Northern Ireland Assembly, 12 November 2012

323 contributions from 69 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Why is it that, last week the Executive once more made an announcement, which was billed as a key economic announcement, not to the House but to the media? Is there nothing further that you can do to curb the obvious contempt that the Executive have for the House?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his point of order. I assure him that I continually raise this issue with the Executive. Just last week, I put in a letter to the First Minister and deputy First Minister as well on this issue. As I continually say to the whole House, this really is an issue for Ministers and for the Executive. I always encourage Ministers to come to the House with statements that are of importance, but, at the end of the day, it is really up to them to decide which statements are important and which are not. I have some sympathy with the Member's point of order, but these issues lie solely with the Executive and individual Ministers. Let us move on.

Ministerial Statement

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Minister of Finance and Personnel wishes to make a statement to the House.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I do, indeed, Mr Speaker. I am always happy to make statements to the House and to have them queried by Members. I do not have any intention of ever running away from the scrutiny of Members when it comes to making important announcements. I look forward to the scrutiny of the many Members who are in the House. I hope that the 'Belfast Telegraph' takes a photograph at some stage but not of the Sinn Féin Members.

My statement will cover three important issues. First, I intend to update the Assembly on the allocation that was made as part of the invest-to-save scheme that the Executive agreed in September. Secondly, I will inform Members of the 2012-13 October monitoring round outcome. Finally, I will outline the Executive's decisions on the 2013-14 and 2014-15 Budget realignment exercise.

Members will recall that, as part of June monitoring, the Executive agreed to allocate £30 million of resource funding to an invest-to-save scheme. The Executive subsequently agreed in September a number of allocations from the invest-to-save fund, totalling £23·6 million. The invest-to-save bids and agreed allocations are included in the tables that accompany the statement.

The most significant invest-to-save allocation was for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to take forward the Transforming Your Care (TYC) reform programme. That will not only transform the way in which health services are delivered to the benefit of our citizens but will realise significant savings. The recurrent savings from 2014-15 onwards are estimated at nearly £26 million a year, which represents a very good return on the investment.

There was some £6·4 million of resource funding left unallocated, owing to the fact that the remaining bids did not meet the scheme's strict requirements. That funding was then made available for reallocation in the October monitoring round.

The October monitoring round is critical, since it allows the Executive to take an initial view on the resources that may be carried forward into the next financial year under the end-year flexibility arrangements agreed with Her Majesty's Treasury. It is also early enough in the financial year to reallocate a significant amount of resources and for Departments to be able to incur that expenditure. Indeed, the Executive again found themselves in the position of having a large amount of resources available for allocation. I will say more about that later.

The presentation of the October monitoring position again focuses on the non-ring-fenced resource and capital investment figures, since that is the funding that the Executive can use to deliver public services. However, the ring-fenced position, which relates to non-cash costs such as depreciation, is also included as a table separate from the statement. The Executive also continue to monitor departmental administrative cost expenditure, and the latest position is attached for Members' information.

Let me start by setting out the amount of resources that the Executive had available to allocate in this round. The Executive carried forward an overcommitment of £6·5 million resource expenditure and £12·7 million capital investment from the June monitoring round. As I mentioned, £6·4 million of resource funding was also made available from the invest-to-save initiative.

The Executive held £13 million of resource expenditure for the social investment fund and the childcare strategy. It is unlikely that more than £2 million of that funding will be spent in this financial year, so £11 million of resource funding was made available for allocation in this round. There was also £10 million of capital funding that was made available and has been held at the centre for the social investment fund.

In addition, funding was made available through savings in the EU Budget and reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) interest, and those savings amounted to £4 million. There was also a pressure totalling £3·5 million impacting on the centre position resulting from a failure to progress the review of education maintenance allowance (EMA) and to fund salary pressures for the Assembly Ombudsman, the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG), the Lands Tribunal and judicial salaries. I am particularly disappointed that the EMA review has failed to progress. I probably do not need to name the Minister concerned, but, for clarification and so that the Assembly is in no doubt, the Education Minister has not progressed that review, despite the fact that it was endorsed by the Executive.

Taking all those issues into account resulted in a starting position of £11·3 million resource funding available and a small pressure on the capital side of £2·1 million. The Departments declared reduced requirements in this monitoring round of £24·2 million resource and £12·9 million capital investment. That, again, was a relatively high level of resource surrenders. The full details are included in the tables attached to the statement.

The public expenditure control framework provides each Department with considerable scope to address emerging pressures in their existing allocations on a unilateral basis. However, any proposals to move resources across spending areas in excess of the de minimis threshold of £1 million are subject to Executive approval. Departments may also reclassify between ring-fenced and non-ring-fenced resource expenditure. Those movements are also shown in the tables. There may also be departmental allocations that, for technical reasons, were incorrectly classified. Departments may also seek to reclassify some of their budget as part of a proactive management action. All such reclassifications require the Executive’s approval. All the proactive movements and reclassifications that were agreed by the Executive have been included in the tables that accompany this statement.

All the issues highlighted so far, including the starting position, the departmental reduced requirements, the internal reallocations and the reclassifications, impacted on the resources available to the Executive in this monitoring round. The net impact of all those issues was that there was £43·6 million of resource funding and £7·5 million of capital investment available to the Executive. The Executive took the view that it would be prudent to carry forward an overcommitment into the January monitoring round in anticipation of further reduced requirements at that stage. That was particularly important in this financial year since it has transpired that there have been significant delays in the delivery of the A5 and A8 road schemes. The delay is, of course, most acute in relation to the A5 since the work on the A8 has now commenced. The delay incurred so far has resulted in an easement in the Department for Regional Development of £31 million in this financial year. The Executive agreed that that would be managed in the DRD by allowing the Department to reallocate internally to other areas on the condition that the funding will be returned to the A5 and A8 road schemes in 2013-14 and 2014-15 as required. The funding will now be used to accelerate road structural maintenance and Northern Ireland Water capital projects.

The delay on the A5 has been caused by legal action being taken against the DRD. The issue remains unresolved. For each month that passes, DRD will have an easement of £10 million, which means that up to an additional £50 million could be returned to the centre in this financial year. As a contingency, Ministers agreed to consider whether further capital expenditure may be incurred in this financial year to make use of those resources if they become available. In addition, I have been in discussion with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on seeking some additional budget flexibility to manage that large capital project.

The Departments submitted bids worth £63·6 million resource and £50·9 million capital expenditure. Those bids are also detailed in the tables accompanying the statement.

In addition to the departmental bids, Members will be aware of the jobs and economy initiative announced by the First Minister and deputy First Minister last week. Funding of £10 million, split equally between resource and capital, has been set aside for the 2012-13 financial year to take forward the jobs and economy initiative bids. The Executive agreed allocations totalling £33·2 million resource expenditure and £32·8 million capital investment. Since much more resource funding was available than capital, the Executive agreed to switch £20 million from resource to capital to facilitate those allocations. The allocations made are shown in the tables attached to the printed version of this statement, and I will highlight only a few of the main ones.

The Department for Regional Development received a total of £25·9 million, with most of that funding going towards the additional maintenance of our roads and street lighting infrastructure.

The Executive decided to allocate a total of £14·3 million to the Department of Health. Most of that funding will contribute to reducing waiting times in our health sector. That will directly benefit people currently on hospital waiting lists, which remain a high priority for the Executive. A total of £8.3 million was allocated to the Department of Education towards the maintenance of the education estate and, specifically, to address the consequences of extensive fire damage to Arvalee School.

The Executive also agreed to allocate an additional £8 million towards the housing co-ownership scheme. That will not only help to fund an additional 180 new property owners but will boost housing demand at a time when the local housing market is struggling to recover.

The Executive allocated a significant amount of resources in this monitoring round. The allocations provide a significant boost to our construction sector and local housing market. This will help to stimulate the local economy at a very difficult time. Indeed, not only did the Executive specifically set aside £10 million towards the jobs and economy initiative but some £41·5 million of the October monitoring round allocations contributed directly to that initiative. The decisions taken mean that the Executive exits this monitoring round with an overcommitment in resource expenditure of £14·6 million and £10·3 million in capital investment. I believe that this is a reasonable position at this stage of the financial year. Of course, I will continue to monitor the position in respect of the A5 road scheme, since that represents a significant financial risk in this financial year.

I now turn to the realignment of the 2013-14 and 2014-15 Budget position. Before I go into the details of the realignment of budgets for the remaining years of the Executive’s Budget 2011-15, I would like to make a brief comment on the review of financial processes. Over recent days, I have given many interviews, and a constant theme has been the difficulty in understanding the financial consequences of public expenditure decisions taken by the Executive. My review of financial processes was designed to address that lack of transparency. I promised the Assembly that it would be a priority for the Department. A paper has been with the Executive for the past number of months, but I have not been able to progress it. I find that deeply concerning, and I am sure that many Members will share that concern. Of course, one of the constant themes during the Budget debate was what many of the figures meant. The whole point of the financial processes paper was to give that greater transparency. As I said, I do not mind scrutiny of the Budget or awkward questions on it, but, if the figures are hidden or wrapped up in a way that does not easily lead to that kind of questioning, the Assembly ought to be concerned. I am concerned that, because of the inability to get it through the Executive — that is due mainly to Sinn Féin — we still do not have the transparency that the Assembly would have wished.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Will the Minister take an intervention?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Not during a statement. The Member should learn the rules of the Assembly. There is no option to make interventions during a statement. I am sure that she will have plenty of opportunity when the time comes, and I look forward to the question that she will put to me on this issue.

I turn to the detail of the Budget realignment. Members will no doubt be aware that many things impact on Budgets throughout the four-year period. I felt that it was prudent to present an opportunity to Executive colleagues to address some of the emerging issues that have arisen in respect of the 2013-14 and 2014-15 financial years. One of the key drivers for the Budget realignment was the departmental spending performances of 2011-12. My officials carried out an analysis of departmental underspend and examined the capital spending profiles of the forward two years. They concluded that there was scope for some Departments to surrender funding in the period 2013-15.

It is important for Members to recognise that, overall, the spending performance in 2011-12 was good. Although greater than expected, the reduced requirements surrendered by Departments were successfully utilised, meaning that year-end underspends fell within the scope of the Budget exchange scheme and no resources were lost to Northern Ireland. Details of the level of reductions are provided in the tables that accompany the statement.

I turn now to the allocations made in respect of the forward years. The Executive have taken this opportunity to confirm the transfer of £15 million and £75 million to the Department of Education in respect of the commitments made in January 2012 to increase funding to that Department. That directly relates to the budgets for individual schools, where the reductions were to have been 5% this year, 1% next year and 5% the year after that. That was causing great difficulty for individual schools, and we have funded to reduce the impact on schools significantly, and that was welcomed earlier by the schools.

Members will be aware of the upcoming UK City of Culture celebrations in 2013 in Londonderry. To help fund these important cultural and tourism events, the Executive agreed to allocate £6·1 million to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure in 2013-14.

It has been agreed with Her Majesty's Treasury that aspects of air passenger duty (APD) will be devolved to the Northern Ireland Executive. That will enable us to take better account of local economic conditions and compete fairly with the lower rates of aviation duty that apply in the Republic of Ireland. However, in the devolution of the tax powers, due regard must be given to EU law. Under EU rules, the Executive will now have to be financially responsible for the revenues and administration costs of APD in Northern Ireland. To achieve this, there has been an annual adjustment to the block grant, and mechanisms will be put in place for the payment of the development and administration costs, which are likely to be around £5 million per annum. I have set aside funding for that purpose.

With the introduction of welfare reform, there remains the possibility that Her Majesty's Treasury will cut our housing benefit rates rebate by 10%. To ensure that there is enough time to assess the potential impact and provide an alternative scheme, I have set aside £13 million and £15 million in each of the two remaining budget years to address the potential shortfall in the existing rates support scheme.

In March, the Executive endorsed the Minister for Employment and Learning’s proposals to introduce an assistance package to alleviate some of the worst effects of growing youth unemployment. His Department was allocated £5·8 million in June, and I am now allocating the forward years' funding identified at the time: £15·6 million in 2013-14 and £19·6 million in 2014-15. These amounts are in addition to and, therefore, complement the important £200 million economy and jobs initiative package.

In March 2012, the Executive agreed that departmental baselines should be adjusted to reflect the allocation of capital receipts identified by the asset management unit. A significant proportion of those receipts were to have been realised by DRD and related primarily to the sale of four revenue-generating assets. The sale of those assets will lead to a loss of resource funding to DRD of some £1·5 million per annum. The Executive considered that that funding pressure should be addressed and therefore agreed to allocate £1·5 million resource DEL to DRD in 2014-15.

Finally, let me turn to the future years allocations in relation to the economy and jobs initiative. Members will be aware that that package included some of the October monitoring allocations, co-ownership funding and acceleration of projects that will provide a much-needed short-term boost to our construction sector. In addition, the Executive set aside £70 million over the next two years to fund the economy and jobs initiative. When all those things are factored in, there is approximately £200 million being targeted on specific measures designed to boost our economy. Should the funding of those projects exceed the initial envelope, we will look at ways to allocate additional money to those important initiatives.

I assure the House that the changes to budgets agreed by the Executive are designed to boost our economy and provide the necessary skills to educate and equip our workforce, strengthen our businesses and support investment. Announcements today will also provide significant investment in our health and education sectors. The additional funding allocations under the invest-to-save scheme and the October monitoring allocations will help drive essential health sector reform and reduce hospital waiting times. That is good news for everyone in Northern Ireland and shows that the Executive are seeking to deliver key long-term strategic reforms, even in difficult economic times. Our schools will also benefit greatly, both from the allocations in this financial year and those agreed for the next two years. That secures adequate funding for our schools sector to ensure that we continue to drive excellence in the education system. Finally, the allocations in the October monitoring round, along with the jobs and economy initiative, will provide an additional short-term boost to our economy and our construction sector. I therefore commend the statement to the House.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister's statement, as well as the work that the Executive have been doing to address our economic difficulties, in particular, the assistance that they are providing to the construction sector, as the Minister outlined, through allocations for roads and education maintenance. Something that outlines the urgency of that is the situation at Patton. Indeed, a number of subcontractors have come to the Assembly today to speak to MLAs.

Minister, you referred to reduced requirements of £24·2 million in resource and £12·9 million in capital, and you described that as being relatively high. Do you believe that all Departments have declared their reduced requirements at this stage, and how confident are you that a larger level of reduced requirements will not present itself in the January monitoring round?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Chairman makes an important point about reduced requirements. We have stressed to all Departments that, if there is likely to be an underspend, they should not leave it until the last moment to declare it. We do not have the flexibility that we had in previous years, albeit that we have negotiated some flexibility. We do not have the open-ended flexibility that we had in previous years to carry money forward. All I can say is that I am satisfied with the way that Departments have behaved to date. Some declared quite significant reduced requirements in June, so they were looking ahead. Obviously, the reduced requirements that were declared in October were fairly high for this time of year. There is constant contact between my Department's officials and officials in other Departments to look ahead to see what spending is likely to be. I believe that Ministers have realised the importance of declaring reduced requirements at an early stage so that they can at least be used to fit in with the Programme for Government. That is the important thing, and I know that the Committee has emphasised it. The earlier we get them, the more we can slot them into aspects of the Programme for Government, rather than having a last-minute scramble to simply spend resources in the last two months of the year.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for the statement. There is some good news on the reallocation of some of the money. What has happened to the Minister's review of the financial process? That is an issue of concern for the Finance Committee and many other key stakeholders.

We want to hear about greater transparency in debates such as this. Certain people have been asking why this did not happen sooner.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Member to come his question.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

I appreciate that. Thank you.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Of course, it has not happened at all, other than in the form of the paper that the Department presented to the Executive but which has not yet been agreed by the Executive.

Let me spell it out. There is nothing that is demanding of Ministers in this. The review of financial processes would simply require Departments to outline their spending in more detail. There would be more budget lines so that Members could scrutinise them and determine what the money is being spent on — or what the Minister said the money is being spent on — and confirm what it is being spent on.

If there are more lines in the budget, it will mean that when a Minister decides to move money from one line to another, he or she will have to show that there is transparency so that Members know that what they voted for is being done. That is all that it is about.

