that a greater number of people will be affected here than in Britain. The Voluntary Sector Housing Policy Forum has said that in Britain, 0·1% will be affected, but in the North, 0·3% of the population will be hit by the change. It is also my understanding that the Social Security Advisory Committee, which carried out a consultation on the introduction of the legislation, subsequently advised the Government that the extension of the shared accommodation rate should not be introduced. However, the Government ignored that.

None of us in the House knows the severity of the impact that that change will have in the North. When we make our decision on the matter today, we should worry about not only the almost 6,000 people who will be affected immediately but the additional 5,000 people who will seek that type of accommodation each year. Over the term of this mandate, more than 21,000 people will be affected by the introduction of statutory rule 293. A vote against that statutory rule is a vote to protect vulnerable people who will suffer as a consequence of its introduction.

The Assembly is being asked to endorse a statutory rule when it does not have all of the information at hand to make a judgement. The least that we should do is wait. When the Assembly makes a decision —

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The Member has just said that a vote on the annulment would be a vote to protect 6,000 vulnerable people. No one disputes the fact that those people are vulnerable and that this is a disadvantageous move that appears to have been foisted upon us. However, the Member has not said from where the £9 million will come to protect those people. It could, possibly, come from other vulnerable people.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

This is not the first time that we have argued against the introduction of such rules. Certainly, we have argued against them in Committee. When departmental officials come to the Committee, we are told that decisions cannot be turned around or negotiated. However, in some instances, the Assembly has breached parity. The Committee should go back and try to negotiate. We need to take a stand to protect these people. As Alex said, this is not the only piece of legislation that we will have difficulty passing; there are others that will be equally difficult. We need to go back and try to negotiate the terms of the legislation given the differences between people on benefits here and those who are on benefits in England.

In conclusion, we are being asked to endorse this statutory rule. We should, at least, wait. When we make a decision, we should do so on the basis of hard evidence. We are not doing that at present. In the midst of the statutory rule’s being brought to the Assembly, a consultation had just started. We were being asked to approve the rule in Committee even though the consultation was still on the go. That tells us something about the contempt in which we are held, certainly with regard to our opinions on this matter. I ask Members to support the motion.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I want to talk about two different aspects of the debate. I know that people have already covered the parity issue. I am not on the Committee, but, from what I know about the matter, this need not be viewed as a breach of parity. That is because there is sufficient flexibility in the operation of parity to allow for different circumstances.

I want to touch on the issue of suicide. The suicide rate in the North of Ireland is considerably higher than that in Britain, and it has risen particularly sharply in recent years. There is clear evidence of a relationship between unemployment and the rate of suicide. When we look at the age and gender profiles of people in that vulnerable group, we will see that men under 35 will probably be most adversely affected by this change in housing benefit entitlement. Unfortunately, that same group carries the highest risk of suicide in the North. When we look at figures showing recorded deaths by suicide, we will see that that group of males constitutes three out of every four of such deaths and that the highest percentage is among men aged 25 to 34. We need to look at that issue when we debate housing benefit entitlement, because it is very important.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Some of the information papers that we all probably read in the run-up to the debate mentioned the type of accommodation that people will lose and said that this would not work for them. It has been said that 28% of people who are on low pay get housing benefit to help them, so this change could force many of those people out of employment, because they will be unable to find accommodation.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Member for that intervention.

Some people have already touched on the issue of homelessness and those people who find themselves on the streets. Over time, landlords may look to rent to older tenants, which will reduce the availability of accommodation to younger people, particularly younger men, in the 16-25 age group. We need to think about the vulnerability that we could be pushing young people into. Young people, particularly young men but also young women, may have to sleep rough on the streets because accommodation is not available.

There are all sorts of reasons why people may not have the backup of an extended family or the support that they need. We will find that that means that those people may be pushed on to the streets. For a lot of people, the only recourse to date has been the private sector. This rule would close off the option of renting a single flat, for instance, to great numbers of people, and, as I say, it may propel more and more people on to the streets.

I am not on the Committee, so I have not debated the issue in full. However, as my colleague Fra McCann said, he has visited the Welcome Centre. We have talked to groups who work with people who have been bereaved through suicide. We have talked to groups who run support networks for people with drug and alcohol addictions. If we accept this statutory rule in the Assembly, I believe that we will make vulnerable people even more vulnerable, and our doing that would not be responsible. We need to look at protecting those people, particularly from suicide and homelessness.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Like my party colleagues, I firmly believe that the Assembly should reject statutory rule 293, as it would undoubtedly have a negative effect on the lives of many young people.

We need to ask a number of questions when we look at this rule. What will be the human effect? As the Chair of the Committee and the Member for East Belfast already outlined, 6,000 people will be detrimentally affected, with a reduction in their benefits of approximately £60. Will that leave people homeless? Undoubtedly. Homelessness hostels are already overflowing, and the rule will undoubtedly lead to an increase in evictions and poverty levels. It certainly will not result in more people being ready to go back to work. It will be quite the opposite, and that needs to be taken into account as well.

Many of us are blessed with families, support and social networks on which we can rely in times of stress, but in a lot of instances these vulnerable people will not have those supports. A lot of them, perhaps estranged from their families, will have no one to turn to. You can see how quickly the journey from being housed and having a roof over your head to becoming homeless and sleeping rough can happen. It will come about as a result of this statutory rule, if it is passed.

As other Members mentioned, men under 35 will be most adversely affected by this statutory rule. That is the social group that carries the highest suicide risk in the North. Undoubtedly, that risk will increase if those members of society lose their homes.

This need not be a breach of parity, a LeasCheann Comhairle. There is sufficient flexibility in the operation of parity to allow for the accommodation of differences. That is why parity has worked, and that is acknowledged in the language of the legislation itself, which refers to the British Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Social Development Minister —

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for giving way. He says that it need not be a question of parity. I thought there was some clarity about that but I repeat the question: if the Westminster Government say it is a breach of parity, what then?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I was just coming to that point. If the Westminster Government say it is a breach of parity, we can refer to past examples when they said the same but, when challenged, we sometimes came to a more positive result than if we had merely sat back and done nothing. Doing nothing in this instance is not an option.