I am not giving the Assembly any new news today, but the difficulty has been with the Minister of Education, who, ironically, will give that information to the Treasury in London before he will give it to the Assembly. Perhaps we require an explanation for that.

I am frustrated that we have not been able to do this. The people who scrutinise our budgets want to have the information. The Assembly should not be afraid to give that information, but it is not being done, and I hope that it will be.

I can barge all I want, and the more I barge the more intransigent people will be, but when people want transparency, we are prepared to give it to them. If there is a roadblock to that, it is my duty as a Minister to say where the roadblock lies. It does not lie with my Department. Indeed, the Committee for Finance and Personnel has been very helpful because it has agreed the kind of information that is required, but that has not come to fruition in departmental presentations.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement and for giving us some time to read it, which was helpful. I share the views that have been expressed about the review of financial processes being frustrated. It reflects very poorly on government that we cannot move something as important as that forward.

When it comes to transparency, however, the investment package that was announced last week comprised an amount of Barnett consequentials. Will the Minister spell out the detail of those consequential credits to us during the year?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Barnett consequentials represented money that was allocated for this year, next year and the following year, and they amounted to about £179 million. That came from a range of sources.

On UTV the other evening, I heard John Simpson say that we do not want jam tomorrow; we want jam today because the problems exist now, and we should spend it all now. Those Barnett consequentials, of course, are made available to the Assembly on the basis that there will be certain years to which they apply. So, the money that applies in 2013-14 and 2014-15 cannot be brought forward to be spent in this year.

We get a consequence from Westminster if, for example, additional money is being spent on transport in England and Wales. We get a certain percentage of that; I think that it is 2·3%. The money has to be spent in the year for which it has been allocated in other parts of the United Kingdom.

The new money amounts to £179·1 million, but it is spread over three years. That is why we had to spread that spending over three years and could not do it all in one year. To argue for doing it all now — jam tomorrow is no good; we want jam today — is not possible given the way in which the money was allocated to us.

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

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a ráitis. Tá ceist bheag agam air faoi thábla C.

I thank the Minister for his statement. My question concerns table C of the statement, which outlines reduced requirements. From that, I see that the Department for Social Development (DSD) is returning £8 million from the social housing rebuild programme, with nearly five months of the year still left. Does the returning of that money represent the cancellation of the 100-house phase 1 of the Girdwood newbuild that was planned by previous Ministers?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

No, it does not. The reduced requirement is a result of housing associations not being able, for one reason or another, to spend the money in this year. I welcome the fact that the Minister for Social Development has trawled through the information that was available to him and scrutinised what spending is likely to happen. People will, of course, hold on to money as long as they can, and, in the past, this would probably have been left until the February monitoring round, when it was too late.

The Minister for Social Development, as a result of work that he has done with housing associations, identified that they could not spend that money for whatever reason. I do not know what the reasons are or whether we are getting all of the full reasons. I know that there has been resistance from some housing associations. As their grants have gone down, they simply decided that, rather than putting in more of their own money, they would not build houses. If that is the case, the housing associations have to be pushed on it. In some cases, it might be as a result of not having planning permissions through or tender documents out. If that is the case, I would have thought that there was probably still enough time left in the year. For whatever reason, the Minister has given the money back.

The Member should note that the money will not be lost to housing. We have allocated the money to a sector that we believe can spend it, namely affordable co-ownership housing. Whether a house is built as a social house or a co-ownership house, the building will still take place. The private sector will welcome that further injection. The difference is that money spent on co-ownership housing draws in additional finance. The banks provide at least 50% of the mortgage, so you double the money. The Co-ownership Housing Association can draw down loans on the basis of money that we give them. So the £8 million that will go to co-ownership in this year can expand to nearly £20 million.

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

I, too, welcome the statement, specifically the news that money will be set aside to address the potential shortfall in housing benefit rates and the allocation to the economy and jobs initiative. Given the danger of further spending cuts from the UK Government, is the Finance Minister confident that all the spending proposals and the current overcommitment will be sustainable over the lifespan of the current Budget?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

We have to work on the basis of the money allocated to us. One thing that I would not like us to do is to hold back on spending through trying to anticipate, for example, whether the financial statement that the Chancellor will make at Westminster in December is likely to include further changes and downward Barnett consequentials, which I think is what the Member is referring to. The schemes funded here have been scrutinised. Do not forget that some of them were rejected for the very reason that the Member gave: we were not sure that some could be delivered on time or that they were sufficiently robust.

We still have flexibility over the next two years of the Budget. If the reduced requirements and the monitoring rounds produce the same amount of resources as they did in the past, we will have some flexibility to play with. We carry over resources, and we have the ability to carry over £52 million and £11 million of capital and current spending from one year to the next, which gives us a degree of flexibility. We did that this year, and we intend to do it next year. If we get the additional flexibility for capital moneys that I have sought from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, that will give us some scope there as well. I am convinced that we have sufficient flexibility through the monitoring rounds, the money that we carry forward as a prudent exercise and the additional flexibility that we seek from the Treasury.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I refer him to the penultimate page of his statement, which mentions the £200 million for the economy and jobs initiative. One concern that has been raised is that that is simply recycled money that is in the system already. Will the Minister clarify the extent to which that is additional new money and to what extent it is a reallocation of money from existing budgets?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

It is not all reallocated money, and I have already given a figure to the Assembly for the significant Barnett consequentials that were made during this financial year and the impact that they will have in this and the next two years. However, even if the £200 million were all the result of reallocations, I cannot see where there is an issue.

Members can look at the table for administration costs, etc. If the money had been a result of greater efficiency in delivering services in Northern Ireland and cutting administration costs, which some of it is, that would have been a good thing. It would mean slimmer and more efficient government and the ability to put money into front line resources. Had it been the result of Ministers simply saying, "Look, the big priority at the moment is to do what we can to alleviate the distress caused by the recession, so are there lower priority programmes in my Department that can wait so that we can address the immediate issues that affect our constituents?", that would also have been a good thing. Some of the money is due to some of those things. Had the £200 million simply been the result of Ministers doing things now that they were going to do in two years' time because they will have a great impact now, that would have been good.

Those three elements account for some of the money. However, a large proportion of it is due to additional funding that enables us to do things that we had not planned in the Budget and that Ministers had identified as new things that they wanted to do or extensions of things that they are doing at present that are working and are addressing problems.

Whenever we make an announcement that reflects a genuine effort by the Executive to try to improve the situation, I find it intolerable that the first thing that some of the commentators in Northern Ireland do is pick over it to see what bad news they can find, rather than presenting it is as positive work by the Assembly. There are times when we get things wrong, and we deserve to get beaten for it. However, whenever we get it right, the least that we deserve is a bit of credit.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

The Minister said that whenever people get things right, they deserve a bit of credit. On that note, does he agree that John O'Dowd and, indeed, previous Education Ministers fought very hard for funding for the building of schools and the schools estate. I know that old habits die hard, but I wonder whether the Minister wakes up in the morning thinking, "How am I going to get at Sinn Féin today?" That is what it seems like from this side of the House. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I am coming to my question. Does the Minister agree that the money that John O'Dowd secured for maintenance is very important for the schools estate?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am surprised at the Member's response, because if she thinks that I wake up in the morning wondering how I can get at Sinn Féin, she must think I lead a very sad life. That is not what I do. Indeed, if one looks at the statement, one would see that I have a funny way of getting at Sinn Féin — it has about £130 million worth of getting at Sinn Féin and the Education Minister. There is £90 million directly for the schools budget, £10 million for capital investment next year for schools maintenance and money for schools maintenance this year. I am trying to quickly add it all up, but it all amounts to well over £120 million. So, I do not think that the Member can honestly say that I look for ways of getting at Sinn Féin.

I have my difficulties with some Sinn Féin Ministers, as I do with lots of other Ministers, including some of those from my own party, but I emphasise that judgements will not be made on the basis of whether I do or do not get on with a Minister. Judgements will be made on the basis of whether we have money and whether there is a problem. If a Minister presents a problem and makes a case justifying the need for extra money, I do not care what party they come from.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

I also welcome the Minister's statement. I welcome the additional £8 million for the housing co-ownership scheme, which will give the construction sector a boost. We cannot do that on our own. Minister, have you had any conversations with the banks so that they can buy into that project?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

We have. Indeed, the Minister for Social Development and I did so before we decided to put the money in.

The Member makes a very important point that there is no point in us putting money into the Co-ownership Housing Association when at least half the value of the house has to be financed through a mortgage. In some cases, if people go for a lower percentage, they will require an even greater mortgage. Therefore, before we put the money into the Co-ownership Housing Association, we had meetings with the banks. We told them that we were going to do this and that we were going to give a long-term commitment so that it was not just a one-off and worth their while setting up schemes to make mortgages available to people. We also made the point that, under co-ownership, all the risk of a new house is carried by the Co-ownership Housing Association, because it takes the first hit if the equity value goes down. Therefore, there is no reason for banks to ask people who apply for mortgages under co-ownership for a deposit. We now have a commitment from the banks that not only will they match all the finance that we put in but will give 100% mortgages to successful applicants. That, of course, is a big boost, and it means that we lever in at least as much money as, and possibly more than, we are putting into the scheme from the banks alone.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I welcome the Minister's statement, in which he has allocated a further £14·3 million towards health to address the necessary pseudomonas investment and to try to reduce the growing waiting lists.

Will the Minister accept that confusion can be created when reannouncements occur, such as the invest-to-save allocation for Transforming Your Care, which was agreed by the Executive in September? However, the 11 pages of tables do not include a simple table to illustrate where the all the money is coming from, and we have had to ask questions about Barnett consequentials.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The tables do explain where the money is coming from. I also explained that in my statement, so it is explained in figures and explained in writing. Some of it is money that we have from the invest-to-save fund. Some of it comes from Departments' reduced requirements. Some of it is from Barnett consequentials. Some of it is from spending that we are bringing forward from future years because we want to do the capital schemes now. Northern Ireland Water capital schemes are an example of that.

Therefore, the tables do show where the money is coming from, and I refer the Member to the appropriate tables. The money that has come from reduced requirements is outlined in table C. Reallocations are outlined in table D. Reclassifications are outlined in table E. Where the money is going to as a result of the bids submitted is shown in table F, and the allocations that were made are shown in table G. Even the administration costs that have been saved are shown in table H. All the tables outline the information that the Member has asked for. I hope that there is as much transparency there as we can possibly give.

I thought that Members would have welcomed the invest-to-save money. For £23·6 million, we will make savings in the health budget on a year-on-year basis of £27 million. That is a good return and one of the reasons that the Health Minister was allocated the money. Of course, that £27 million saving every year means that there is more money to go into front line services. The money that is going into elective care will, according to the information that I have been given, deal with waiting lists of up to 3,000 patients in orthopaedics, 2,600 in general surgery, 1,000 inpatient and day cases, 2,700 ophthalmology cases and 300 inpatient cases. The numbers are in the thousands. I accept that that detail is not in the paper. However, it is the kind of detail that I would expect the Health Minister to give to his Committee. The money has been allocated: what will be done with it? This is the information that he has given to me. Thousands of people will be taken off the waiting lists as a result of the £14 million allocation in the statement today.

Seán Rogers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Has any analysis been undertaken of the percentage change from the original budget allocation for each Department? What sort of lessons are being gleaned?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I said in the statement that some Departments are going to lose some money as a result of this, and that others would gain. The Departments that will have their budgets reduced are listed in the statement: the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI), the DRD and the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM). Those were the three main Departments that were going to have money reallocated. The winners in this were going to be the Department of Education and, if I remember rightly, the Department of Health. We have allocated money to those Departments, and it has been done on the basis of what reduced requirements there were and what we see for the future. As I said to the House already, it does not preclude giving priority in future monitoring rounds to the Departments that may have had reallocations in this exercise, should we find that the situation changes and they need further money.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

The Minister should be aware that there is nothing new about republicans giving information to the British Government. They did it for 40 years, given the number of spooks and spies that were inside their organisations.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member must ask a question.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I welcome the Minister's statement. On behalf of the Education Committee, I welcome the £8·3 million that has been allocated to the Department for the maintenance of the education estate, and to address the consequences of the serious fire at Arvalee Special School in Omagh.

I also welcome the fact that the Committee will now see the transfer of the £15 million and the £75 million to the Department, albeit with the caveat that the Minister has given about the issue of transparency. Will he outline for us the issue with regard to the review of the EMA and what the consequences of the failure to progress that issue will be to the overall budget position, given the fact that it was agreed by the Executive?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

On the first two issues that the Member has raised, the bid for capital works in schools is a bid for capital works in schools and, therefore, the money will have to be spent for that purpose.

The £90 million allocation is to deal with the reductions that would have been made to school budgets and which schools have now been told will not have to be made. Schools have already budgeted for this, because that assurance was given to the Minister. We could not do it at the time the assurance was given because we had to give some certainty to schools' boards of governors, headmasters and headmistresses who were worried about the future and what cuts they would have to make. Would they have to make staff redundant? We gave them an early assurance that that would not have to happen. However, it was a funding pressure that we knew we would have to address. We have now addressed it as we promised we would.

I cannot now remember the other point that the Member made.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

It was about the EMA.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

As I said already, I am disappointed that we have not had the progress on the EMA that we had anticipated.

The Executive took a decision in January that they would not increase student fees by more than the rate of inflation. That left a pressure that had to be funded. All other Departments have already had their budgets reduced in order to fund that pressure, but, because of the pressures it faced at that particular time, the Department of Education indicated that it could not possibly face it. So, the Executive agreed that, since there was a large amount of the EMA that was targeted at people who did not need it, and that there was a lot of dead weight in it, there would be a review of the EMA. Whatever savings there would be from that, on a pro rata basis, would be made available to pay the Department of Education's contribution towards holding student fees at no more than the rate of inflation.

There has been significant feet-dragging on that. The consultation is now finished, and a decision has to be made by December. The Executive's position still remains, which is that if that decision is not made and the savings are not realised, Education will have to find the savings from its own budget. Therefore, it is up to the Minister to behave responsibly. If he does not want schools to suffer, he has to make the necessary decisions to target EMA provision much more efficiently, in order to make the savings that then enable his Department to have financed its contribution towards the decision on student fees.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

In his statement, the Minister outlined the saving on the A5 of £10 million a month, culminating, probably, in a total of £50 million. Can he give the House and the wider community an assurance that there is no risk of the money being lost and returned to the Treasury?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Once the Regional Development Minister raised the issue, we immediately contacted the Treasury, and my officials had conversations with Treasury officials.

There is a particular difficulty in carrying money forward, because the Treasury does not want that kind of loose arrangement where regional Administrations simply decide that they are not going to spend the money this year and that they will carry it forward and build up a big pot of money that, presumably, would be used in election year to give out goodies to the electorate. That is the thinking of the cynics in the Treasury. Of course, we would never, ever think of doing that, Mr Speaker. Anyhow, the cynics in the Treasury thought that that was a possibility, so they gave us no ability to carry money over, which was an absolute nonsense. It did not even allow you to efficiently manage resources, because you could not always be sure that something would not happen towards the end of the year that you could not spend all the money. The Treasury wants to avoid going back to that free-for-all.

We believe that we have designed a proposal that is so unique to this project and to Northern Ireland that neither Wales nor Scotland could say that they wanted the same. I talked over the details of it when I met the First Secretary to the Treasury on Thursday, and I am fairly hopeful that we will get a positive response from Treasury, but only on this one particular issue of flexibility.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. In the welcome package towards boosting our economy and supporting jobs, which measures does he believe will have the most long-lasting effect from the package?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The ones that will have the most long-lasting effect are some of the employment ones. The thing that enables us to sell Northern Ireland is the quality of our workforce. Although we talk about the quality of our workforce, we have to accept that there are skills shortages and that there are areas where we have been successful in attracting inward investment and promoting local investment. However, as we do that, we need more people to be employed in those sectors.

Therefore, the money that has been allocated towards extending apprenticeship schemes and making it easier and cheaper for employers to take on apprentices; the money available for graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects and PhDs in those areas that we have targeted as growth areas in the economy that will have a long-lasting effect; and some of the money that we have designed to spend on infrastructure will help build up the infrastructure base that makes it easier for industry to locate, transport goods, communicate, etc. For me, those are the ones which will have the greatest long-term effect.

However, we must also recognise that there are short-term problems, such as the young people who do not have a job and those over 50 who have been put out of work and find it hard to get back into work. That is why those short-term measures of 26 weeks are important to, at least, get people into the job market. The Member will know, from his own constituency, that the support for small business in the centre of town and the raising of the £15,000 NAV threshold will bring an extra 3,500 businesses into the 20% reduction in rates.

That will be an important reduction in overheads for many of those businesses, and it just might help them to weather the current recession.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Following on the point about youth unemployment and skills, I refer the Minister to the penultimate page of his statement. Earlier in his statement, the Minister berated a commentator for looking for jam today rather than following the profile. Can he explain to me why youth unemployment was allocated £5·8 million in June but the Barnett consequential from the youth contract for 2012 was £10·2 million? There is a difference there. Following on from that, the paragraph dealing with the economy and jobs initiative states that the Executive have set aside £70 million over the next two years, in addition to co-ownership, acceleration and various other things. What will that £70 million be spent on? I looked at the tables, and I could not see how it related to employment and learning.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

First of all, the money that is allocated this year is money on top of what the Department for Employment and Learning is already using to address youth unemployment. I do not want to mislead the House, but I think that the Department for Employment and Learning's total additional bid for dealing with youth unemployment was about £36 million, so it has got additional money over the three years. That is on top of the schemes that are already in place, which were being financed as a result of money we had available to us.

I move now to the £70 million. I do not want to read out a long list of how the money will be spent, but it is divided between resource and capital. Let me give some examples of the things that we are talking about. In respect of supporting people, we have the First Start initiative, the Step Ahead programme for the 50+, the undergraduate STEM places, the increased funding for FE and 150 additional PhD places. Those are not in the statement. If the Member is looking for them, he will find that they are not there. I do not want him to think that I am misleading him and wonder what I am reading from. To support businesses, there is a moratorium on car parking charges and the increase in the NAV in the rates element. In supporting investment, there is £10 million for the additional maintenance of schools next year and the updating of tourist facilities, caravan sites and forest parks. There is a range of things. I do not know for certain, but I am sure that that information is available in the written statement that was produced by the Executive after the Executive meeting. I think it came out on Friday.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement. As a member of the Health Committee, I especially welcome the additional £14·3 million for health. Can the Minister advise what the additional funding for the Ulster Hospital will mean for the long-term development of the Ulster Hospital site?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The additional funding is for the Tor Bank site. As the Member will know, the school there has been knocked down. Additional car parking is needed for the hospital, and anyone who drives up the road towards Newtownards will see how much that is needed, because cars are parked along the East Link Road towards the Ice Bowl etc at Dundonald. So it is to include greater car parking facilities in the hospital grounds, so that people are not forced to park on the road when they visit relatives and to allow staff to find places in the hospital grounds. As the hospital is expanding, it, of course, requires more car parking. The Tor Bank site is next door, and the £4 million is for that.

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

I welcome the statement by the Minister. I encourage him to complete the review of financial processing. It is important for the Executive going forward. Can the Minister give an assurance that the Executive are still committed to building the two roads, as outlined? Will the Minister further agree that the funding for the A5 and A8 was project-specific, as outlined by the Treasury, and that that, hopefully, can still be maintained?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I hope that I have given the assurance. Let us look at the two things that I said about the A5 and A8. First of all, £31 million that could not be spent this year has been allocated to capital projects so that there can be work for the construction industry in Northern Ireland Water projects and road maintenance. That money was given on the strict understanding that, since it was money that would have been spent by the Water Service and Roads Service next year, it will be transferred to the scheme next year and the year after as it is required. We have gone to considerable lengths, as I have outlined to the Assembly already, to negotiate with the Treasury a carry-over of £50 million so that that is not lost. That will be available to spend in the last year of the scheme, when, of course, the shortfall would have occurred because of the delay at the start of the scheme. In the ingenuity we have tried to show in persuading the Treasury and getting it over the line and in the commitment we have given that any money brought forward from the A5 project for spend on other projects this year must be returned to the scheme next year, there can be no greater indication of our commitment to complete the project.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the Minister's statement, especially what he said around the additional £15 million and £75 million for education. However, does the Minister agree that that is a bit like the headmaster rewarding the pupil for playing truant? Does he agree that, if the Department got its act together and gave the Minister proper information, any increase, especially in the maintenance budget for schools, would not only have a beneficial effect on school property but boost small to medium-sized businesses, which, at the minute, are struggling in our economy?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

There has been no attempt to reward a Minister who has not been playing ball in producing financial information or scrutinising the financial operations in their Department. At the end of the day, I have to make a judgment and the Executive have to make a judgment on what the needs of the education sector are. I will have the most robust debates with the Minister in private and in public, and I will, I am sure, annoy him in public by some of the things I say. However, let me make it clear that we will not make decisions on the basis of how I as Finance Minister get on with other Ministers. We will make decisions on the basis of what the needs presented are. Needs were presented. I know, because I spoke to principals in my constituency, that schools would have found it almost impossible to make an 11% reduction in their budget over the period of the Budget. For that reason, additional money was found. There is a big backlog of maintenance in the schools sector of over £300 million. We do not want buildings to deteriorate to the point where they cannot be used for the purpose for which they are required or, indeed, to incur even more maintenance because they get so bad and damaged as a result of that. On that basis, additional money was made available. However, that is not rewarding any wayward Minister, by any means. It is a sensible allocation of resources to a problem that has been identified and needs to be addressed.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Was the Minister's thunder stolen last week because the First Minister and deputy First Minister wanted the glory of the announcement before they went off to China? Or was the announcement made because the Executive could not trust some of their own members not to leak the details between last Wednesday and today?

On the issue of the rightful criticism that the Minister made of Sinn Féin's blocking of the review of financial processes and, I suspect, the roll-out of further announcements on the Budget for 2013-14 and 2014-15 and the EMA, am I reading the statement correctly when I discover, from table C and elsewhere, that not a single Sinn Féin Department surrendered any money or admitted to having any reduced requirements, yet all of them got handsome increases in their allocations? Is that correct?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

If one looks at the reduced requirements, one will see that OFMDFM has shown a number of reduced requirements. There was also a reduction, in table D, and movements of money within the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. The Departments that have made reduced requirements are spread across a number of parties — for example, the Alliance Party. The SDLP, as has been pointed out, and Ulster Unionist Departments have not shown reduced requirements, but, nevertheless, we make a judgement not on the Minister but on whether Departments have underspends. If they have not spent money at the end of a year, it will show as an underspend, which is when real criticism will come in. However, my officials and accounting officers in other Departments are constantly going backwards and forwards between each other. We are satisfied that the reduced requirements shown in the statement reflect genuine reduced requirements.

The Member made a point about my thunder or glory being stolen by the statement being made on Thursday evening rather than today. I do not think that it is a question of glory for any individual Minister. The Executive made a collective decision. Despite what UTV reported, the announcement was not delayed because Ministers could not agree and were squabbling about how the money would be spent. In September, we decided that we had to do something, and, by October, we had a comprehensive package, which was made public. How and why it was made public at the time that it was is not a matter of great concern. The important thing is that we now have a programme that will help thousands of people to get work. It will help many small businesses and construction firms. That is how the package should be judged, not on how it was announced or who got the opportunity or glory of announcing it.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

That concludes questions on the statement.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I heard the Minister's response to Gordon Dunne's question about the Ulster Hospital site. The Minister quite rightly said that it would be used for car parking. Is the Minister aware that there is also provision —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Questions on the ministerial statement have ended. That is not a point of order. Let us move on.

Executive Committee Business

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

I beg to move

That the draft Local Government (Indemnities for Members and Officers) Order (Northern Ireland) 2012 be approved.

The order is made under article 33 of the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 2005. Article 33(3) of the order provides that a draft of the order must be laid before and approved by a resolution of the Assembly. The purpose of the draft order is to permit councils to provide indemnities to any of their members or officers. The Department consulted on the draft order from December 2009 to March 2010. The Department received 18 responses, none of which opposed the proposals. Clearly, some time has elapsed between the end of the consultation and the order coming before the Chamber. I will address that matter in my later comments.

Given the developing and innovative ways in which district councils have sought to carry out their functions, they have in the past raised concerns regarding the extent to which they can indemnify their members and officers against personal liability. All of us in the Chamber, including you, Mr Speaker, who are or were councillors, especially going back some time, will know how significantly the work of councils has adjusted over the decades, to the point where council members who sat on bodies outside the council may have had issues of liability. We are trying to address that matter now and in anticipation of the review of public administration, when councillors' responsibilities, including being involved in external third-party organisations and companies, may become more significant. The main concern that was raised was about instances in which councils have appointed members and officers as members of other bodies such as partnerships, regeneration initiatives and companies that councils have established or participated in, which has given life to the quality of this regulation.

Legislation that has established bodies requiring council representation, such as the policing and community safety partnerships, has often given councils explicit powers to provide indemnities. The draft order will supplement those powers in cases in which no such provision exists in relation to a council function.

Councils should seek clarity from partner organisations at an early stage on where responsibility for indemnity lies in order to avoid duplication and convey that information to their members and officers. That is very good advice. Given the range of partnership arrangements between councils, councillors and third-party organisations, people should interrogate third-party organisations and themselves to determine where liability indemnity begins and ends.

The order also proposes to prohibit councils from using the powers within it to meet the costs of members and officers taking legal action for slander or libel either directly or through insurance. That said, there may be provision in the order to allow members to defend themselves when party to an action of slander or libel but not to initiate slander or libel actions. That may be a regret to some Members, I do not know. The Department does not believe that individuals should be funded at public expense to bring proceedings against third parties, as to do so could stifle legitimate public debate — never mind open the door. Councils will, however, be able, as I said, to provide indemnities to individuals against the cost of defending themselves in such actions when the actions relate to their official functions.

I want to make it clear that this does not give councillors a licence to do what they want in third-party organisations of which they might be a member. If, for example, a member acted fraudulently, recklessly or, indeed, criminally, he or she could not rely on indemnity in those circumstances. Therefore, indemnity is subject to certain hurdles and tests. It is not an open door for councillors to behave as they might wish without repercussions. The order will extend indemnity provisions to people who were councillors and have now stepped down for actions that may have arisen when they were in that role. Provisions will also extend to non-council members or staff who sit on committees where the indemnity provisions may kick in.

The proposed order mirrors the legislation available to local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales. The enabling power for the order was introduced in the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 2005, but the order is only being made now. As I said, it might be helpful if I set out the reasons for that. Although I will outline those reasons, it is accepted in the Department — certainly by me — that it should have been brought to the Chamber before now, some 30 months after the consultation ended. Although I will explain the process between then and now, certainty should have been created before now to allow the matter to be brought before the House.

The story from March 2010 until now is as follows. First, the Department was taking forward other legislation on which the indemnity provisions could have a bearing, namely the power for councils to establish or participate in companies for the purposes of carrying out their functions, for which legislation was made in January 2007; the issue of whether councils and waste groups have the necessary vires to enable them to enter long-term service contracts with the private sector; and to address concerns that contractors and financiers might have about such contracts, for which legislation was made in 2012. That is a very important matter given what may happen in the waste procurement process and the scale of the contracts, both in duration and cost. It is important that the issue of indemnity and the waste procurement groups was interrogated. However, that in itself should not have given rise to the scale of the delay that we experience today. In the Department, at a certain stage, it was considered prudent to wait until those issues had been resolved and to take account of ongoing developments in other jurisdictions before making the regulation. Secondly, the need to seek legal advice on issues raised as part of the consultation contributed to the delay. As we know, lawyers are not always the most prompt in giving their advice. Thirdly, there were competing legislative priorities of which Members will be aware, not least the drafting of a wide body of legislation, some of which will come before the Assembly in the near future, in respect, not least, of local government reform. I ask the Assembly to approve the draft order.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

The Committee considered initial proposals for the regulations almost three years ago at its meeting on 3 December 2009. Members welcomed the proposals and were content for the Department to proceed with the policy.

As we heard, the rule will make provision for circumstances in which a council may indemnify some or all of its members or officers. It enables the council to provide indemnity by securing an insurance policy for members or officers and sets out the cases in which indemnities may be provided. It also allows indemnity to cover officials carrying out a function on behalf of the local authority.

Members noted that the need for the legislation was identified many years ago. It has become even more important as we move towards larger councils with greater powers. We need to ensure that councils have the ability to use these powers in innovative ways to deliver high-quality and cost-effective services. The protection that the rule provides will help councils to do that.

Powers have existed in Northern Ireland since 1972 to enable councils to indemnify their officers and members. However, councils have long been concerned about the extent to which those powers could be applied to officers and members whenever they were acting or taking decisions as members of other bodies to which the council had appointed them. The Committee was, therefore, pleased to hear that, in bringing forward the regulations, the Department would overcome those doubts by ensuring that councils will be able, at their discretion, to provide indemnity that is wide-ranging and applicable to all members and officers wherever they conduct their responsibilities. However, the Committee welcomes the fact that some restrictions will be in place. For example, indemnity will not be available to cover a case in which an individual has acted fraudulently or recklessly, as the Minister indicated, nor will it extend to any liability arising from an action or failure to act that constitutes a criminal offence. It is reasonable to expect that members and officers can rely on indemnities that have been funded directly by their council only where they have acted honestly and in good faith.

The Examiner of Statutory Rules considered the draft statutory rule in his fourth report to the Assembly for session 2012-13, which was published on 24 October 2012. He had no issues to bring to the Committee's attention.

The Committee considered the draft rule at its meeting on 18 October 2012. Although the Committee was concerned at the significant time that it had taken the Department to bring the rule forward, members welcomed it and were content for me to recommend to the Assembly that the rule be affirmed.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá. I want to say a few words on this.

Obviously, this has been in the pipeline for a number of years, as it is three years since it first came to the Committee. The order will give more clarity and surety to local councils and officers. It will bring a wee bit of confidence to councils, especially in the run-in to the new council structures and formations. So, with that, I support the order.

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

First, as always — well, nearly always — I thank the Committee for its contribution to these matters and, indeed, to the order. As the Chair and Mr Boylan indicated, there has been some delay, but, to be fair, this has not been an acute matter over the past period. I acknowledge that the order should have been brought forward earlier, but, as far as I am aware, subject to what the councils may say, it has not been one of the most pressing issues. I agree with Mr Boylan that this will create confidence and certainty and avoid doubt.

The Committee Chair made a curious and relevant point when she said that the order was important now because, in future, councils might find innovative ways in which to work with others to develop local council areas. Over the next three years and beyond, that issue will become more and more relevant. Are there opportunities, ways and means and models for councils to draw down extra funds, without placing any undue burden on the life of councils or any particular cost on ratepayers, to initiate and drive development in their communities?

I also acknowledge the Committee Chair's point, which is another good point, that, where councillors or members of staff engage honestly, reasonably and in good faith in a proper council function with, let us say, a third-party organisation but, in doing so, act beyond their particular powers, that sort of action beyond their competence is, nonetheless, captured by the order. Therefore, it protects councillors, former councillors and staff in taking forward the work of a council with other organisations, but — I give this warning — if they are fraudulent, reckless or guilty of criminal behaviour, they will not have indemnity.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the draft Local Government (Indemnities for Members and Officers) Order (Northern Ireland) 2012 be approved.

Committee Business

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

I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 15 February 2013 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Civil Service (Special Advisers) Bill [NIA Bill 12/11-15].

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Éirím leis an rún a mholadh. Cuireadh críoch leis an Dara Céim den Bhille Stát Seirbhíse (Comhairleoirí Speisialta) ar an 25 Meán Fómhair, agus fágadh faoin Choiste Airgeadais agus Pearsanra é le haghaidh na Céime Coiste.