Of course, there is an onus. The legislation states that the Minister for Work and Pensions and the Social Development Minister from time to time consult one another and agree between them. It is not a case of one telling the other what to do. There has to be some agreement and some give and take in that process. The legislation talks about ensuring a co-ordinated system, not one that is identical in every way. It is not identical as it is. Significant differences have been accommodated which have not been viewed as being in breach of parity. That can happen when a significant difference in circumstances and outcome can be identified, and this is clearly such a case.

A report from the Policy Research Institute identifies flexibility at the heart of parity and cites that as one of the main reasons why parity has worked. It also identified three elements encapsulated within the operation of parity: parity of input, output and outcome. The element of outcome allows for divergence, when the imposition of parity is clearly disadvantageous to people here.

Members may well remember when the additional difficulties faced by lone parents here in attending work-focused interviews because of the lack of childcare here compared with Britain were first pointed out. At first, we were told that nothing could be done because it constituted a breach of parity. The Assembly challenged that anyway, and a way was found to maintain parity while accommodating that additional circumstance and difficulty.

There are parallels to be drawn from that and there are clear and significant differences in relation to this statutory rule. First, there is the lack of availability of shared accommodation, which Members referred to. The outcome here will not be to push single-tenancy occupants into renting a room as it will in Britain. What it will do, however, as Members said, is force people to seek emergency hostel accommodation or sleep on the streets. That is not what the legislation intends. Secondly, consideration must be given to the high rates of suicide here, particularly within the age and gender profile of those who will be most badly affected by this change.

I urge the House to support the prayer of annulment and allow the issue to be considered again. We need to stick up for the 6,000 people who will be so badly affected, many of them already in very vulnerable positions.

It does not matter whether it affects 6,000, 60,000 or 600,000 people, although some parties might take a different opinion if it affected a significantly larger number of people. We need to stick up for these people, and we need at least to challenge the matter. Parity is not rigid. Members should not treat the issue as though it is; it can be contested without being broken, and that is what we need to do.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I listened with interest to Members’ contributions, and I thank all who have spoken for their input. As Minister with responsibility for social security matters, I will take a few minutes to outline the purpose of the housing benefit regulations that we are discussing and to explain how voting to annul the regulations would have much wider implications for everyone in Northern Ireland.

The regulations amend the age threshold so that the shared accommodation rate applies to most single claimants living in the private rented sector who are under 35 years of age. To date, the age limit has been set at 25 years of age. The aim of the measure is to help to contain the spiralling cost of housing benefit expenditure and to ensure that single people aged 25 to 34 years of age who are in receipt of housing benefit have to make the same choices about their accommodation as those who are not in receipt of benefit.

Under the proposed measure, the amount of housing benefit for rent payable to single claimants under 35 years of age living in the private rented sector would be restricted to the shared accommodation rate based on rent levels for a single room in accommodation that is not self-contained. The restriction for those who are under 25 years of age has been in place since 1996. It was never the intention that housing benefit should guarantee that people on benefit would have unrestricted access to accommodation at any price. Many young people who are working cannot afford to rent by themselves and already live in shared accommodation.

In seeking to ensure that work always pays, it is important that benefit levels — in this case, housing benefit levels — are pitched at a level that encourages individuals to join the labour market and do not act as a disincentive to take up work by affording access to accommodation that their peer age group who are in work cannot afford.

I recognise the fact that some of those who spoke during the debate have very real concerns. Everyone has concerns about how the measure will impact on individuals. It is, therefore, important to emphasise that not all those single claimants who are under 35 years of age will be expected to live in shared accommodation. Under the existing rules, there are exemptions for many of the groups that were mentioned: for example, claimants entitled to the severe disability premium of housing benefit; claimants in certain supported accommodation; claimants under the age of 22 who were formerly in the care of social services; claimants who have a non-dependant residing with them; and claimants who require overnight care and a bedroom for a non-resident carer. The shared accommodation rate does not apply to those living in the social rented sector.

In addition, there is already a general housing benefit easement that entitles new claimants to have their rent met in full for 13 weeks if they have not claimed housing benefit in the past year and could afford the rent at the time that they entered into the tenancy. People who have been recently bereaved are entitled to similar protection for 12 months — for example, following the loss of a partner or, for a lone parent, the loss of a child.

Those current exemptions will continue to apply, and two new exemptions are being introduced for those aged 25 and over. The first new exemption is for those who have spent at least three months in a homeless hostel or hostels specialising in rehabilitating and resettling in the community. The second new exemption is for certain offenders subject to risk management, where there is a risk of serious harm to the public. The aim is to protect the general public.

Of course, a case could be made for further groups of individuals who should not be expected to share accommodation. However, rather than creating blanket exemptions for broad categories, I consider that support to those who need it, via the discretionary housing payment scheme, is a more appropriate mechanism for dealing with such cases. In recognition of that and other housing benefit reforms, the discretionary housing payments budget has been increased by 50% to £1·713 million in 2011-12, which will triple to £3·426 million from 2012-13. There has therefore been a significant increase, and will there will in future be a substantial increase in the discretionary housing payments budget. That is intended to give the Northern Ireland Housing Executive the flexibility to sustain tenancies where additional support is needed in vulnerable cases.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

I accept that shared accommodation is not popular, and, as we heard today, some find difficulty in supporting its extension to a wider age group. However, it is crucial that we consider the policy issue contained in the regulations as part of the wider welfare benefits and social security arena. The change is not restricted to Northern Ireland; it was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the comprehensive spending review last October. The regulations correspond to regulations already made in Great Britain, which come into effect there from January 2012.

Although social security is a transferred matter, there is a longstanding principle of parity in those matters. In effect, a single system of social security operates in Great Britain and Northern Ireland — that is, across the United Kingdom. The principle of parity means that an individual in Northern Ireland is entitled to the same level of benefits, paid subject to the same conditions, as an individual elsewhere in the United Kingdom. An additional practical consideration is the extent to which we utilise the IT systems provided through DWP for the delivery of benefits to our claimants here in Northern Ireland. Those practical difficulties in departing from the United Kingdom system that operates in Great Britain need to be kept in mind.

We receive over £3 billion a year from general taxation and by way of subvention from the Great Britain national insurance fund to fund our social security system. Funding that is outside of and additional to our block expenditure for departmental budgets is predicated on parity. The obvious consequences for the Northern Ireland block if parity were breached cannot be underestimated. The consensus across all parties is that parity has worked to the advantage of people in Northern Ireland; it has resulted in higher rates of benefit being paid than would be the case if Northern Ireland were to set up and maintain its own social security system. Without parity and the associated funding, the Northern Ireland social security system would probably be unsustainable.