The Civil Service (Special Advisers) Bill completed its Second Stage on 25 September and was referred to the Committee for Finance and Personnel for its Committee Stage. In broad terms, the Bill provides that no person shall hold the post of special adviser if he or she has what is termed a "serious criminal conviction", which is defined as one carrying a custodial sentence of five years or more. It requires the Department of Finance and Personnel to publish a code of appointment for special advisers, a code of conduct for special advisers and an annual report about the number and cost of special advisers. It also removes the Speaker from the list of office holders who are entitled to appoint a special adviser to the Civil Service.

Having been notified at its meeting on 5 September that should the Bill pass its Second Stage it would stand referred to the Committee unless the Assembly otherwise ordered, the Committee invited the Bill's sponsor, Mr Allister, QC, MLA, to give evidence on the provisions of the Bill at the Committee's meeting on 19 September. Evidence was also invited from the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) in view of the functions to be conferred on that Department. Additionally, the Attorney General was invited to address early concerns regarding legislative competence, in particular, potential non-compliance with human rights requirements. Those were useful sessions, which helped in informing Members in advance of the Second Stage debate.

Following the Bill's referral to the Committee, a public call for evidence was issued. In response, the Committee received more than 860 responses from individuals and organisations. The Committee has identified a range of organisations and witnesses from which it plans to take oral evidence. Although some have to be confirmed, it is expected that the evidence sessions will continue until the Christmas recess. As is the normal protocol with an Executive Bill, the Committee is also likely to invite the Bill's sponsor to respond to any issues raised in the evidence. I expect that Mr Allister will shortly receive communication in that regard. In addition, the Committee may seek legal advice on aspects of the Bill.

Members will be aware from the Second Stage debate that differing views were expressed on the Bill and concerns and issues highlighted. The Committee wishes to take the time to undertake robust scrutiny of the Bill and, therefore, agreed at its meeting on 24 October to seek an extension of the Committee Stage until 15 February 2013. That will allow time for all the oral evidence to be taken; for the Committee to consider in detail the issues arising from the evidence; for all necessary advice to be received, for the clause-by-clause scrutiny to be completed; and for the Committee report to be agreed.

I have no doubt that the Committee will report to the Assembly in advance of 15 February, if practicable. Therefore, I ask the House to support the motion to extend the Committee Stage of the Civil Service (Special Advisers) Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 15 February 2013 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Civil Service (Special Advisers) Bill [NIA Bill 12/11-15].

Private Members' Business

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The next item of business on the Order Paper is the motion regarding funding for boxing. As two amendments have been selected, up to one hour and 45 minutes will be allowed for the debate. The proposer of the motion has 10 minutes to propose and a further 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. The proposer of each amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and a further five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the recent announcement by the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure in relation to funding for boxing; acknowledges the boxing strategy being developed by Belfast City Council in conjunction with Sport NI and the club development plan being produced by the Ulster provincial boxing council; recognises that there is a need to develop boxing in working-class Protestant areas; and calls on the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to ensure that the funding is allocated equitably across communities to fill identifiable gaps in provision for the sport, in keeping with her Department's section 75 responsibilities.

I have come under a certain amount of criticism for tabling the motion. I have been accused of seeking to positively discriminate in favour of Protestants and of effectively being sectarian. That is simply not the case. The purpose of the motion is to seek to ensure that the opportunities and benefits that boxing affords can be enjoyed across Northern Ireland.

The problems faced by Sandy Row boxing club are well-documented, have been discussed at the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee and will continue to be scrutinised in the Assembly and the press. The issue of sectarianism and racism is not confined to Sandy Row or to boxing and needs to be removed from our society. In boxing, it needs to be addressed as a priority as it is a barrier to participation. The motion is primarily focused on funding and developing participation in the sport.

Despite negativity in recent months, Northern Ireland amateur boxing has much to be confident about. We returned two medallists from the Olympic Games, and we can look forward to sending a strong team to the forthcoming Commonwealth Games. I want to see us building on the successes that we have had and perhaps regain some of the past glories — the achievements of Wayne McCullough and Carl Frampton spring to mind. We can look at the success of the Irish Republic's Katie Taylor as an inspiration to young women in Northern Ireland. Following the successes of Paddy Barnes and Michael Conlan, the Minister re-announced the provision of £3·27 million for local boxing, which is to be administered through Sport NI and the Irish Amateur Boxing Association (IABA).

Boxing in Ulster relies heavily on volunteers giving freely of their time. It goes without saying that a debt of thanks is owed to them for that. The Ulster Boxing Council (UBC) governs local boxing and is responsible for some 110 clubs, 86 of which are in Northern Ireland. The council is part of the IABA, which represents boxing on an all-island basis.

Following a report by Sport NI, UBC prepared an implementation plan for 2011-16 and a policy and procedure document to implement proper governance arrangements. The plan surveyed existing facilities, assessed the need for the development of coaches and officials, and set out key strategic objectives for Ulster boxing. Those were the development of coaches and officials, the development of governance practices to ensure that participation is open to all, and the support of a high performance programme.

The policies and procedures deal with various areas, including governance and accountability, risk management, child protection, and what the UBC describes as equity. In the equity section, UBC states that it is determined to ensure that all services and policies are fair and without discrimination. It also seeks to ensure that all who participate in the sport of amateur boxing reflect the diversity of background and culture in the province of Ulster. The equity policy fleshes out the steps to be taken to ensure that those who participate in the sport do not suffer discrimination, harassment or unfair treatment. That policy is backed up by IABA's disciplinary and grievance procedures. That, of course, is to be welcomed, but why has it taken so long?

Belfast City Council also approved the development of a boxing strategy, which was informed by the work that was being undertaken by UBC. A baseline assessment was undertaken, which, in addition to establishing the numbers involved in boxing and the key issues facing clubs, demonstrated the benefits and value of such clubs. Those include: reducing antisocial behaviour by providing activities, particularly in deprived areas of the city; contributing to improved health; and increasing participation in physical activities. It also identified a gap in Access NI vetting of coaches and volunteers. The strategy is now subject to public consultation.

As a result, Sport NI and Belfast City Council are working together to establish a baseline standard for facilities and equipment. That should be in place for all boxing clubs at various levels. An action plan is being drawn up to outline what can be taken forward to meet the shortfalls in infrastructure and equipment in the Belfast area. That will then inform discussions with other Northern Ireland councils about boxing provision in their areas. Sport NI's boxing investment programme consultation is now open. Although the link-up with Belfast City Council is useful, boxing exists beyond Belfast. There is life beyond Belfast. I seek the assurance that Belfast will not soak up all of the investment. I want to see gaps in provision addressed right across Northern Ireland.

A general theme that runs through all of this is addressing inclusivity in the sport. Given the prominence of that, it is natural to infer that it is recognised as a problem. The Minister has acknowledged the need to promote inclusivity so that no one, regardless of community background, is discouraged from participating. I cannot stress enough the importance of UBC adopting the new equality standard for sport.

Boxing is more than a sport. It can act as a vehicle for the promotion of good relations, particularly in working-class areas. A difficulty in fully achieving that is the paucity of clubs in perceived Protestant areas. Historically, boxing clubs in Roman Catholic areas have been established along parish lines and have been a focal point for those communities. In many instances, the Catholic Church has granted land to the clubs, and this has proved to be a huge advantage for them. In west Belfast, for example, there are 11 clubs within a three-mile radius. Clubs in Protestant areas did not and do not enjoy such generosity. Those involved in boxing acknowledge that clubs in Protestant areas are poor at accessing funding opportunities and the lack of facilities exacerbates that. We are left with a position in which there are significantly fewer clubs in Protestant areas, and, therefore, fewer Protestants participating in the sport. However, it is felt that, if the facilities were there, there would be a demand.

One of the interesting aspects of some clubs is the diversity of what is on offer. Although they are boxing clubs, they offer much more, such as engaging with young people from socially excluded communities and seeking to lower youth crime and address antisocial behaviour. They also seek to address underachievement in education, which is particularly prevalent among working-class Protestant boys.

One of the problems that could be foreseen with the funding is that, given the dominance of one community in the sport, it will entrench the situation. There needs to be promotion and encouragement of the sport in Protestant areas, particularly in working-class areas. I am not advocating an approach of build it and they will come. However, the strategy underpinning the investment needs to seek to develop boxing in those areas.

The perception that boxing belongs to only one community to the exclusion of the others needs to be addressed. In recent times, there has been a focus on addressing discrimination and harassment in the sport. The development of an equity policy by UBC is a huge step forward, but it needs to be enforced: words on a page are not enough. Perhaps future funding for individual clubs could be subject to anti-sectarian and anti-racism measures.

Disappointingly, increasing Protestant participation is not a key objective of the investment strategy. This investment offers the opportunity for that to be done. As one of the key objectives is to contribute to the social regeneration of deprived communities and to make improvements in the health and mental well-being of local communities, I would like some assurance that Protestant communities will not be by-passed in favour of the many established clubs in predominantly Roman Catholic areas.

I am pleased that another key objective is to encourage the involvement of women. I referred earlier to Katie Taylor, and the manner in which she won Olympic gold and the high regard in which she is held in the sport make her a fantastic role model for young women. I hope that, in providing investment in that area, her example will act as a catalyst for the development of women's boxing.

From a personal perspective, I would like a mapping exercise to be carried out. Questions need to be asked about whether there are too many clubs in a particular area and whether it is appropriate for all those clubs to receive funding while there are areas of need that are not being addressed. If there are too many clubs in an area, should a closer working relationship or merger be encouraged to maximise the benefits of funding? Is it time to look at a centre of excellence for boxing? We need to look to see where there are gaps in provision and fill those.

A substantial amount of money is being invested in boxing, and it has been identified by the Minister as one of her priorities. There is a perception that the money will just go into north and west Belfast. The Minister needs to demonstrate that she acts for all of Northern Ireland. There are issues around sectarianism within the sport whether we care to admit it or not. Sandy Row Amateur Boxing Club's report exemplifies that. The Minister needs to demonstrate that the processes are there to ensure that sectarianism has been taken out of the sport and that everyone who participates in it is free from intimidation and harassment. This is a test for the Minister. I do not want to see her fall short.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I beg to move amendment No 1:

Leave out all after "notes" and insert:

"with concern the findings of Sandy Row Amateur Boxing Club’s (SRABC) recent report; further notes the recent announcement by the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure in relation to funding for boxing; acknowledges the boxing strategy being developed by Belfast City Council, in conjunction with Sport NI, and the club development plan being produced by the Ulster provincial boxing council, but regrets the council’s failure to address the issue of sectarianism highlighted in the report by SRABC; recognises that there is a need to develop boxing in working-class Protestant areas; calls for a Northern Ireland amateur boxing association to be established in order to afford boxers from Northern Ireland the opportunity to compete for the UK at international level; and further calls on the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to ensure that the funding is allocated equitably across communities to fill identifiable gaps in provision for the sport, in keeping with her Department's section 75 responsibilities."

In moving amendment No 1, I make it clear that it does not detract at all from the content of the motion. In fact, it takes nothing from the motion but adds three items that I think are vital considerations for the debate. The first of those is recognition of the report from the Sandy Row Amateur Boxing Club, which did a service to the sport in general by being prepared to have the courage to speak up about an issue which, in many cases, had been swept under the carpet for too long. Therefore, amendment No 1, first, notes:

" with concern the findings of Sandy Row Amateur Boxing Club’s...recent report" .

Secondly, it regrets that the boxing authorities have failed to address the issue highlighted in that report.

Thirdly, and very importantly, in looking forward to the future and the governance of boxing, it makes the elementary point that we need to have governance arrangements that are not one-sided and that afford to all unionists and nationalist boxing participants the opportunity to box under the colours of the country that they choose to box under. That is an important consideration, not just for boxing but for other sports.

My acquaintance with Sandy Row Amateur Boxing Club goes back to when, as a Member of the European Parliament, I was invited to come and discuss some of the club's needs. I will never forget going into that club and having to negotiate my way round the buckets that were catching water from the ceiling. That need was self-evident and, happily, we were able to get some improvements moving. The second thing that struck me was the sheer dedication of the volunteers who run the club, and they are volunteers — people who needlessly give up night after night of their personal lives to try to equip, train and give an outlet to young people who would otherwise have a much worse, misspent youth. We all owe a debt of gratitude to people such as that.

It was clear then and has become clearer since that that was a club operating under a shadow of sectarian abuse. Its members participated in competitions in venues that were anything but neutral and in extremely hostile circumstances under which young people were repeatedly subjected to sectarian abuse. It has to be said that the Sandy Row club has tolerated that for many years. It has sought, through the processes within boxing, to draw that fact to the attention of the authorities. Only when all of that failed did it go public with its concerns. As I said, I think that we owe the club's members a debt of gratitude for their courage and strength in doing that. It is a matter of regret that, to this day, the Irish Amateur Boxing Association — despite its saying at the time of the report's publication in August that it would undertake a thorough investigation — has yet to speak to the Sandy Row management about the report's contents. It matters far less, but, to this very day, the association has not even replied to a letter that I sent it in August to raise the issues. So, in that regard, there is feet-dragging, which is very regrettable.

I come to what I think is the important long-term issue, which is that of how boxing should be organised. We all observed and took pleasure from the Olympics in the summer. We saw the great affinity between people in every sport and the national pride that they took as their flag was run up the pole to mark the presentation of their medal. Yet, in boxing, as in other sports in Northern Ireland, if you are a participant who wishes to box for the United Kingdom because you regard it as the country of your birth and the country of your allegiance, you cannot do so because recognition is given only to the Irish Amateur Boxing Association. Therefore, you have to box on behalf of Ireland. That is wrong; it is a denial of people's fundamental rights. The House is highly populated by Belfast Agreement enthusiasts. Let me remind those enthusiasts that the Belfast Agreement stated that "the people of Northern Ireland" have the right:

"to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose".

It inexorably follows that that applies equally to the young Protestant boxer from Sandy Row who identifies himself as British, wants to fight and box for the British nation, wants to appear at the Olympics with the Union flag — not the Irish tricolour — going up the pole if he wins a medal, and asks why he is not allowed that basic human right that the Belfast Agreement is supposed to embrace.

That is why my amendment grapples with that issue and states that Northern Ireland needs a Northern Ireland federation of boxing to be established. I am not saying that it can be the only governance organisation, but it has to be there as a conduit and opportunity for young unionists who want to channel their talents into boxing for the United Kingdom. It has to be there to enable that to happen so that they can affiliate in that direction. It does not mean that the alternative arrangements cannot still be in place. There may be room for both, but there certainly is not room to exclude one section of the community and its political and constitutional affinity. That is what has been happening in boxing and, indeed, in other sports. That is something in the name of equality. Many Members hold themselves out as champions of equality, so here is an opportunity to demonstrate their credentials on equality. Here is an opportunity to demonstrate that, when they espouse the principle that is supposedly in the Belfast Agreement of that equal right of expression, they are prepared to live up to it and to say to young boxers, young swimmers and others that of course they have the right to compete for their country, of course they have the right to take pride in their own flag, and of course they have the right to do what everyone else takes for granted. In the long term, that issue needs to be addressed.

We were told that sectarianism was a problem in soccer. That problem was addressed, in part by overseeing the governance arrangements and by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL) interfering in the governance arrangements. What is good enough for soccer —

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

Football.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

What is good enough for football is good enough for boxing. Let us see the same proactive action so that young people who take pride in their boxing skills can indeed participate, free from the burden and the cloud of sectarian abuse that, as the Sandy Row report demonstrates, so many have been subjected to for so long. If those young people have the ability and achieve competition results, they can attain the ultimate and compete for and on behalf of their own nation, and instead of having to wrap themselves in an Irish tricolour when they do so, have the opportunity, as everyone else does, to take pride in their own flag. Is that too much to ask? I think not. The vote on the amendment will tell us whether that is too much to ask of the House.

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

I beg to move amendment No 2:

Leave out all after "develop boxing" and insert:

"; and calls on the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to ensure that the funding is allocated on the basis of need to fill identifiable gaps in provision for the sport, in keeping with her Department’s section 75 responsibilities and to ensure that all clubs uphold the highest standards of good relations and the equality standards in sport."

The SDLP amendment makes the motion much more inclusive and calls for every section of our society involved in boxing and in need of support to be considered and supported. The amendment also puts an onus on all clubs and organising bodies to uphold the highest standards of good relations and equality in boxing.