Should the regulations in question be annulled, the additional cost to Her Majesty’s Treasury for all the expected Northern Ireland claims impacted could be about £9·17 million. That figure is based on the June rates and the number of claimants. The figure of £9 million is a recurring cost, which would probably increase each year. As I mentioned, because of our dependence on the IT systems operated through DWP, there would be additional costs on top of the £9 million to adapt the computer system and for any other administrative expenses.

The position was stated very clearly by the Commercial Secretary to the Treasury in December 2010. When asked whether the Treasury:

“will adjust the annual transfer payment if new housing benefit payment policies are not introduced on a parity basis in Northern Ireland”

the unambiguous Treasury response was:

“Where costs arise due to divergence between the Northern Ireland system and policy in Great Britain, the Northern Ireland Executive must meet those costs.”

You cannot have anything more explicit than that in a response from Westminster.

That means that, if these regulations are to be annulled, the likelihood is that Executive Ministers will be required to meet a shortfall of more than £9 million from their already overstretched departmental budgets. I emphasise Executive Ministers, because that would be a burden that would fall on the Executive and all Ministers, not simply on the Department for Social Development. If Members want to work out the implications for areas such as education, health and other sectors if we start down that road, I am sure that they can do that very easily. I will return to that point in due course.

I add that, although a breach of parity would have particular implications in relation to these regulations, there is a risk that such a breach of parity could trigger a review of the present, very favourable social security funding arrangements and could well result in a less favourable outcome; for example, funding in line with the Barnett formula or regional benefit rates. The dangers of going down that road must be recognised by all who approach this in a responsible manner. It is possible that a successful prayer of annulment could begin a process of undermining parity, which would have profound implications for the Northern Ireland block. Clearly, it is in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland that we protect the principle of parity with all its benefits and are very careful not to undermine or jeopardise it.

I hope that Members will be persuaded by the purpose behind the regulations; that is, to reduce benefit costs and provide fairer choices between those young people who are working and those who are on benefit. However, for most Members, the overriding issue must surely be that, when we take into account the concerns and fears that exist, we start down a very dangerous and slippery slope if we go down the road of breaching parity.

I want to quickly pick up on a number of points that were raised by individual Members. Mr Campbell asked whether introduction could be delayed. After its deliberations on the findings of the Social Security Advisory Committee, the Department for Work and Pensions concluded that there is no case for delaying the introduction of this change to a statutory rule that has been in existence since 1996.

Mr Copeland sought an assurance on parity. I will make the point not just to Mr Copeland but to all Members: the Treasury has stated categorically and clearly that this would be a breach. Earlier on, some Members expressed the views that I might not think that it was a breach or that I interpret a breach or understand a breach in a particular way. You can talk about outcomes and outputs from now until next year.

At the end of the day, let us remember — and this is a response to Mr McKay — that the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom is at Westminster. He may not like that, but that is how it is. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and this is a devolved Assembly. In other words, power is handed from the sovereign Government at Westminster to the devolved Assembly here in Northern Ireland, but the sovereignty remains at Westminster. The fact is that, in spite of all the arguments put forward by Mr McKay and others, if Westminster decides that this is a breach of parity and the Treasury says that it is, that settles it. They are not going to change their minds.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for giving way. Perhaps he was not listening to or learning from what I was saying. The Treasury would say that, wouldn’t it? It said it before in other instances. The fact is that there is a devolved Assembly here, and its role is to challenge when necessary and to stick up for the people out there on the streets. That is your role as well, Minister. You are putting forward, through the Assembly today, the impression that you are quite happy just to roll over for the British Government.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Some people are slow learners. The question is whether there is any scope to diverge from Great Britain. There is some room for divergence in the administration of housing benefit. For example, under local housing allowance arrangements, we retained claimant choice as to who received the housing benefit while Great Britain moved to payment to the claimant as the norm. However — let us be clear so that Mr McKay understands — any financial costs would have to be met from the Northern Ireland block grant. You can have certain divergence as regards some administrative matters. However, where there is the financial implication that we are talking about, which, at £9 million a year every year, is a substantial financial implication, it would have to be met from the Northern Ireland block grant.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for giving way. Perhaps he could outline, because the issue was raised by several Members, a couple of instances in which there was a deviation or departure from strict parity. He has been absolutely clear and precise so far about the Westminster Government saying that they believe that this would be a breach of parity, but will he outline the instances that were referred to by Members opposite?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

What I gave was an example of the sort of thing that I am talking about. It is around administration. Where there is a financial cost involved, we are not in a position in which we can in any way depart from it. Treasury has said that it would be a breach. I assure Mr McKay that it is not about rolling over to a Government at Westminster; it is simply acknowledging the fact that we are part of the United Kingdom and that the sovereign Parliament is at Westminster.

Mr Copeland wants the effects that flow from this to be monitored. Housing division is commissioning research on impact with a view to addressing those issues within the constraints of parity. Research will be done to monitor the impact to see how it will work out.

I return to a number of things that other Members raised.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I think that the honourable Member has convinced the vast majority of Members of the House of why he is correct. Members opposite, in their enthusiasm to break parity, have tried to indicate that there are fundamental differences between the situation in this part of the United Kingdom and that in other parts of the United Kingdom. Does he accept that many of the points about the lack of social inclusion, people on poor incomes and people with broken families apply exactly the same to inner city Glasgow, London, Cardiff and Belfast? There is no difference. Exactly the same pressures affect young people throughout the United Kingdom, so there is not even a philosophical argument for the breach of parity. There is no good reason for it.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

There is no doubt that there are many parts of Great Britain where the situation is similar to that in Northern Ireland.

I will pick up on some individual points. Mrs Cochrane said that all have concerns and that it is important to debate the issue on the Floor of the House. She is absolutely right. I welcome the fact that she spoke of the need to approach the measures responsibly, and she is also right to say that this is a minor issue in comparison with some of the much larger ones that are coming down the track on welfare reform. I hope that, when we come to those other issues, we do not have the same grandstanding or beating of chests by people who are going to take on the world and everyone else for their cause. There has to be a bit of realism and reality that says that we are where we are.

Mr McCann raised the issue of the nature of housing provision in Northern Ireland. As I said earlier, it is important that we monitor the outworkings of this and, over the next while, look at the impact of the sort of housing provision that we have in Northern Ireland and our housing policies. For a long time —

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Minister give way?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Yes, but I am running out of time.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

On the question of supply, are there enough places to take the 6,000 people who will be affected? Most of the accommodation, especially in the HMO sector, remains unregistered and, in many ways, would provide poor living accommodation for anyone. Does he advise people to go into that?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

In Northern Ireland, the private rented sector is already a large sector and is growing. We have not had the sort of oversight of that sector that we should have had, and I share the concern that I am sure the Member has about that. Therefore, we are looking at a range of issues. We are aware of the changes that there will be with the Housing Executive, housing associations, welfare reform and housing policy. We need to look at housing in the round to consider how we get more affordable housing and how we deal with housing issues. The Department is taking a new look at it and, perhaps, reprioritising some things and de-prioritising others. We need to look at the nature of housing stock, whether we are building the right sort of houses with the right mix of tenures, whether we are building the right size of accommodation and so on. I accept that all of those things need to be looked at carefully, and many of us have concerns about the outworking of the private sector in our constituencies. Not all landlords are exemplary landlords.

On Mr McCann’s other point, if a claimant experiences difficulty in finding somewhere affordable — for example, due to a shortage of suitable accommodation — further assistance to help with the rent shortfall may be available through discretionary housing payments. The Member said that he had concerns about the word “discretion”, but it is not at the whim of someone sitting at a desk. I take it and believe discretion to mean that it is dependent on the individual circumstances and situation. That is not a whim; it is looking at the evidence of a situation. The Member may not have confidence in the staff who work in our social security offices and the Housing Executive, but I have a much higher confidence level.

I was a bit concerned by the line that Jennifer McCann took. There is a danger of overplaying certain things. The other day, I visited the Stella Maris hostel in north Belfast, and, fairly soon, I am due to visit another hostel that is run by the same organisation, Depaul, in Londonderry. I have looked at the issue of homelessness and the provision that we make, such as hostels for people who are sleeping rough and so on. We in Northern Ireland are in a much better position with the provision than is the case in Great Britain. The provision is based around the faith sectors, whether Salvation Army or Depaul. There are a lot of positives around how we assist the most vulnerable people. However, bearing in mind the fact that I outlined the various categories of exemption earlier, there is concern and, therefore, accommodation for some of the most vulnerable people.

Mr Durkan said that the Government have no idea — I think that those were his exact words. I assure him that, in all areas of welfare reform, we have very full and in-depth engagement with the Government. Lord Freud, for example, has been over here on a number of occasions about other aspects of welfare reform and benefits. He is taking a hands-on approach on behalf of the coalition Government at Westminster, and people who represent Northern Ireland are on some of his working groups. He is conscious of the differences, and those relate to other aspects of welfare reform. So they do know, and those points are being forcibly conveyed. I was pleasantly surprised at his level of understanding that Northern Ireland is not exactly the same as some parts of London, and so on.

However, having dealt with all those points, I come back to the core point, which was identified by my party colleague Mr Campbell and is one that I have made again and again here. This is a difficult decision, but it has to be made. We need to respect the principle of parity as defined by Westminster. There is no point in us trying to fool ourselves or anyone else, which is all we would be doing. Let us have the honesty, courage and integrity to face the facts, to do what we can to take this forward in the most acceptable way and to ensure that, when we look at our future provision and policy for housing, we take into account the impacts of this regulation.

If we go down a road that will cost £9 million for a single regulation, which Department will pay for it? Will it mean that we close more rural schools? Will it mean that we impact more on the hospitals sector? Where will the £9 million, and all the other £9 million that come down the road after that, come from? Let us have the courage and integrity to take this forward.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

As Question Time commences at 2.30 pm, I suggest that the House takes its ease until that time. We will come back to the debate after Question Time, when Mickey Brady will conclude on the motion.

The debate stood suspended.

Assembly Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Before we come to questions to the Office of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, I want to say something about the serious challenge that took place in the House today. To me, there was a very vicious challenge to the authority of one of the Deputy Speakers, Roy Beggs. Members should not feel that they can challenge the Chair when they want to. On this occasion, Mr Dominic Bradley made a very vicious challenge to the Chair. The Member may take the matter lightly. It was around an issue of language, and it is the convention for any Member to speak in any language in the House. However, it is a different matter when Members deliberately go out of their way to abuse the issue.

The Member is shaking his head, but he needs to learn the lesson, a very clear lesson. Too many Members feel that they can challenge, totally and absolutely, the authority of the Chair. I say to the Member directly that that will not happen. On this occasion, the Member will not be called to speak on any issue in the Chamber for some time. He should reflect on his actions today. I understand that, in the heat of debate, Members say things that perhaps, on reflection, they might have said differently or that they might have acted differently. I am saying to the Member that he will not be heard for some time in the House. He should reflect on his actions and words, and then he should come and apologise to the House for his actions. I would think far more of a Member who came to the House and apologised for his actions.

I warn the whole House that any Member who challenges the authority of the Chair will be dealt with. On this occasion, as I have said directly to the Member, he will not be called to speak in the House for some time. I also warn Members who might feel that they want to get the Member in on an intervention that they will also be dealt with. My ruling is absolutely clear. I do not want other Members playing games in getting the Member to speak because of an intervention. That will also be dealt with.

What I saw this morning was a vicious attack and challenge to the Chair. It was probably one of the most vicious attacks that I have seen and heard in the Chamber for some time.

First Minister and deputy First Minister

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

1. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, in light of the current budgetary constraints, for their assessment of how expedient the investment strategy has been in assisting the Executive to deliver on their targets. (AQO 486/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Executive’s Programme for Government makes a clear commitment on infrastructure investment and promoting sustainable development. We honoured that commitment with £5 billion of new investment in the three years up to 2010-11. Our investment strategy was key to the delivery of that record level of new expenditure. The strategy helps us to plan ahead with more certainty and consolidates the capital investment plans of all Departments. That collaborative approach enables the Executive to identify opportunities for sharing and co-ordination that can save money, speed up delivery, share best practice and support service improvements.