At this stage, it would be remiss of me not to mention the achievements of our amateur boxers at the Olympics in London earlier this year. They did us proud. In particular, local bronze medal winners Paddy Barnes and Michael Conlan kept us on the edge of our seats, and we know that they are capable of bringing home gold at the next Olympics in Rio de Janeiro. Silver medallist John Joe Nevin, a member of the Travelling community, said that he wants the legacy of the games to be a closer relationship between Travellers and the settled community. I think that he has achieved that already. Gold medal winner Katie Taylor, a born-again Christian, is an inspirational individual who has excelled in her chosen sports, especially boxing. Her performance in the Olympics has motivated many young people, mostly young girls, to think about their well-being and to take up sport, particularly boxing.

Our Olympic medal winners already reflect the diverse backgrounds of boxing participants and champions. I am convinced that sticking with the original wording of the motion would be regrettable as it introduces an element of discrimination that is neither required nor desired.

Our amendment makes the fund available to everyone and may well set the standard for future motions. Can you imagine future debates in which all the proposals for support or funding are targeted at a particular section of our community?

I have, however, some concerns about the timeline of delivery for the boxing fund and about the capacity of clubs to make a successful bid. Since the fund was outlined to the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure in June and re-announced by Minister Ní Chuilín during the Olympics in August, movement has been slow. Sport NI's consultation on the boxing investment programme was released only on Friday last and runs until February next year.

Bearing in mind that the first year of the three-year plan ends in March, I do not think that it gives clubs that have expressed an interest a great deal of time to apply for equipment under the first tranche. I am also concerned that Belfast clubs have a massive head start on other clubs because Belfast City Council was able to start developing its strategy back in February.

There are clubs in premises that are not fit for use. My colleague Dominic Bradley and I visited boxing clubs in Newry and Mourne that stuffed newspapers in the ceiling to keep the snow out while they were training. It did not stop them delivering their champions, however, which was a credit to the coaches and the dedication of the boxers.

I plead with those charged with developing the strategy and delivering the fund to move with haste to ensure that it is delivered fairly and across all sections of our community, but most importantly to simplify the process and make it accessible to every club, even those with limited form-filling capability.

I ask Members to support our amendment to ensure fairness for everyone in boxing, regardless of their creed or class. How heads-up was Barry McGuigan a number of years ago when he was boxing? We often spoke of the support that he received from Protestant and Catholic communities throughout his boxing career. McGuigan, born and reared to the Roman Catholic faith, never chose sides. Refusing to wear the green, white and gold, he became known as a non-sectarian sporting ambassador for Ireland. During the darkest days of the Troubles, Catholics and Protestants would say, "Leave the fighting to McGuigan", for which I admire him, because he does that to this day.

The Assembly must promote good community relations through sport. We must move away from the them-and-us attitude. We must stop seeing our sportsmen and women as wearing green, white and gold or red, white and blue; we must see them as athletes and champions.

If the Assembly gets the delivery of this welcome funding for boxing right, many clubs across the region will be able to reach the proper standard that we have today for coaching and which has given us champions. I ask the House to support our amendment.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a Príomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Beidh mé ag labhairt i bhfabhar an dara leasú agus in aghaidh an chéad leasaithe, agus tá cúpla focal le rá agam faoin mholadh fosta. I support amendment No 2, oppose amendment No 1 and have a few words to say about the motion.

When I first saw the motion, I was concerned about the line to which Mrs McKevitt referred, which mentions the development of boxing in working-class Protestant areas. I know that that would cause a lot of concern among some boxing clubs as well.

The second part of the motion, however, caused me equal concern. It asks the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to ensure that funding is "allocated equitably across communities". Allocating funding equitably is not the same as allocating funding on the basis of equality. Funding should be allocated not because a club is Protestant or Catholic, unionist or nationalist, but regardless of it. It should also be allocated according to whether a club is urban or rural.

I will declare an interest because my son is a member of a local boxing club with which I have worked very closely down the years. It is a small, rural club, which, some 40-odd years ago, was founded by a few very far-sighted men who spotted an opportunity to acquire an old drill hut that belonged to the old Ulster Special Constabulary and put it to better use.

That sufficed for 20-odd years, even with its leaking roof, ropy floors and everything else. Despite the fact that it did not have the facilities, it produced some of the best champions that we have ever seen. Indeed, that small club holds nearly every title under the sun: county titles, Ulster titles, all-Ireland titles, British titles, Commonwealth titles, European titles and intercontinental titles. Indeed, had Eamonn O'Kane not gone professional last year, we probably would have had an Olympic title, and, had there not been a dodgy decision against Paul McCloskey in Manchester last year, we would have had a world title. That club has achieved all that without funding.

When the Minister announced the £3·27 million of funding, it was welcomed with open arms in boxing circles. It added to the Irish Amateur Boxing Association's contribution of £1·5 million. As the motion recognises, central to all this is the contribution of Sport NI, the club development plans and the boxing strategies of both the Ulster Boxing Council and Belfast City Council. However, also relevant is the fact that a club development officer has been put in place. We have seen the benefits that that has brought to sports such as GAA, soccer, rugby and cricket.

I would like to refer to Mr Allister's amendment, which touches on a few points, including sectarianism. The Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure received a presentation from Sandy Row Amateur Boxing Club. We are due to have presentations from other clubs, so there has not really been a right of reply yet on that point. The other side of Mr Allister's argument is that we should form a Northern Ireland boxing federation. I do not know whether he has done the sums, but we are on an island of 7·5 million people as opposed to the neighbouring island, which has 75 million. Like many other sports, boxing has always been organised an all-Ireland basis.

I had the pleasure of being invited to Ravenhill to watch Ulster demolish Edinburgh Friday a week ago. One of the senior officials said to us that rugby was organised on an all-Ulster — nine counties — and an all-Ireland basis and that that would not be changing any time soon. I think that that is positive, because people can throw their weight behind Ulster and Ireland, which I was very happy to do. It was pointed out to us on the night that, increasingly, those who support Ulster Rugby come from a GAA background.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for giving way. He is right about how rugby is governed. There is no difficulty with the Ulster branch of the Irish Rugby Football Union. The difficulty is with the Irish Rugby Football Union based in Dublin. Whenever an Ireland game is played in this part of the United Kingdom, the Irish Rugby Football Union refuses to allow 'God Save the Queen', our national anthem, to be played or to allow the Union flag to be flown. It brings politics into sport.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member has an extra minute.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I take the Member's point. However, I do not think that there was any problem when Ireland played South Africa on Saturday. Indeed, we saw every one of the South African players singing the new South African national anthem. Whenever you go to Dublin, you will see people of all political persuasions and of none supporting Ireland.

As regards governance and competition, it is advisable and probably preferable for boxing, like many other sports, to be organised on an all-Ireland basis. I hope that that will continue for many years to come. Back in May, I entertained Carl Frampton, Paul McCloskey and Eamonn O'Kane out on the steps here.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Bring your remarks to a close.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

They are positive role models in boxing, and I think that they are the examples that everybody else should follow.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I support the motion. I also support both amendments. I do not see a contradiction between them, and I will speak to both of them.

It is important that we reflect the importance of sport. Just as we use cultural activities and artistic endeavour, we use sport to promote community development and inclusion, as well as individual and collective equality in our community. One of the things about sport — boxing is no exception — is that it promotes a healthy lifestyle and physical and mental good health. One of the things that I talked about in a previous life as Minister of Health was the important role of sport in supporting the health service and supporting individuals to ensure that they made the right lifestyle choices. Sport can deal with issues such as obesity, which can lead to diabetes, cardiovascular problems, heart attacks, strokes, suicide and self-harm. All those areas get positive support from sport and from boxing itself. That is the value of boxing.

Ten years ago, when I was Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, we held the World Amateur Boxing Championships in the Odyssey Arena. That was very successful, promoted Northern Ireland worldwide and did a huge amount for the sport at the time. There was huge support from across the boxing community, led by Wayne McCullough, one of the many world champions to have come through the ranks in Northern Ireland.

At that time, the plan was to roll out a strategy. Unfortunately, with the imposition of direct rule, that strategy appears to have fallen by the wayside, and here we are again 10 years later. However, better late than never. We are moving forward with a strategy, and there is money there. That is all to the good, when you look at the facilities in many of the boxing clubs up and down the country. Many work on a shoestring, do not have proper male and female changing facilities and have very poor facilities all round. Jim Allister talked about buckets catching rainwater in Sandy Row. I can confirm that that is the case, but it also happens in other clubs.

Boxing has a poor infrastructure, and the money is to be welcomed. However, we also have to look at Sandy Row Boxing Club. Members will be aware that I represent the area, and I have a close personal knowledge of Sandy Row and the challenges that the people there have faced over the past 10 years. Those challenges have come in the form of repeated instances of discrimination and sectarianism against the club and its members. There is clearly a strong requirement on the Minister, the Department, Sport Northern Ireland and the boxing authorities to address the issue.

We have heard evidence at the Committee and, as the Chair said, we will hear more evidence. It seems to me that, looking at the issue and the efforts that Sandy Row Boxing Club has made to bring it forward, those responsible have been very slow in finding a remedy. We have the all-Ireland boxing organisation, which appears to be — in fact, it is — a cold house for Protestants boxing out of Sandy Row, and they are not alone. There is a responsibility to address that, and, if that organisation is not prepared to do so, there are other remedies as far as the fraternity is concerned. For example, Sandy Row Boxing Club has been disaffiliated on the grounds that it does not have proper Access Northern Ireland clearance. In fact, it has that clearance and can prove it. Therefore, there are issues there that need to be addressed.

I have absolutely no problem in supporting Mr Allister's amendment. As he said, people in Northern Ireland have the right to box for whomever they wish. If they wish to box for a Northern Ireland association, that is their right. If they wish for that Northern Ireland association to be affiliated with the UK, as is the case in many other sports, that is their right. Just as it is the right of young footballers from a nationalist background to opt to play for the Irish Republic, that right applies to boxers.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Bring your remarks to a close.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Boxers from Northern Ireland have that right, and, unless we see some action from the Minister, it seems inevitable that that step will be taken.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of improved funding for boxing across the community in Northern Ireland and in support of the call for good relations and equality to be the values that govern the sport to ensure that it is open to all people across this region. It is for that reason that I believe that the SDLP amendment best reflects that position. Although I am concerned about the decision to isolate one particular background of people for mention and, indeed, to emphasise a failure to address the issue of sectarianism, given the offers to meet people to try to work this issue through, I am also concerned about aspects of the other proposals today. I will reflect on how the debate proceeds.

Like many other sportsmen and sportswomen from Northern Ireland, our boxers have punched well above their weight, and one can only imagine what they will be able to achieve when they have adequate facilities, support and co-ordination. Venues such as the Ulster Hall, King's Hall and Odyssey Arena have become synonymous with boxing, and sports journalists across the world speak in reverential tones about the atmosphere and the support generated by boxing fans in this region. I hope that the debate, from now on, recognises that boxing, like many other sports, has been a force to bring people together, despite deep division in our community, while affirming that there can be no place for sectarianism of any kind in our community or sports.

Boxers such as Barry McGuigan, Wayne McCullough, Neil Sinclair and Paddy Barnes, to name a few, have lit up the sport and raised amateur and professional titles. These boxers all won medals representing Northern Ireland at the Commonwealth Games, and McCullough and Barnes have won medals representing Ireland at the Olympics. Indeed, McGuigan won the British title as a professional. On those terms, boxing, like other sports, overlaps and confounds the division imposed on this society by many.

The exploits of our Olympians in London this summer were exceptional. I agree with my colleagues who have referenced that. Katie Taylor and Nicola Adams inspired many women to take up the sport, either competitively or as part of a wider fitness regime. Alongside the likes of Carl Frampton and Paul McCloskey, these boxers will, hopefully, continue the rich legacy of boxing in Northern Ireland. So, the Minister's recent announcement of funding is indeed most welcome, and this investment must be used in a fair and imaginative way to include the entire community in the development of this sport. For example, I would welcome investment in my constituency of East Belfast, where there is real need for community facilities and help for boxing clubs, such as Castlereagh Amateur Boxing Club under the leadership of Terry McCorran, based in inner east Belfast. Such clubs reach out to people of all backgrounds, from age six and up, to provide committed coaching and instil values of inclusion, discipline, healthy lifestyle and respect. I know that Michael Copeland MLA has worked hard to support the club and has hosted a match in Parliament Buildings. The club's achievements are all the more impressive, given the battle for resources that it has faced and the voluntary effort that has been required for its development. That is a battle that is not unique to this club, and I thank the Minister for the consideration that she is giving to visiting the club.

I wholeheartedly support the calls for the Sports Minister, Sport NI and local government to work together to ensure that the infrastructure is in place to support boxing clubs to the benefit of all who seek to participate in the sport. I look forward to seeing that support delivered to give all our recreational and more dedicated boxers the best opportunities possible to develop their talent and enjoy the sport in a safe and shared manner, regardless of their background.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I support our motion and the two amendments to it. I declare an interest as a member of Belfast City Council.

Northern Ireland, particularly Belfast, has a great tradition of boxing, and, indeed, the city of Belfast has produced nine Olympic medal winners, including two at the recent London Olympics of 2012. I welcome the announcement by the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure of more funding for boxing.

As with all sports, boxing should provide a pivotal role across my city and across our country in the life of communities, particularly, as the Chair of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure said, in working-class areas. Today, thousands and, over the years, hundreds of thousands of young people — male and, increasingly, female — have been involved in boxing. Boxing is a sport that provides young people with discipline, confidence, self-management, respect and strategic and technical thinking.

The Assembly must recognise the important role of boxing clubs in working-class communities. I mentioned Belfast City Council, and other contributors also mentioned Belfast City Council's boxing strategy. It is important that the Assembly and the Department, through Sport NI, works closely and in a collegiate way with Belfast City Council and other councils that bring forward strategies for sport, so that we work in unison to ensure that we have a joined-up approach, removing any possibility of wastage and providing value for money.

In February, Belfast City Council established a steering group to oversee the development of the strategy, and that includes representatives from the council, the Ulster Boxing Council, Sport NI and the Irish Amateur Boxing Association. I commend Belfast City Council for that. Other councils — this is the point that Mrs McKevitt made earlier — need to step up to the mark.

I work with two boxing clubs in my constituency. Albert Foundry Boxing Club produced Wayne McCullough, who won a gold medal when competing for Ireland. If there is a boxing club in Northern Ireland that has worse conditions, I do not know where it is. Conditions there are appalling; it does not even have running water. Cairn Lodge Boxing Club is based on the lower Shankill but actually does not have a home. Recently, it moved to a disused primary school, having been for some time in a community centre and having to take the ring up and down three or four times a week. That club was given an opportunity to potentially have a new home, and it still hopes to do so. The Minister knows that, and I have written to her about it in order to raise the issue with her. The issue there was around Sport NI, and I will return to that later in my speech. The club has an interface at either end of Agnes Street. It has 80 young people on its books and a waiting list of 60. It simply cannot meet the demand; facilities do not allow it. Particularly in the summer, it is involved very much in diversionary activity. That club was promised money from the Department and the council, and there was an indication of funding from Sport NI. That money has been taken away. The same thing happened to a sporting facility that was located in the Marrowbone in the Oldpark area of north Belfast. Maybe the Minister will address this in her reply to the debate, but I think that Sport NI needs to be very clear when it is working with groups and clubs, many of them run by volunteers, as other Members have said, where the capacity is not there, that money is delivered on the ground. It should work much more closely with councils in doing so.

Clearly, moneys have been lost and potentially can and will be lost. The funding of elite boxers is obviously key and important. I agree with the point that Mr Allister made. There was a lot of hyperbole earlier in the year when Mr McIlroy decided that he might golf for GB in the next Olympics. We have had the whole situation with James McClean and whether he should play for Northern Ireland or the Republic. If sportsmen are funded by this state, money goes in at youth and junior international level, and the sportsmen progress to full representative vests. Those sportsmen should choose which country they want to box for and not have it forced on them by sporting bodies. Therefore, I think that politics should be taken out of sport.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Bring your remarks to a close.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

The individual should be left in the position of choosing.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh na gníomhartha dearfacha atá déanta ag an Aire maidir le tacaíocht agus cur chun tosaigh don dornálaíocht ó tháinig sa Roinn.

I welcome the Minister and her very positive actions in supporting and promoting the sport of boxing since coming into office. It is encouraging, too, that Belfast City Council, in conjunction with Sport NI, is developing a boxing strategy at this time and that the Ulster provincial boxing council is producing a development plan. There could be no better time to promote and sell the sport of boxing. We are basking in the wake of an amazingly successful result for Irish boxing at the 2012 Olympics this summer. We eagerly watched as local boxers Paddy Barnes, Michael Conlan and John Joe Nevin stepped into the ring to face their opponents. They made us all so proud when each earned medals for Ireland at this year's Olympics. To top that all off, Katie Taylor from Bray took a gold medal in the women's competition.

Agus ag teacht amach as an bhua sin, tá cuid mhaith dornálaithe nua uaillmhianacha óga ó gach páirt den tír seo — ach go háirithe ó cheantracha a bhfuil easpa agus bochtanas iontu — ar féidir leo aisling a bheith acu: go dtiocfadh leo, b’fhéidir, bheith ina ndornálaithe den scoth fosta.

Out of that success, there came many young, aspiring, new boxers in all parts of the country, particularly in areas of poverty and deprivation, who can now dare to dream that they, too, could become champion boxers. There is no better time than the present to build on that success by making the best use of the current strategy on boxing, which will ensure that the identifiable gaps in provision are filled, in keeping with section 75 responsibilities.

I want to see all boxing clubs grow and flourish, so that any young girl or boy from whatever community can become involved in the sport and take advantage of the improved facilities that we can now look forward to. There should be no bar to participation in sport, boxing or otherwise. However, it just happens that boxing is one of the sports that is more accessible than most, perhaps because it does not cost as much to participate in, compared with other sports. Maybe that is why it is more appealing in working-class areas. We all need to encourage that participation and ensure that all clubs are affiliated to the appropriate sporting bodies and compliant with all the necessary childcare protection regulations.

Is cúis díomá é gur cuireadh ina leith thar na blianta go raibh tarluithe seicteacha ann ag roinnt cluichí dornálaíochta.

It is a matter of disappointment, however, that there have been allegations of incidents of sectarianism at some boxing matches over the years. The Sandy Row Amateur Boxing Club has complained about the verbal abuse that its members were subjected to in February 2010, and it was quite right to do so, for such behaviour is unacceptable. It is unfortunate that the police investigation has not resulted in identifying the offenders.

Several Members raised the sectarian issue today, and, indeed, the Sandy Row Amateur Boxing Club told the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure that it had endured 10 years of sectarian abuse. I am puzzled about why the issue has not been raised with previous Culture Ministers but is being raised now that we have a Sinn Féin Culture Minister. Sectarianism has no place in sport, and every effort must be made to ensure that anyone engaging in such behaviour is appropriately dealt with under the law. All the relevant bodies, such as the Ulster provincial boxing council, the Irish Amateur Boxing Association and Sport NI have a duty to do all in their power to make the sport a neutral environment where the only fighting that happens takes place in the boxing ring.

A Member of the House has called for the establishment of a separate boxing association for the North of Ireland, but I feel that that would be a mistake. The biggest sport that is organised in that way is soccer, and, as we all know, that sport is notorious for the sectarianism which has — [Interruption.] — dogged it over the decades.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Order. The Member has the Floor.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The good news is that Sport NI has been attempting to address the issue over many years in order to make soccer a more friendly sport.

Mar sin de, cad chuige ar mhaith linn gabháil síos an bóthar sin ó thaobh dornálaíocht de?

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Bring your remarks to a close.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Why would we want to go down that route with boxing? Surely, that can only result in the complete sectarianisation of the sport, a retrograde step no matter what way you look at it. Ireland is small country, and it is best served by having just one overall boxing association — [Interruption.] — just like the vast majority of other sports in this island. In conclusion —

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Time, time. We move on to the next Member.

I remind all Members that, if you notice, I will let any Member finish. It is not because they are from my own political party or any other party. I will let other Members speak. Just remember, when others are running out of time, that the same thing applies.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I have made this point in the House before, and I will make it again as I am pleased and proud to do so. The House should recognise that Northern Ireland football supporters are recognised by Europe as the best supporters in Europe, and they are not sectarian in any way. That is an outrageous statement.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I call Mr Sammy Brush. Sorry, Sammy Douglas. [Laughter.] My apologies, but I am sure that he will not mind.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

I have been called Sammy Wilson before, so I will not be offended by that.

I support the motion and welcome the opportunity to speak in today's debate. First, I thank the Minister for being in attendance. I look forward to hearing her response to today's proceedings, and I hope she comes out fighting.

Like many others, I grew up in a working-class community where boxing, including street boxing or street fighting, was a very important part of growing up. It was an area that had very few facilities for young people. There was a boxing club at the end of my street, and, as a child, I wanted to be the next young Cassius Clay or Henry Cooper. I am giving my age away. Unfortunately, my nose got in the way too often to allow me to fulfil my ambitions.

I am very supportive of the Minister's announcement about her Department's boxing strategy and the much-needed cash injection into the sport. That will be welcomed by all, including the boxing clubs in my constituency, which were mentioned by Mr Lyttle. Castlereagh boxing club, Eastside Boxing Club and one of the most recently established clubs, a club in the Tullycarnet estate, will certainly welcome that.

For far too long, boxing has been seen and treated as a second-class sport. That neglect has had a detrimental effect on the sport, particularly in the working-class communities where the demand for boxing is greatest. The Assembly has an important role to play in challenging the very real stigma that is associated with the sport, and today's debate provides the perfect opportunity to do that.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Will the Member give way?

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

Yes.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I welcome the fact that the Member has accepted that boxing has been treated as a second-class sport. Perhaps credit should be given to this Minister now that it is going to be made a first-class sport.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member has an extra minute.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I certainly agree with that, and I look forward to the Minister's response.

As has been highlighted by other Members, boxing is a true success story for Northern Ireland. We should celebrate the extraordinary achievements of the two Belfast boxers, Paddy Barnes and Michael Conlon, who won bronze medals in the Olympic Games, and the amazing feat of the Northern Ireland team becoming the most successful boxing team at the Delhi Commonwealth Games. Let us not forget Barry McGuigan, "The Pocket Rocket" — Wayne McCullough — and our own Carl Frampton, a future world champion, I am sure. Last but not least is Katie Taylor. She is a true ambassador for boxing, a great role model for young women and a great role model as someone who has a strong faith. However, our potential within the sport has not yet been fulfilled. The lack of resources and investment is certainly proving to be a major hurdle in the full and proper development of the sport.

Some of the statistics raise genuine concerns. Some 50% of Belfast clubs believe that their current facilities hold back the development of our young people and clubs. Only 10% of the clubs surveyed believe that their toilet and wash facilities are above average, and the majority of clubs in Belfast — in fact two thirds — operate with a budget of less than £1,000. Once again, we must give praise to Belfast City Council, and I know my colleague William Humphrey mentioned that as well. It took the initiative to develop a strategy with the Minister and other agencies. It is very welcome. That programme will complement all the work being done in tandem by DCAL and Sport Northern Ireland to target the clubs that are most in need.

A few years ago, I compèred boxing matches for the Sandy Row boxing club. One memory etched in my mind is that of a young child of about two playing in the boxing ring during the interval with his great-grandfather, who was in his 80s. That night, I thought that boxing covers the whole ambit of age groups and community relations.

We must ensure that adequate support is given to our boxing clubs. Research by the IABA shows that boxing plays an important role in the life of our hardest-hit communities. I suggest to the Minister that we need to take a proactive approach to ensure that the clubs that need most support get that support. I am a former member of the Belfast European Partnership Board.

When allocating money, we found that quite a number of Protestant areas in Belfast did not have the capacity to put those applications and proposals together. Interestingly enough, research showed that some Catholic areas in Belfast also did not have that capacity. We formulated a plan to ensure that those areas, organisations and groups that were not receiving the support and did not have the capacity, and were so busy with community development in their own areas, had support. It was a bit like the social investment fund. Technical assistance is currently available for those areas to come up with their plans. I certainly encourage the Minister to look at that. It is not only about Belfast but about the whole of Northern Ireland, urban and rural. If anything is to come from today —

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Bring your remarks to a close.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

— let it be that we take a proactive approach to addressing those issues.

Oral Answers to Questions

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Question 15 has been withdrawn.

Families: Separated Parents

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

1. asked the Minister for Social Development what steps he is taking to support parents who separate and who require help and information to enable them to work together to resolve issues such as maintenance arrangements. (AQO 2811/11-15)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

My Department is undertaking a programme of major reform for child maintenance. Compelling research and evidence demonstrate that children who receive support from both parents throughout their childhood tend to enjoy better outcomes in life. Therefore, through the reform programme, I intend to develop a modernised child maintenance service that will provide high-quality information and support at the earliest possible time during a relationship breakdown.

Already, parents in Northern Ireland can be supported in making their own maintenance arrangements through the child maintenance choices service. In January 2011, my Department launched that free, confidential helpline service to help parents to decide the child maintenance arrangement that best suits their needs. That advice and information service has proved to be very effective, with almost 13,000 calls received from April 2011 to the end of September.

I also recognise that family breakdown creates a range of issues that parents need help to overcome. That highlights the importance of an integrated approach across government and voluntary and community services to support families. To that end, my officials have been working with the voluntary and community sector and other Departments to explore the different levels of support required and how support services for separated and separating parents can be better co-ordinated. A key aspect of working with that sector is to develop new services and maintain and strengthen existing signposting services. Officials have been working at community level to trial interventions to assess the different levels of support required in local communities in order to find out what works and does not work at a local level in supporting separated families. The findings from that work have highlighted potential opportunities for enhancing existing arrangements to support the most vulnerable through local community organisations and trusted networks.

Finally, the Executive are determined to work effectively across local government —

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Time is up.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

— and the delivering social change framework aims to deliver a sustained reduction in poverty.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his detailed response. Will he assure us that, in facilitating those arrangements, no charge will be levied to the caring parent? Go raibh maith agat.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The issue of charges attracts considerable attention. In Great Britain, charges for the use of the new statutory child maintenance scheme will be introduced. However, in Northern Ireland, maintenance is a devolved matter. Charges are still under consideration.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answers thus far. Minister, why, at this point, is there a need for reform of the child maintenance system?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The current child maintenance system places too much emphasis on the state determining financial support and not enough on supporting separated and separating families to reach their own arrangements. The system takes responsibility away from parents and can lead to hostility. The child maintenance reform programme puts collaboration between parents in the interests of their children first and places greater emphasis on supporting parents to make their own arrangements. Research shows that children who receive support from both parents throughout their childhood tend to enjoy better outcomes in later life. Therefore, I want to support families and ensure the best outcomes for children. That is why I want better co-ordinated support services for separated and separating families in Northern Ireland.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. What support does the Minister's Department provide to families in which the parent without care resides in another jurisdiction?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member makes a point about one parent living outside Northern Ireland. That issue has arisen on a number of occasions, and I have had correspondence from various MLAs about that. In the arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, for example, it is important that we have the best possible systems in place to make sure that information and then payment are forthcoming. The Member will understand that there can be difficulties with that, but we take it very seriously and continue to work on it.

Home Heating Oil: Pay-as-you-go Scheme

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

2. asked the Minister for Social Development for his assessment of the outcome of the evaluation of the home heating oil pay-as-you-go pilot scheme. (AQO 2812/11-15)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Officials from my Department have been working with Kingspan Renewables and Carillion Energy Services to test a pay-as-you-go oil scheme. This exciting new technology has the potential to offer householders the opportunity to pay for oil as they use it, similar to the way in which people pay for their electricity or gas. I have taken a personal interest in this issue. When I came into the Department, I identified it as a priority, along with other aspects of addressing fuel poverty. I have pushed forward the development of this product, as I believe that it will greatly benefit people in fuel poverty. It also provides a good example of government working with local companies to drive the local economy.

The technology was piloted for three months and evaluated by Carillion Energy Services and the Housing Executive. Both evaluations were extremely positive. The majority of householders who took part in the pilot scheme said that they would recommend the technology to other householders.

I am very keen for the technology to be rolled out, and my officials have been having ongoing discussions with Kingspan Renewables and Carillion Energy Services on the development of the product, which could be rolled out in future energy efficiency schemes. I have asked officials to progress this important initiative as quickly as possible. I am disappointed that it is taking so long to get this up and running, but there are important issues to be resolved in ensuring that we address issues with the cost of the product itself and the running costs associated with it.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his update and credit him for the pilot of the scheme. It is good to see the private sector working in partnership with the Department to deliver assistance with home heating budgeting, and many people in my constituency have welcomed it. However, given that we are now in the depths of winter, can the Minister give a firm timescale for when the scheme will be mainstreamed?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I welcome the fact that the Member gave credit for the scheme. In the past few days, Members giving credit to my Department for an achievement seems to be breaking out as a habit in the Assembly, and I welcome that.

As I said, I am disappointed that it has taken so long. I cannot give a timescale at present. It would be wrong to do that because of the two important issues of the cost of the product and its running costs. We need to get this right because it is such an important issue for people in light of the cost of fuel and the fuel poverty that can arise as a result of that. We are pressing on with the utmost urgency. I am disappointed that we have not quite got there yet, but I continue to make it a priority. I am sure that the Member will join me in hoping that we get there as quickly as possible.

Michael Copeland (UUP, Belfast East)

Will the Minister detail whether his pilot addressed some or all of the concerns about ownership and liability in the event of theft of oil from tanks?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The pilot scheme looked at that issue. The details of what would make it a good, successful scheme are still being worked through. The technology works, but it is a matter of getting the other pieces of the jigsaw in place, particularly those that I have already identified.

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Minister provide the House with an update on the boiler replacement scheme?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

That is another important initiative for tackling fuel poverty. In June 2012, I launched the new boiler replacement scheme. It followed on from the pilot scheme, which ended in March of this year.

The new scheme offers a grant of up to £1,000 towards the cost of replacing old, inefficient boilers if the family has an income of less than £40,000. Twelve million pounds have been allocated to the scheme over the next three years, with £4 million available for grants before the end of March 2013. Householders with an income of up to £20,000 could be eligible for a maximum grant of £1,000. Householders who earn between £20,000 and £40,000 could be eligible for a maximum grant of up to £500. The level of grant will depend on whether householders replace oil with oil or gas and whether controls are also installed. Householders can choose an installer of their choice, as long as they are appropriately qualified.

The scheme has been very popular. Some 19,500 enquiries have been received already in less than two months. I have instructed the Housing Executive to allocate additional resources to deal with the huge number of inquiries that are coming in. To date, 10,500 application forms have been issued, and, of those, 4,500 have been returned. Compared with the anticipated 5,500 cases that we thought we would receive each year, those numbers are very large.

DSD: Staff Reductions

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

3. asked the Minister for Social Development whether, in the remainder of this mandate, there will be a reduction in staff in the Social Security Agency, the Housing Executive or his Department. (AQO 2813/11-15)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I do not expect reductions in staff numbers in the remainder of this mandate. However, as part of the changes arising from the devolution of justice, a number of staff will transfer from the Department for Social Development to the Department of Justice.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle, agus gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answer. Can the Minister assure the House that Social Security Agency staff will have the necessary resources to enable them to cope with the advent of welfare reform?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The implementation of welfare reform will certainly bring changes. The Member referred to the "resources" that staff need to cope, but I am not entirely clear what she means by that. With regard to having the skills and training to maybe move to a different model or, in some cases, to relocate to a different area in the sector, I assure her that everything will be done to ensure that people have the necessary training and that the changeover is swift and efficient.