The progress we have made to date on our investment commitments is available for public scrutiny through the website of the Strategic Investment Board. Projects completed or in delivery are clearly set out in detail and are characterised by each sector. Those investments are important elements in ensuring that the Executive achieve their Programme for Government strategic priorities. The Executive’s investment and budget plans have been affected by the significant reductions in public spending imposed on us by the coalition Government. We have taken a number of measures to manage those reductions and remain determined to continue with our substantial programme of new investment. We switched £256 million from current to capital expenditure and included nearly £600 million of receipts to boost capital expenditure. As a result, the Executive’s Budget committed £4·9 billion for capital investment up to 2015. We are determined to maintain the momentum of our investment programme, and we will continue to examine further options that have the potential to allow us to deliver additional projects.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Question 3 has been withdrawn and requires a written answer. I call Mr McNarry for a supplementary question.

David McNarry (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I recognise the commitment and the compliments that he made in his response. I also note with enthusiasm the determination that he injected into his reply. Does he accept that an up-to-date investment strategy is needed now to best serve Northern Ireland going forward? Will he move in that direction?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member is right: a new investment strategy is required. Back in March, we had it in reasonably finalised draft form but decided not to publish it prior to the election. I think the hope and expectation is that we should be able to do that alongside the Programme for Government.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

Will the First Minister indicate what impact the UK spending review will have on our ability to deliver our investment plans? What can we do to increase our spending power?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Slightly over 40% of our capital budget was slashed by the coalition Government. I think that that was a much more painful cut than any of us could have expected. You cannot have a cut of that magnitude without it having a significant impact. However, the Executive determined that they would seek to take as much of the pain out of that process by looking for additional sources. We did the transfer from revenue to capital. We have produced proposals, which provide us with a very significant proposal for projects moving forward. However, it still takes us only to the 2005 levels of capital expenditure.

We are also looking at how it is possible to factor in private finance for existing projects that we have intended to bring forward, for instance. We could also look at the possibility of creating other bodies, within Treasury rules, that will allow us to be able to get additional private finance on an arm’s-length basis.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Once again, I warn Members that they need to continually rise in their place, if they want to be called for a supplement question. I emphasise the word “continually”.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Thank you for that, a Cheann Comhairle. In a way, my question follows on from the First Minister’s previous answer. Has the Budget review group been able to consider the establishment of particular special purpose vehicles to ensure that we can have a method of moving some of our capital spend off?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It has talked about the issue. We are hoping that the Budget review group will meet tomorrow at, I think, 3.00 pm. I understand that there are several papers on how to access private finance and the creation of other bodies that might be able to draw down that funding. That will be on the agenda for tomorrow.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

2. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the St Andrews Agreement review of North/South implementation bodies and areas of co-operation. (AQO 487/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The St Andrews Agreement review into the North/South implementation bodies and areas of co-operation is being taken forward under the auspices of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC). As we advised the Assembly in our statement of 21 June on the NSMC plenary meeting, which took place on 10 June, the Council discussed the review and noted proposals relating to its first term of reference. That concerns the efficiency and value for money of the existing North/South implementation bodies and Tourism Ireland. The Council agreed that proposals on those bodies, which had been put forward by the review group, should be forwarded, along with a copy of the report, for consideration by relevant Ministers in the Executive and the Irish Government. Most Ministers have responded, and, in line with the plenary decision, the NSMC joint secretariat is preparing recommendations on that element of the review for consideration at the forthcoming plenary meeting in November.

It was also agreed that the second and third terms of reference of the review would be discussed at that meeting. In accordance with the statutory requirements, we will make a statement to the Assembly on the outcome of the plenary meeting of the Council in November. That will include any decisions taken on the St Andrews Agreement review.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Why was the report of the experts and advisers on the efficiency and value for money of the existing North/South bodies not made public, and when will the outcome become known?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

To some extent, the Member answered his own question. As the outcome has not been agreed, we have not released any documentation. It is still a matter to be considered. The intention is to discuss it at the November meeting, and it will be up to the NSMC and Assembly Ministers to decide what further steps are to be taken either on decision-making or, indeed, publication.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Value for money is obviously very important in all aspects of government, particularly in North/South bodies. Will the First Minister indicate what steps have already been taken to maximise efficiencies in North/South bodies.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Finance Ministers, who are, of course, charged by their Government to look at ways of making efficiencies, met and considered what efficiencies could be made in North/South bodies. Their proposal was that there should be 3% cash-releasing efficiencies year-on-year. That was sent out by way of each Department informing the sponsor Departments of each North/South body that they should effect that saving. Indeed, the corporate plans and business plans have been brought forward on the basis of that proposal, which is for 3% efficiencies this year and a cumulative total of 9% in the next three years.

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

I am sure that the First Minister would agree that the area of co-operation that might well deserve urgent attention is how this island jointly commemorates the forthcoming centenaries. Has his office and that of the deputy First Minister included in their submission to the review specific proposals as to how we might co-ordinate our acknowledgement of this decade’s centenaries?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Once again, I will say to the whole House that I know that, on occasion, supplementary questions can grow legs. This one has certainly grown a lot of legs. [Laughter.] There is no doubt about that whatsoever. I will allow the First Minister to decide whether he wants to answer it or whether he should answer it. The Member knows very well that the supplementary question must clearly connect with the original question. I must rule the Member out of order on this particular issue. I think that he knows fine well why.

I call Mr Jim Allister.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

My goodness. [Laughter.]

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I will resist.

The Finance Minister said that necessary and practical co-operation does not require all the costs and formal structures of the North/South bodies, yet we continue to spend £100 million a year on them. Why, then, is the option of a reduction in the number of bodies not included in the terms of reference of the review? The only option is expansion. Why is that?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It is good to see the Member back speaking in the Chamber. I hope that he is now house-trained and will behave himself in the future. [Interruption.] He was, of course, present at St Andrews and knows as one who endorsed this proposal and was party to the statement made collectively by all of our members at the end of St Andrews— [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Allow the First Minister to answer.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member knows very well that the terms of reference were in three parts, the first of which related to efficiencies. Of course, under that part, proposals for a reduction in the number of bodies can be considered. Overall, I agree entirely with the Finance Minister. I have found that, in practical terms, it is much more advantageous to make personal contact by a telephone call or a meeting rather than through the structures of the North/South Ministerial Council or the various bodies.