If she is asking whether the implementation will result in staff reductions, I can tell her that, during this mandate, there will be no reduction in staff due to the welfare reform agenda. It will ensure that services are delivered as efficiently as possible. Although ultimate numbers are not yet determined, the expectation in the medium term is that, compared with the number that is needed for the current system, fewer staff will be required to administer the new welfare reform system. Changes will be implemented in a carefully planned way, and new arrangements will be introduced gradually through a phased approach. The administration of existing benefits will continue for some time, during which staff will be needed to operate both the current and the new system. Any reductions in staffing will be beyond the current mandate.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

In working with a tight budget, difficult choices have to be made. One has to ask whether we should invest in staff or in capital for new homes or programmes. Can the Minister advise the House how the quality of service will be monitored as the number of clients and staff members change in the new systems that come forward?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member will be aware that systems are in place on an ongoing basis to monitor the service that is being delivered. In my answer to the previous question, I pointed out that work will be taken forward on a phased basis and that adequate provision will be made to ensure that the changeover is smooth and maintains the high standard that the public are entitled to expect.

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

Is it now the Minister's opinion that the business case that referred to the loss of 1,630 jobs for staff in Northern Ireland under universal credit is wrong?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member is clearly confused. What I said, first of all, concerned what would happen if we did not move forward with universal credit. I noticed that, at the weekend, some members of her party, who are still at the Neanderthal stage, were obviously still intent on saying, "Vote this down. Do nothing about it. Block it." That was the message that came from her party colleagues at the weekend: "Block it." That is — I choose my words carefully — an example of financial illiteracy. It is an utter impossibility, as we have spelt out very clearly the implications of doing that.

That is why it is good that we have proceeded on the path that we have taken. I believe that we are getting it absolutely right as regards welfare reform. If we had gone down the road that was being advocated by some people across the way — indeed, it was still being advocated at the weekend — we would be in a position in which we would have lost potentially 1,600 jobs from Northern Ireland. If the Members over there in the SDLP actually listened more than they interrupted, they might learn something. The potential loss of jobs is a real threat if we go down the road that the Member's party is advocating.

As regards the other matter, the figures are correct. When you move from a range of benefits to a single benefit, obviously, in the longer term, there will come a point at which fewer people are needed. That is the fact. Again, the Member seems to prefer to talk to the person beside her rather than listen. That probably explains why there is the inability to understand the two facts.

There are two separate figures and two separate issues. They happen to be the same number, but they are two separate issues.

Neighbourhood Renewal: Inner East Belfast

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

4. asked the Minister for Social Development to outline the potential regeneration projects his Department is considering in the inner east Belfast neighbourhood renewal area. (AQO 2814/11-15)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

My Department is currently committed to a number of significant regeneration projects in the inner east Belfast neighbourhood renewal area. It is providing £5·4 million towards the Skainos development on the Newtownards Road, over £2 million towards the Templemore Avenue School redevelopment and £3·2 million as part of the funding package for Connswater Community Greenway. My officials are also engaged locally with a range of stakeholders in taking forward a number of potential projects, including new community centres for the Ballymacarrett and Walkway communities, as well as the Titanic People tourism-related project. All those projects will help to address local priorities identified in the inner east Belfast neighbourhood renewal action plan.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. Will the Minister comment on the status of the potential for a new community centre — that is, the Ballymacarrett Friendship Centre — on the lower Newtownards Road?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

An economic appraisal is being updated to assess the need for a new community centre to be built there. There will be the potential for funding of £200,000 to be sought from my Department through neighbourhood renewal towards that newbuild.

I am sure that the Member will be pleased if I list some other projects that we are taking forward in east Belfast. My Department recently concluded a number of major environmental improvement schemes on the Newtownards Road, Castlereagh Street, Albertbridge Road, Short Strand and Woodstock Road, at a level of investment in excess of £3 million. Further similar schemes are being considered for Ravenhill gateway, Templemore/Albertbridge, Woodstock Link, Bridgend, Lower Newtownards Road, Short Strand and Mountpottinger, which will require a commitment in the coming years in excess of £7 million. The Executive’s commitment under Delivering Social Change includes the creation of social enterprise incubation hubs, and the Newtownards Road is well placed to be such a hub for east Belfast. I am sure that the Member will be pleased by that news.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I am sorry to interrupt that DUP exchange.

What work is the Minister doing in his Department to ensure that areas of need outwith the neighbourhood renewal areas — for example, Knocknagoney — will also benefit from investment?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

As a Department, we invest in many different areas across Northern Ireland. Some of our investment is at a regional level, and, therefore, benefits are accrued to communities right across the Province. However, our focus is very much on areas of the maximum disadvantage — the neighbourhood renewal areas. For areas that fall outside that, we have our areas at risk programme. It is two years' support to give some communities that fall just outside the neighbourhood renewal threshold that little bit of extra help to lift them up.

I am happy to speak to the Member about any other areas and whether there are other opportunities, should he wish to contact me about that.

Welfare Reform

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

5. asked the Minister for Social Development, following his statement on 22 October 2012, to outline any other areas of flexibility on welfare reform that he is exploring with Lord Freud. (AQO 2815/11-15)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I appreciate the Member’s interest in the area; however, I do not believe that this is the place to go through the finer details of my negotiations with Lord Freud. As the Member is aware, the Welfare Reform Bill is currently going through its Committee Stage in the Assembly. I have been listening with interest to the views of MLAs, the groups that have responded to the Social Development Committee's call for evidence, and stakeholders who have been attending events held by my Department to hear views on welfare reform. I remain committed to hearing ideas on how we can mitigate the negative aspects of welfare reform without breaching parity.

In my statement to the Assembly on 22 October, I mentioned that Lord Freud has a genuine interest in the specific challenges we face here in Northern Ireland. He has accepted my invitation to visit us in November to discuss how best we can address the impact of the housing benefit changes. He is aware of some of the issues particular to Northern Ireland and is particularly interested in our discussions on how the housing sector can contribute to finding solutions.

The Executive subcommittee on welfare reform also continues to meet and discuss issues of concern and potential areas of flexibilities. I have reflected those discussions in my detailed negotiations with the team of Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). I and officials from my Department continue to be involved in all aspects of the welfare reform programme with counterparts in DWP.

I am working towards achieving a welfare system for Northern Ireland that addresses our issues, based on the principles of protecting the vulnerable, helping people into employment, developing a system that is fair, and encouraging personal and social responsibility.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his full response. Given the influence that might be exerted during the visit referred to, is the Minister concerned that, because of a range of delays, the Committee considering this matter aims to conclude its work on, I believe, the very first day of Lord Freud's visit? Is that a missed opportunity?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

No, I do not think that it is a matter of real concern. I am content that he is making his visit to engage with people and listen to their views.

However, it has to be borne in mind that this is a devolved matter. So, the conversations that, obviously, must take place are between the Committee and stakeholders but primarily between the Committee and me as Minister. We should not get hung up on this idea of running off to Westminster, or seeking to short-circuit things in some way, or thinking that there is an easy answer by talking directly to Lord Freud. The key thing is that this is a devolved matter. It is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly within the constraints that we are all very much aware of. I will, therefore, want to give serious consideration to whatever comes forward from the Committee.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister rightly referred to the fact that the Committee is considering the legislation as we speak. I was, therefore, quite astounded when I heard him speaking to the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations on Friday morning. I understand — and I stand to be corrected on this one and, hopefully, I will be — that the Minister made a statement on Friday morning that, as I read it, he will consider no change to what has been described as the bedroom tax or, more appropriately, the owner-occupancy rules.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Question.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Was it not, at the very least, premature for such a statement to be made, given that the Minister is still to meet David Freud, and in the context of the Committee's consideration?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The comment to which, I think, the Member refers is one that arose in the course of an interview, not in the actual address to the conference, which covered a whole range of issues relating to housing, such as the housing strategy, the Housing Executive, and so on.

I am very conscious of the issue, because it will impact on more than 30,000 social tenants in Northern Ireland. It is how we do something about that to make sure we get the best outcome. There is no surprise there. Landlords here have always known to expect the same changes at the same time as those in the rest of the UK. Delaying this change will directly cost the Northern Ireland Executive up to £9 million.

I believe that we can address the issues and meet the need without delaying the introduction. We can mitigate the effect in a range of ways, by making sure that we get the right allocations, that tenants understand the change and that, in future, there is more smaller-sized accommodation, which has been a shortcoming in the past. We need the right support measures. I certainly have said already, and did say in answer to the question — although I do not know whether it was broadcast or not because they sometimes broadcast the bit that they want — how we would mitigate the issue. I also intend to increase the funding available for discretionary housing payments and change the legislation to allow such payments to be made to all social housing tenants.

I will be happy to discuss with the Committee a range of measures that we will bring forward that make sure we can address this and mitigate the difficulty without the burden of a further £9 million on the Executive.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Further to his responses, will the Minister agree that there is continuing worry, stress and distress for so many in Northern Ireland and for so many within the all-party groups that we represent here? Will the Minister outline for the House his assessment of the impact on vulnerable adults and children across Northern Ireland if he does not secure any more flexibility in his discussions with Mr Freud?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Unlike the Member, I am not a defeatist. We go into these discussions and go forward in a way in which we anticipate and identify what we need, and then we go out and negotiate it. I believe there are flexibilities still to be got, so I do not see that as the end of the road. What we have got is part of the way. We have had considerable success already, and the Member's party has recognised that on occasion. The other point is to make sure that we do that again and get further flexibilities.

Child Maintenance: Computer Access

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

6. asked the Minister for Social Development what arrangements will be put in place for parents who wish to make an online application for child maintenance support who do not have access to a computer or have limited computer and literacy skills. (AQO 2816/11-15)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Although there is a facility for parents to make online applications for child maintenance, the main focus of support is through the Child Maintenance Choices freephone information line. Where a parent does not have access to a computer or has difficulty completing an application, they may contact our helpline staff. Callers to this free service are provided with impartial information and guidance on all aspects of child maintenance to help them to put in place an effective maintenance arrangement best suited to their circumstances.

Where parents decide to make an application for child maintenance to the statutory child maintenance service, staff will support them to make their application over the telephone or, if the parent prefers, they may make a written application by completing the appropriate application form.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Is any provision being made for one-to-one consultations with staff? I am thinking particularly of rural areas where families do not have access to broadband provision.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The point I made there was that people can, as at present, make their application by telephone. The fact is that in Northern Ireland today, as in most other western countries, the telephone coverage is extensive. People are walking around with one mobile phone or a couple of mobile phones as well as a telephone in the house. There is easy access there to a telephone. In addition to online applications, parents have the option to apply by telephone to the statutory child maintenance service provided by the child maintenance and enforcement division. If they do not have a telephone, postal applications are also accepted.

Pam Brown (DUP, South Antrim)

What arrangements will be put in place for online applications for people in Northern Ireland claiming benefits following welfare reform?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

One initiative I have instructed officials to put in place is a pilot programme that will support those who do not have access to a computer or have limited literacy skills. The development of that programme is at a very early stage. However, it is envisaged that it will run in local communities using IT facilities in community centres or libraries and will be delivered by qualified instructors.

During the transition to online applications, Northern Ireland customers will retain the ability to make a claim via the telephone. I am keen that that remains an option for our customers and is yet another key operational flexibility that I have secured for the people of Northern Ireland. That is another example for Members in the SDLP and elsewhere who are keen on maximum flexibilities.

We have achieved a lot of flexibilities already. We have been very successful; my approach has proved to be right. That is another flexibility that we have secured for the people of Northern Ireland.

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

1. asked the Minister of Justice whether he will review the decision to locate sex offenders in the refurbished Thompson House, Belfast. (AQO 2826/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I fully support the position of the relevant agencies: it is in the best interests of the public for Thompson House to continue to operate as approved premises for offenders supervised by the Probation Board, on the basis of what is best for individual risk-management purposes. Effective public protection is the key factor. The Presbyterian Board of Social Witness has operated the facility for some 30 years and contributed much to the provision of effective public protection from the risk posed by a variety of offenders, including sex offenders. I have listened to the community representatives and their concerns, as have the agencies. However, experience has shown that Thompson House is a vital facility. Having considered and taken account of the statutory and operational responsibilities of the relevant agencies in ensuring the highest standards of public protection for all, I support the continuing use of the facility to accommodate sex offenders.

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

I thank the Minister for his response. Is he aware of widespread concern in the community in relation to his decision to house ex-sex offenders in Thompson House, given the fact that well over 2,000 schoolchildren use the Antrim Road at that point to go to and from school throughout the day? Does the Minister accept that he should reflect on that and review the decision with a view to at least creating a moratorium on the reintroduction of ex-sex offenders so that the community could at least have an opportunity to see how the situation might develop in the near future?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr Maginness for that point. He refers to my decision, but it is not my decision. Thompson House has accommodated offenders for 30 years, many of whom have been sex offenders. During that time, there has been no incident involving any child in the immediate area of Thompson House by a resident of Thompson House. The practical reality is that the best public protection that can be provided is by accommodating offenders who require supervision, including sex offenders, in appropriate accommodation with the level of supervision that exists in Thompson House, supporting the work that is being done by probation and others with their clients externally. That is the best way of protecting the people of north Belfast and every other area; not somehow suggesting that we can solve the problem by moving them to a different area. The reality is that the record of all the hostels that accommodate offenders is an exceptionally good one in terms of the supervision and the public protection that they provide.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I declare an interest as a member of the Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Board of Social Witness at Corkey House. Has the Minister had any meetings with the Presbyterian Church or the Board of Social Witness around this issue?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I do not think that I have to declare an interest as a former member of the Board of Social Witness. I have had meetings with Mr Lindsay Conway and others from the Board of Social Witness. I have had meetings with those who are involved with public protection arrangements generally. I have attended a meeting with some representatives of the local community and elected representatives from North Belfast. At every one of them, the same issues have been discussed. It is fundamentally about how, in difficult circumstances, we provide the best possible protection for the people of Northern Ireland. Nothing can be perfect, but the arrangements in Thompson House are as good as we are going to get, given that they cannot be 100% perfect.

Michael Copeland (UUP, Belfast East)

Will the Minister detail whether there have been any further incidents or threats to those premises since the pipe bomb was discovered in October 2011?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am not aware of any specific threats of the scale of the pipe bomb that happened, but, undoubtedly, there has been a certain amount of low-level reference. There has been a certain amount of graffiti around the premises, but I cannot give Mr Copeland any more specific detail, other than to say that I do not believe that there have been incidents of the level of the pipe bomb since then.

Maghaberry Prison

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

2. asked the Minister of Justice for his assessment of the contribution that the staff and facilities at HMP Maghaberry make to the delivery of prison services. (AQO 2827/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I visited Maghaberry Prison on 1 November following the brutal murder of prison officer David Black. I want to pay tribute to the professionalism and dedication of the staff at Maghaberry, who continue to do a difficult job in a challenging environment despite their shock, anger and sadness at the senseless murder of a valued colleague. I have made it clear several times that we should not underestimate the vital role that prison officers play in society in working with offenders to address offending behaviour, to rehabilitate and to reduce the risk of reoffending. In so doing, they enhance public safety across Northern Ireland. That is a role that we are continuing to develop and build on through the prison reform programme.

Members will be aware that the Criminal Justice Inspection conducted an announced inspection of Maghaberry Prison in March 2012. Although the final report has not yet been published, initial feedback has been encouraging in that it recognised Maghaberry as an improving establishment. I welcome the inspectorate’s findings, which are indicative of the effort that has been made across the Prison Service and by Maghaberry staff and management to address the areas of concern that had been previously identified. However, I accept that much more needs to be done across a range of issues to address overcrowding; to safeguard equality of outcomes for prisoners; to develop the learning and skills curriculum, capacity and attendance; and to further improve the regime and facilities at Maghaberry. I am confident that, in the context of a reforming service, staff and management will continue to work with professionalism and dedication to address those outstanding areas of concern.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I appreciate that, in answering it, a lot of the emphasis was on what the prisoners get out of the establishment. Unfortunately, staff are not duly considered, even down to the food they get at lunchtime. If they want hot food, they cannot get it inside the facility and have to go out, putting themselves at risk and everything else. Prisoners can get hot meals, but, in the current staff facilities, staff who work in the prison cannot.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr Girvan for that point. The specific issue of the provision of canteen facilities in prisons is being re-examined. We all appreciate the context in which that is being done.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Minister detail whether there have been any reviews of security for prison officers within and outside the prison complexes in recent weeks?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I can assure Mr Elliott that there has been a significant review of security measures for individual prison officers in the context of their home security, the issue of personal protection weapons, which Members will remember has been raised, and their security going into and out of establishments. I do not think that the House would expect me to go into the detail of that, but I believe that very significant work has been done. I have had meetings with the Chief Constable and others, and, later this week, I will meet the Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office who has responsibility for the home protection scheme. A number of issues are being actively addressed.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I remind Members of the need for supplementary questions to be relevant to the original question.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank prison officers for their commitment to their work in Northern Ireland, and I note that the Minister has told the House that the prison is an improving establishment.