The second term of reference of the St Andrews Agreement review clearly qualifies the option to expand, in that the review has to examine objectively whether there is an advantage in having any more bodies. I think that anyone looking at the matter objectively would say that there is much more advantage for Northern Ireland in having direct contact with Ministers using the normal procedures that any two Governments employ.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Question 3 has been withdrawn.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

4. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on their discussions with Treasury in relation to the devolution of corporation tax powers. (AQO 489/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Members will be aware that the Treasury consultation on rebalancing the local economy, which included a proposal to devolve corporation tax powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly, ended on 8 July this year. We were very pleased with the level of interest that was shown in this important economic policy issue. The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, David Gauke MP, wrote to us on 30 September following his exchange of letters during the summer with our Finance Minister, Sammy Wilson. That correspondence and the discussions at official level raised a number of concerns about estimates for corporation tax that would be collected.

The Acting deputy First Minister and I recently met with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Owen Paterson MP, to discuss the next steps. Most recently, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury wrote again to us last Thursday to seek ministerial nominations for a joint working group that will be tasked with seeking to establish with clarity the costs, administrative changes and potential legislative vehicle for transferring corporation tax powers. Although the recent Treasury correspondence is to be welcomed, and we will respond positively, we are disappointed that its commitment to a final decision this year appears to delay momentum.

This is an urgent issue. While in Northern Ireland on 10 June, the Chancellor, George Osborne, indicated that the UK Government would make their decision in the autumn. We will continue to press the Government for an early resolution.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agaibh, a Cheann Comhairle agus a Aire. I would be grateful if the First Minister would outline some of the benefits of devolving corporation tax powers that he and his office believe will result for the Assembly and the Executive. He mentioned the time frame being put back. Is there any sign of that possibly being brought forward?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

First, the time frame is clearly going to have to take into account meetings of the group that is being tasked with looking at the appropriate cost to our block of a reduction in the rate of corporation tax. I suspect that that job is unlikely to be completed much before the end of this financial year.

The advantages have been fairly well established by a number of economists and business representatives. However, the deputy First Minister and I have been in no doubt about the advantages, because we have spoken not just to people involved in foreign direct investment but to representatives of companies based in Northern Ireland. They all indicated that a reduction in corporation tax would have a major impact on the decisions that they will take on placing more business in Northern Ireland or on expanding existing business. Most recently, during our visit to the United States, we spoke to several people who indicated that it was a significant factor in their decisions as to whether they would make various investments in Northern Ireland. Only last week, I spoke to people here in Northern Ireland who indicated that it would be a key factor as to which part of the United Kingdom they would place further business.

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

I thank the First Minister for his answers. I agree with him that this is very important for the future development of our economy. That being so, will the First Minister say to the Finance Minister that he needs to make a robust case for the devolution of corporation tax powers? It is essential that there be no weakness on this side, because there seems to be such a weakness on the Westminster side. Does the First Minister detect some lessening in Westminster’s commitment to the devolution of corporation tax powers?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

In my private meetings with representatives of the Government, I do not detect that those who supported it in the past are any less supportive. I think that they recognise that there are difficulties that we must overcome, and the working group will set about the business of overcoming those difficulties.

The Finance Minister responded on behalf of the Executive to the general consultation process in the most robust terms, and he indicated the Executive’s support for that fiscal instrument. It must also be said that four representatives of the Executive will be on the task force, and they will put a united case from the Executive on the devolution of such tax-producing powers.

The Member should be under no doubt as to the strength of support that there is within the Executive for this measure or the benefits that the power to reduce corporation tax will have for Northern Ireland.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the First Minister outline how quickly the Executive would set a rate for corporation tax in the event of it being devolved to Northern Ireland?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

We have now reached the stage in the process of appointing representatives to the group that was set up by the Treasury, and it will be necessary for the Executive to be brought along with any proposals that are put forward by Executive colleagues at meetings of that group. One would assume that, if we reach the stage of the power being devolved to Northern Ireland, it will have been preceded by agreements in the Executive to take that power. Therefore, the decision on what level we should strike the tax at should be taken fairly expeditiously. We would have the options of announcing but delaying the beginning of the reduction or of phasing in a reduction, and that would be an Executive decision. However, I would imagine that, if we were given the power, decisions would be taken fairly instantly.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

The First Minister referred to the cost to the block grant. Given the wide variance between Her Majesty’s Treasury figures and those of the Department of Finance and Personnel, would he care to give me his assessment of the most accurate figure?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

There is a difference between the Treasury’s sets of figures. In the consultation document, it gave us two sets of figures for a reduction in the block grant, and it brought out a further and much higher figure after it had produced that document. One would be tempted to say that, if its higher figure were true, we would not need to introduce a lower rate of corporation tax, as we would be doing so swimmingly well on our own. Therefore, there is a false nature to the final set of figures that we have from the Treasury, and it is the job of the Executive to ensure that the reduction in our block grant is as small as possible.

I will not be tempted by the lure that the Member has put in front of me to give him a figure. All that I can say is that the Treasury figure is far too high.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

5. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister what progress has been made on proposals for legislation to address discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services for older people. (AQO 490/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will ask junior Minister Jonathan Bell to answer that question.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister is committed to the principle of equality for all the people of Northern Ireland. With that in mind, we are continuing to consider the issue of discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services for older people, which is one of the six proposals for legislative reform that were flagged up by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. We are also monitoring developments in Europe on anti-discrimination directives that would extend the protection on the grounds of age to the provision of goods, facilities and services.

We are aware that the Westminster Equality Act 2010 contains provisions that enable a ban on age discrimination in the provision of services and public functions. We are also examining the draft EU equal treatment directive, which seeks to prohibit age discrimination in the workplace. Should that draft directive be adopted, we will take steps to comply with EU law. However, it is important to remember that implementing the age discrimination ban would require secondary legislation to be made, which would set out the circumstances in which it would remain lawful to use age as a reason for treating people differently. We will carefully consider the outcome of the consultation by the Government Equalities Office which sets out the proposed acceptance of the ban on age discrimination and any other developments in that area. We also intend to seek the views of the recently appointed Commissioner for Older People, Claire Keatinge, after she formally takes up her post on 14 November.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle agus ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Aire. Why are we waiting on the outcome of a possible EU directive on this issue when we should be taking it forward on equality grounds in their own right?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Members will understand that, before we progress the matter, it is reasonable to await the draft EU Equal Treatment directive and the outcome of a consultation undertaken by the Government Equalities Office which sets out the proposed acceptance of the age discrimination ban. It is also important that, having appointed a Commissioner for Older People, Claire Keatinge, we take her mind on the subject.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Following the recent appointment of the older people’s commissioner, will the junior Minister outline to the Assembly how valuable Dame Joan Harbinson was in the interim as the Older People’s Advocate?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

It is difficult to put words on just how valuable the contribution that Dame Joan has made. The whole House salutes the service she has given. She was appointed as an independent adviser to Ministers and has been in post from 3 December 2008. Following the appointment of Miss Keatinge as Commissioner for Older People, Dame Joan will formally stand down as of 14 November 2011. The immense contribution that Dame Joan has made is hard to put into a two-minute answer. I would say that she has identified all of the current problems faced by older people and she has done an excellent job of bringing to all our attentions the issues that concern them. Those issues include pension provision and transport, and she has forged links with her counterparts in Europe. The advocate has provided independent advice on a range of issues impacting on older people, including what the issues and problems are; and she frequently brought solutions to those problems and how they might be addressed. The advocate’s appointment and office will cease once the commissioner is appointed, as I have said. However, the whole House will join me in saluting the work and contribution that Dame Joan gave us all.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Has the junior Minister had the opportunity to take any advice from older people, notably today?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

If I may, I will answer that question in two ways: first I will make a serious point, and, secondly, a point of levity, which the honourable Member and I encountered when on a cycle ride this morning.

As to advice, there was a very successful launch given by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister on the appointment of Claire Keatinge. It was hugely well attended. As junior Ministers, we continue to listen carefully, through avenues such as the pensioners’ parliament, in order to gauge people’s views directly. Recently, we met many of the charitable-sector organisations for older people, which have a large number of people feeding views into them, and those views are distilled down to us as Ministers.

Older people can be direct and straight-talking, and in that way their contributions are probably more valued than a lot of what we take. Mr Basil McCrea and I, among others, were doing a wonderful cycle ride to highlight the issue of addictions and which was organised by Fr Martin Magill. We were escorted by four police cyclists. An elderly lady passing us turned to the policewoman accompanying Basil and I and asked: “Are they all prisoners?”

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

We now have a raft of anti-discrimination law in Northern Ireland. Does the junior Minister have any plans to put forward a single equality Bill in line with the rest of the UK?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

The Member is right about the legislative background to that question. There is a lot of material. The Equality Commission gave us six proposals for legislative reform in the introduction to the legislation, specifically prohibiting unjustifiable age discrimination by those providing goods, facilities and services. As has already been mentioned, that proposal is being driven elsewhere in Great Britain and Europe. Do we look specifically at the inclusion of a provision in the GB Equality Act 2010 to prohibit age discrimination outside the workplace, because, in those terms, it would relate to adults only? Do we look specifically at a draft EU equal treatment directive seeking to prohibit age discrimination outside the workplace against people of all ages?

GB has decided not to wait for or rely on agreement to be reached in Europe to legislate against age discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services. It has decided that that is the right thing for it to do, and it has included the necessary provision in the Equality Act 2010. However, to legislate in advance of Europe on this matter would require primary legislation — that is, an Assembly Bill. Should the draft EU directive be adopted, we would then be required to take steps to comply with EU law. That could be achieved either by way of an Assembly Bill or by subordinate legislation, using the enabling powers in section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. Legislation is being taken forward in GB, and we will monitor those developments closely and consider any implications that they may have for us here.

Finance and Personnel

Karen McKevitt (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

1. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel for a breakdown of the 25% of expenditure which is not approved by the Assembly. (AQO 501/11-15)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I presume that the Member is referring to the recent discussion that my officials had with the Committee for Finance and Personnel on Her Majesty’s Treasury’s misalignment exercise, which was conducted in 2008 and in which Northern Ireland participated, when it was estimated that about one quarter of the Northern Ireland Executive spend is not formally voted for in the Estimates process.

I want to make one point clear before I go any further. It is not that we have made some attempt to hide spending from the Assembly so that it does not know what spending actually goes on. It is more as a result of the way in which the information is presented to the Assembly. At no stage is the information hidden in any way. Indeed, where there is misalignment between the Budget Bill and the Estimates, there will be a reconciliation table at the end of the big blue book that Members receive that will show where that misalignment occurs and that there are historical reasons for it.

There are three areas in which there might be a misalignment: the first is on national insurance contributions and the national insurance fund; the second is on capital resource; and the third is on the full resource consumption of non-departmental bodies.

Karen McKevitt (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

What actions are being taken to ensure that the financial process is streamlined, accessible and transparent?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

During the Budget debate last year, I made it clear that we were engaging in an exercise in which we were seeking to make the figures much more transparent. I want the figures to be more transparent, because, apart from anything else, we had three different debates — the Budget, the Budget Bill, and the Vote on Account — and they may as well all have been the one debate because people did not recognise the difference between what was being presented in each of those debates. My officials who attended the Committee meeting were marking up the fact that there would be a consultation paper, which I hope will be published this week and will look at what changes we intend to make.

The whole idea is to try to have all that expenditure aligned, so that people will know exactly what is being voted for and where all the spending is going, and the figures will be much more transparent. I also want the heads of expenditure to be clearer so that people will know where the money is going. All of that will be included in the proposals that we are bringing forward, which I hope will be in place within the next couple of years. However, I cannot remember the exact timetable.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to the consultation. He will know that the Committee for Finance and Personnel has also been doing work on that in consultation with the other statutory Committees. Can he assure the House that the review of the Budget process — some of the anomalies have been outlined in the original question — will take account not only of the passage of the Budget through the Chamber but of the scrutiny function that Committees wish to provide and will ensure that there is a meshing of the House’s requirements and those of the scrutiny Committees?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Chairman for raising an important point that I should, probably, have mentioned in the first part of my answer, which is that it is a matter not just of having the accounts in a better position for debate in the Assembly but of presenting the information that is contained in those accounts in a way that enables proper scrutiny of how Departments spend their money. Therefore, headings will be clearer. All the money that is available to, for example, non-departmental public bodies — not just their cash requirement — will be fully declared and, therefore, open for scrutiny. That should better enable Committees to do their job of scrutinising Departments’ spending.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Question 3 has been withdrawn. I call Leslie Cree to ask a supplementary question.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