Minister, new prison officers have recently been recruited and are now taking up their roles in the prisons. What will your Department be doing to support them in their ongoing training?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I suspect that there are two parts to that question. The first is security for individual members of staff, which we have just been talking about. In their training, new members of staff are given security advice, and they are able to obtain the equipment that is obtainable by all staff on the same basis. They are also given very significant training to ensure that they are fit, in general terms, for the role they are being asked to perform. I think that three of the first eight classes of 20 prison officers have passed out from the college in Millisle, but they will each have three further 8-week periods in each of the three establishments to train them for the work they will do. Work to upskill existing staff is ongoing.

Of course, the new staff will be expected to show that they are capable of carrying out the work of custody officer to a certain level within their first year in post. They will then be given the opportunity for further training and development opportunities to move into other roles in the Prison Service. I believe that, unlike what may have happened in the past, we have a process now that enables all Prison Service staff to gain additional skills so that they can be better equipped for the job ahead of them.

Knife Crime: Craigavon

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

3. asked the Minister of Justice what plans he has to introduce a knife amnesty in the Craigavon area, given the increase in knife crime in recent years. (AQO 2828/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

PSNI statistics on violent and sexual offences involving knives and sharp instruments indicate a decline in such offences from 2007 across Northern Ireland, with a marginal increase of 2% during 2011-12 compared with the previous year. However, there have been increases in such incidents in some districts. I understand that there have been fluctuations in the number of offences in Craigavon during the past five years and that figures for the Craigavon area for 2011-12 indicate an increase of 11 offences compared with 2010-11.

As knives are in everyday use and readily available in every household, it is important to raise awareness that they are dangerous and to encourage responsible usage to prevent these unwanted and unacceptable attacks from taking place. At a local level, policing and community safety partnerships (PCSPs) have a responsibility to work with the community to identify and address issues of local concern, and I am pleased that the proposed action plan from Craigavon PCSP has an action focused on knife crime. I also understand that the PSNI delivers awareness sessions on knife crime to post-primary schools and young people as part of the youth conference arrangements in the Youth Justice Agency.

Given the current statistics, I do not think that a knife crime amnesty across Northern Ireland would be appropriate at this time. I assure the Member, however, that the possibility of a further knife crime amnesty will remain under consideration and that I remain ready to consider any additional measures that would be effective in reducing knife crime.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his response. The previous two knife amnesties led to 1,488 knives being handed in Province-wide, 69 of them in Craigavon. Does the Minister not accept that this low-cost initiative, although not a panacea, is a useful measure among others to help to tackle this serious problem in our society?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I appreciate the point that Mr Moutray is trying to make about how things are operating and how they worked from that previous amnesty. As he correctly highlighted, nearly 1,500 knives were handed in during the two amnesties of 2006. However, the total cost of those was £300,000 in Northern Ireland. So, although he describes amnesties as "low-cost", I am not sure that that is a particularly effective use of money in straitened times. I am open to any specific arrangements that would be seen to make a real difference. The reality is that we did not see that amnesty paying any dividends as opposed to a general trend in the use of knives in crimes.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Minister expand on the problem in the Craigavon area, and can he identify any relationship or cause for the upward trend?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The simple answer is no. It is not possible, at this stage, to give answers to Mrs Dobson's questions. I said in my initial answer that numbers, which are low, fluctuate a bit from year to year, and it is difficult to see a trend in those fluctuations. What is clear is that there is a general downward trend across Northern Ireland as a whole.

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

It seems a bit strange that the Minister does not consider it value for money to spend £300,000 on taking knives off our streets. Therefore, does he have plans to legislate to control further the sale and availability of knives in this region?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The issue of knife sales has, of course, been dealt with in legislation that increased the minimum age at which someone could buy a knife from 16 to 18. The knife crime that we talk about frequently involves the inappropriate use of knives that are perfectly acceptable in a domestic context, so we have to be realistic about how possible it is to control their purchase. The issue is to ensure the control of knives in a wider sense.

Prisons: Full-body Scanners

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

4. asked the Minister of Justice whether his Department has submitted an application to the relevant authorities to use the X-ray transmission scanner as part of the full-body scanning pilot scheme. (AQO 2829/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

As I have made clear previously, the use of transmission X-ray equipment has not yet been approved for use in UK prisons. Consequently, authorisation must be obtained under the Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004. A draft justification application is now under consideration by Prison Service management and should be ready for submission later this month, subject to further clarification on legislative issues, including the non-medical use of that equipment.

The justifying authority is required to consult the relevant Northern Ireland agencies, including the Health and Safety Executive, the Food Standards Agency and the Health Protection Agency, as well as the other UK jurisdictions. The Department of Justice will act as the justifying authority, as required under the regulations.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am disappointed to hear that the Department has not made a formal application for authority to use these scanners. Given that the Department is now preparing an application for approval, can the Minister give the House an indication of the authorities' time frame for the application's assessment? What is his assessment of the body scanners?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Unfortunately, I cannot give any assessment to Mr Ramsey at present. As I have made clear to the House before, when it comes to the transmission of X-ray matter and, indeed, millimetre wave scanners, the Northern Ireland Prison Service is at the forefront of policy in these islands in seeking alternatives to full-body searching. It is not possible, given that we are leading the way, to give an assessment of the time that will be required.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Does the Minister not have a responsibility to drive forward the time frame for this process, rather than leaving it up to those submitting the application?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Yes, I do have a responsibility, and that is what I am carrying through.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Is the Minister aware of any objections to the use of full-body scanning in the current pilot schemes at Magilligan or Hydebank?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Some prisoners have raised issues with the searching. That is what the pilot schemes are about — ensuring that we get things like the tabulation of the machinery correct and that prisoners do not have to spend extra time if they have to go through that search. However, I believe that we are seeing positive results from the two millimetre wave scanners. Of course, that is different from the technical issue of the transmission X-rays, which the question was about.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Question 5 has been withdrawn.

Criminal Justice: Guilty Pleas

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

6. asked the Minister of Justice for his assessment of the proposals on early guilty pleas within the proposed "Faster, Fairer Justice Bill". (AQO 2831/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Late guilty pleas not only delay justice but have a negative effect on victims and witnesses. There are real benefits to encouraging persons guilty of an offence to admit their guilt at an early stage. Entering an early guilty plea avoids the need for a trial and saves victims and witnesses from having to give evidence. Between January and May, my Department consulted on options to encourage earlier guilty pleas, and it presented its proposals to the Justice Committee before the summer recess. The provisions that I intend to include in the Bill represent the outcome of that process.

The Bill will propose placing a duty on a defence representative to make clients guilty of an offence aware of the benefits of admitting their guilt at an earlier stage. It will also enhance the current statutory arrangements by requiring a court, when sentencing, to specify the level of credit that would have applied had a guilty plea been entered. The Bill will propose a change to the law to allow the direct transfer of a defendant from a Magistrates’ Court to the Crown Court for sentencing when the defendant has indicated an intention to plead guilty. These provisions will support the broader inter-agency work being co-ordinated by my Department through the speeding up justice programme.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I wonder whether the Minister is concerned that these proposals could pressurise non-guilty individuals into accepting a guilty plea to ensure a lenient sentence.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am aware of those concerns being raised, but I cannot see why anyone who is not guilty, and who can put a case to the court that they are not guilty, would see any benefit in pleading guilty.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Minister outline the timeline on which he seeks to introduce the Bill to the House and give an assurance that access to justice will not be restricted by cost savings?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I obtained Executive approval for drafting the Bill early last month. I am optimistic that it will be possible to introduce the Bill in the early part of next year, but we all know that drafting can take a little longer than hoped. I give Mr Boylan the assurance that he seeks that I will do my best to ensure that we do not create any difficulties in ensuring proper access to justice, but we all know the difficult financial circumstances in which we live. I am certainly satisfied that what has been done so far on, for example, criminal legal aid costs, has ensured that we have made the necessary savings, not by taking people out of the scope of legal aid but by reducing the amounts paid to individual solicitors and barristers.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Mr Basil McCrea is not in his place. I call Mr Adrian McQuillan.

Magilligan Prison

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

8. asked the Minister of Justice for his Department's assessment of the importance of Magilligan prison to the economy in the East Londonderry constituency. (AQO 2833/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

At the outset, as I have done in a series of recent engagements with elected representatives and other stakeholders, I stress that no final decision has been taken on the future of Magilligan prison.

I recognise that, in coming to a decision on the future of Magilligan, we cannot ignore the impact that its closure would have on the local economy. At this stage, the economic impact of either having a prison there or moving it elsewhere has not been quantified. That is why I have made it clear that any decision to proceed with decommissioning Magilligan would be the subject of a full economic appraisal.

However, Magilligan prison's future cannot be based on one issue alone. Ultimately, my decision must be determined by what is best for the community in Northern Ireland where rehabilitating offenders, reducing offending and protecting the public are concerned. That is why I must take into account issues such as family links, and rehabilitation and employment opportunities for offenders. With that in mind, my officials are continuing to engage with stakeholders on how some prisoners' needs might best be served by locating a prison in the north-west and, if that is the case, whether there is scope to build on and improve rehabilitation opportunities for prisoners there.

If I am convinced that locating a prison in the north-west is indeed best for Northern Ireland where rehabilitating offenders, reducing offending and protecting the public are concerned, that will be reflected in my final decision on the future of Magilligan prison.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his detailed answer. Does he agree that no decision on Magilligan prison should be made without considering the effect that it will have on the local economy?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I certainly agree with Mr McQuillan on that general point. Indeed, I made that point clear at the public meeting in Limavady a few weeks ago and, more recently, when I met a number of council representatives from Ballymoney, Coleraine and Limavady, including the Member's colleague Mr George Robinson, who is sitting beside him.

It is clearly an issue that has to be taken into consideration, but it is not the only issue. Although I can understand the view that local representatives are taking of the importance of the prison as an employer and for the economy of Limavady and the north-west in general, that is not the only issue on which I can determine something that is my responsibility.

As we look at the issue, and given that no decision has been taken, I want to see whether there are options that would change what was originally recommended in the estate strategy and in where I have asked Prison Service staff to re-examine the potential options. I am certainly heartened by some of the positive commitments to engagement that I received from public representatives and businesspeople in that most recent meeting that I had with them.

The issue is still very much under consultation, and, were a decision to close Magilligan to be made, there would be a full economic appraisal of it.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister says that no economic appraisal has yet been carried out of the closure of Magilligan prison. Does he have any idea how much it will cost to keep the prison open between now and 2018?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

With due respect, Mr Ó hOisín seems to presume that there is going to be a decision to close the prison. As I made clear today and on numerous other occasions, the issue is out for consultation. Part of that consultation involves looking at what possible use there might be of Magilligan prison, as well as at the prison review team's original recommendations, which included looking at centralising on a site that is nearer to where a larger proportion of the population of Northern Ireland live. Clearly, the issue has to be that we ensure that we meet the needs of prisoners from all over Northern Ireland and that we get the best possible rehabilitation functions for them.

I have no detailed figures today on the cost of maintaining the prison until 2018 even if it were to be decommissioned at that point. A figure of a few million pounds has been highlighted for work that would be necessary to deal with changes to some facilities and improvements to some security measures at the prison. That work will be required if the prison were kept open for either only a few years or a longer period.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Does the Minister understand that the economic disadvantage would not just be to East Londonderry but to north Antrim, where many prison officers who work in Magilligan live? Will the fact that several million pounds is currently being spent on the provision of a new sewerage facility to accommodate a new and large prison be taken into account in the economic appraisal of the wise expenditure of public money and any suggestion that the prison should not stay where it is?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am happy to say that my departmental responsibilities do not include those of Northern Ireland Water. I happily cede those to my colleague the Minister for Regional Development.

There are issues that affect a number of factors relating to the economy. I have no doubt that other examples could equally have been produced relating to other aspects of the physical infrastructure in the Limavady and Magilligan area. However, if we are talking about an investment of a very substantial sum to provide prison facilities for the benefit of Northern Ireland, frankly, we have to look a bit wider than the cost of sewerage works at Magilligan. That is part of it and will feed into any economic appraisal, but it is a long way short of being the only key issue to be addressed.

That is why I made it clear when I talked to the representatives of the three councils a few weeks ago that we also need to look at a range of issues, including the potential for stakeholder involvement and the potential to build on the existing good but limited rehabilitation facilities that are available for those in, for example, the Foyleview unit to go out from Magilligan daily for work experience. That is the kind of work that needs to be done in the Prison Service. That is the kind of work that I am focused on. Although the infrastructure will also be borne in mind, for me, the fundamental issue is ensuring that we have a Prison Service that is fit for purpose and that does its best to rehabilitate all those who are in need of the kinds of services that are provided by the Prison Service to protect the public as a whole.

PSNI: Agency, Consultancy and Associate Staff

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

9. asked the Minister of Justice when his Department first entered into discussions with the PSNI on the development of an outline business case for the tendering of a new contract for temporary agency, consultancy or associate staff. (AQO 2834/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The PSNI is responsible for developing business cases, whereas my Department’s role is to approve those that fall outside the Police Service's delegated financial limits.

The Police Service first shared a draft of the business case with my Department in late July. In the knowledge that there was a live Northern Ireland Audit Office investigation into the Police Service's use of agency staff, my officials advised the PSNI that it would be inappropriate to review the business case until after the report had been published and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) hearing had taken place. The PSNI has not submitted an updated draft since the PAC hearing. It is important that any recommendations made by the PAC be considered and, if appropriate, included in any new contract.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he assure us that any new contracts will ensure full compliance with equality requirements?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Brady asks specifically what I can do to ensure compliance of particular contracts. My role in the Department is to do with the formal approval of a business case. It is the responsibility of the Police Service to ensure that it adheres to equality requirements or any other aspect of the law in drawing up those contracts. Those particular points need to be considered by the Police Service and any body with which it engages in a contract to provide temporary agency, consultancy or associate staff. Those are issues for those who hold the contract and the employers rather than for the Department per se.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. What lessons are to be learned from the Audit Office report?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Bradley makes a very reasonable point. The problem is that, at a stage when the PAC is still to hold a further hearing — the PAC has had one hearing, but I understand that it is inviting back representatives from the Police Service, although not to the second departmental hearing — it is difficult for me to say what lessons are to be learned. What is important is that we give the PAC the opportunity to do its work and to consider the issue in full detail. When its report is published, it will be up to all those concerned with such issues, and potentially people in other areas of the public sector, to learn the lessons of the final report when they see it and have had time to study it.

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

Private Members' Business

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Like Michael McGimpsey , I support both amendments. When we talk about boxing, it is important to have an urban and rural strategy. A lot of emphasis is being put on Belfast clubs at the moment, but, as Sammy Douglas said, we have to look outside the greater Belfast area when it comes to supporting boxing clubs. The CAL Committee has visits planned to the All Saints Boxing Club and the Braid Amateur Boxing Club in Ballymena later this month, which I look forward to. I have visited Braid and seen the work that it is doing, not only to develop professional boxers but to work with young people in the area to improve their health and confidence. It is also working on crime prevention in the area, because, when young people focus on the physical activities involved in boxing, they are distracted from other things.

I commend Belfast City Council for the work that it has done to bring forward its boxing strategy. I have contacted the other local councils in North Antrim to ask them to consider doing the same. A number of Members have mentioned how supportive the Minister has been to boxing, and I commend her for that. She has been so supportive that she announced £3·27 million of funding twice. She announced it first on 26 June to the CAL Committee, and she reannounced it during the Olympics to get some headlines and a wee bit of PR for herself.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

When there was an Ulster Unionist Minister, did he make announcements of any money for boxing?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.