The Minister was getting close to answering my question. Obviously, non-departmental public bodies are part of the problem. Will the scheme that is envisaged bring them within the accounting boundary?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Non-departmental public bodies are within the accounting boundary. The difficulty was with the information that was presented. At present, the information is presented in such a way that only those bodies’ net cash requirement or the net cash that goes to them is voted on in the Estimates. However, if, let us say, a non-departmental public body had a source of revenue, and then it had a total spend of, say, £80 million and, on top of that, a depreciation, which is a non-cash figure, of, say, £20 million, all that would be available in the Vote on Account would be the net figure of £70 million. The non-cash element is not there. The revenue element is not there. Therefore, there is a misalignment between what is actually spent and what is actually voted on. That is an accounting procedure. It is not the case that there is no accountability or no vote on the money at present. However, the amount of money that is actually spent is sometimes misaligned because, currently, some elements are not included.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

2. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel for an update on the final business case for the Desertcreat training college. (AQO 502/11-15)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am delighted that, on 30 September 2011, the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) approved a business case for the Desertcreat joint public services college. That was announced in the media last week. When it is completed, the new facility will provide a combined and integrated training and learning environment for the police, the Fire and Rescue Service and the Prison Service in order to equip professionals from all three services and to provide a level of service that is expected and required. Now it is up to the Department of Justice to go to market and identify partners to take the project forward.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister and commend him for the speediness with which he and his Department finalised the business case for the project. Will he detail the cause of the delay of the project? Although it was an Executive priority, the previous Health Minister refused to sign off on it. Will the Minister comment on that? Furthermore, will he ensure that adequate social clauses are —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Member to finish.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

— included in the tender?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

First, the business case was submitted to DFP on 12 September and approved on 30 September. Therefore, I do not think that any of the delay was the responsibility of my Department. Preparing the business case was a considerable piece of work. Of course, as the Member will know, towards the end of the previous Assembly, there was a dispute as to whether the Health Department would actually make the £30 million contribution towards the capital cost and the running cost contribution towards the Fire and Rescue Service element of the college. That probably caused some delay to the decision even to go ahead with the project. However, it is worth pointing out that, although the project goes right back to the time of direct rule, the Department of Justice has been involved only from April 2010 and the Department of Finance from September 2011.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I very much welcome last week’s decision. Will the Minister advise of the likely revenue costs of running the facility, including the cost of its being hired by any other bodies?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The detail of the running of the college will be down to the Department of Justice. However, it is my understanding that the ongoing annual running costs will be £35 million.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for the efficiency with which he took the decision and signed off on the business case. Is the Minister in a position to indicate any timescale for the tender process?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am not in a position to do that. As I said to Mr McCrea, it is now up to the Department of Justice to take the project forward. Obviously, procurement comes under my Department’s remit. We will advise on procurement and how best to move that process along. However, it is really up to the Department of Justice to take the project forward.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Will the Minister give credit to the Department of Justice for its involvement in the decision to bring this vital college to Northern Ireland?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am sure that the Member’s party leader will have heard his comments and reward him accordingly. I do not know whether the party leader has any posts that he is about to allocate, but I will convey to him the fact that the Member has praised him for bringing the project forward so quickly. I am sure that the Member’s reward will follow swiftly.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Question 3 has been withdrawn.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

4. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to outline the process for devolving air passenger duty powers. (AQO 504/11-15)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The first stage is for us to agree the precise arrangements for the devolution of the powers. That will include agreeing which aspects of air passenger duty (APD) will be devolved and the administrative arrangements for its collection. As indicated in the Government’s announcement, the next stage will be the primary legislation that is required. The Government are considering precisely what kind of legislative changes will be required. We will work with them to ensure that the devolution of the powers is secured as soon as possible so that our longer-term competitiveness is maintained. We want to use the devolved powers to ensure that we have the best possible connectivity to as many destinations as possible.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement. At the risk of sounding like Mr McCarthy, I praise my colleagues the First Minister, the Finance Minister and the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for their efforts in negotiating with the Chancellor on the issue. It is important for our economy and for tourism that we get air passenger duty powers devolved. Will the Minister indicate the anticipated cost to the Northern Ireland Executive of devolving those powers?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

As I promised Mr McCarthy, I will pass on the Member’s comments to the First Minister. I am sure that he will also be very pleased, and, indeed, he may well be in a better position than Mr McCarthy’s party leader to confer some reward.

The cost of the proposal to reduce air passenger duty on flights to North America is £3 million. In 2009, total air passenger duty receipts were estimated at between £45 million and £55 million. The cost to the Executive will depend on what they do with air passenger duty and how far they decide to extend exemptions or reductions once the powers have been devolved.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Obviously, there is still work to be done on air passenger duty. Has the Minister’s Department identified any other fiscal powers, in addition to air passenger duty and corporation tax, that could be transferred to assist the Assembly in building economic recovery?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

First, I noticed that the Member did not praise the deputy First Minister for the part that he played. I will also pass that omission on when I have the opportunity to talk to him.

There has been no discussion about any other taxes that may be devolved. Although I understand the reason for the devolution of air passenger duty, which we believed to be the only mechanism to achieve our objective of keeping and extending flights to North America, the corporation tax issue has been well aired in the Assembly on previous occasions.

I do not believe that we should seek the devolution of a whole range of taxes to Northern Ireland, for two reasons. First, I am a unionist and believe that being part of the United Kingdom and having a regime that complies with the rest of the United Kingdom is important. Secondly, for very good economic reasons: having more taxes devolved to Northern Ireland — tax revenues from corporation tax, air passenger duty or other forms of tax can be volatile — makes budgetary planning much more difficult. Currently, with the block arrangement, when tax arrangements go up and down we are sheltered to a certain extent because they are not reflected in the block grant allocation to Northern Ireland.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

No doubt the Minister will send his thanks to George Osborne, who did a fair amount of work on this. If it is within our remit to change APD on transatlantic flights, do we have the same powers to alter domestic routes for the Northern Ireland element of it, and has he given any undertaking that that will not, in fact, be enacted?