Northern Ireland Assembly, 14 January 2013

265 contributions from 66 members. The official report.

Executive Committee Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Before we proceed to today's business, I inform the House that the Superannuation Bill has received Royal Assent. The Superannuation Act (Northern Ireland) 2013 became law on 9 January 2013.

Matter of the Day

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Rt Hon Peter Robinson has sought leave to make a statement on the ongoing street disorder and challenge to the democratic process, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. Members other than Mr Robinson must indicate clearly that they wish to be called by rising in their place and continuing to do so. We still have some Members who have a problem with rising in their place when asked to do so.

I remind the House of my ruling that matters of the day should not be used for political point scoring. I ask Members to bear in mind the dignity of the Chamber in the contribution that they might make to the House this afternoon. I will take no points of order until the matter is concluded. All Members called will have up to three minutes in which to speak on the subject matter.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am grateful for the opportunity. It is important that the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland take an opportunity to speak about issues that, I suspect, are being spoken about in every workplace around the country. It is our duty, as politicians, to support the rule of law and the primacy of the democratic process in this part of the United Kingdom.

The past weekend once again saw protest turn to violence and disorder on our streets. The police have been attacked, protesters have been attacked and local communities have been attacked. No one wins from such conflict, but the people of Northern Ireland as a whole are suffering.

The anger over the spark that started the fire has long since been obscured by the outrage over the violence that has followed. I know that we in the House are not agreed on the issue of flying the flag — I hope that, at some stage, people will be — but I will say it once again: the decision by Belfast City Council to take down the Union flag was, in my view, a mistake. The timing of it merely aggravated a bad situation. It was unnecessary and wrong, and the settled status quo should not have been disturbed, but nothing can justify the violence that has been seen on the streets of Northern Ireland in recent weeks. I ask those who are involved what they think they have achieved. Northern Ireland's international reputation has been damaged, potential investors and tourists will be deterred, our local businesses have been crippled at a time when they needed a boost, scores of police officers have been injured and many of the young people involved in the violence will emerge from these disturbances with nothing to show for it but a criminal record.

I defend anyone's right to legitimate, lawful and peaceful protest, but in recent weeks far too many have become marred by violence. The cause of the Union flag has been damaged and not helped. The issue will never be solved on the streets, but only through democratic means. You do not respect a Union flag if you use it as a weapon to charge against someone. You are not showing respect for the Union flag if you need to wear a mask when carrying it. For many, the issue of the flying of the Union flag at Belfast City Council is now a cynical cover for their real political agenda, which is to destroy the political process that has been followed in Northern Ireland and which everyone in the House, I believe, stands for. They will not succeed. Although those who sit in the House have very different views on many subjects, we have one thing in common: a mandate from the people of Northern Ireland. It is the ballot box that will decide Northern Ireland's political direction.

Those who are engaged in violence on the streets are not friends of unionism; they are the enemies of democracy. They play into the hands of those who want to see Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom threatened. What more could dissidents want than to see attacks on the forces of law and order in Northern Ireland? I know that there are questions to be asked and conversations to be had about Saturday's policing arrangements, but there is no scope for doubt about the attacks from a group in the Short Strand and the attacks from a section of the protesters.

We in the House rightly condemn the violence that has taken place, but we must also set out a political way forward. Last week, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party and I convened a meeting of the Unionist Forum to draw together strands of unionist thinking — those who were elected to the House and those who are not represented. I believe that that offers a vehicle for those who seriously want to discuss and address issues of concern. I also pledge to work with all those who are elected to the House to ensure that, together, we can build a better Northern Ireland. I have absolutely no doubt that that is the overwhelming sentiment of the people of Northern Ireland.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, Mr Speaker. I want to thank you for facilitating this opportunity for Members to have their say on the despicable events of the past number of weeks.

Over the weekend, people asked what the solution is. They say that there is no solution. I do not accept that. I believe that there is a solution, and I think it can be found in the example that was shown by all the political parties in the House in the aftermath of the murder of two soldiers at Massereene and the murders of Stephen Carroll and Ronan Kerr. What works for us is the sight of all the political parties in the House standing together against those who believe in violence as a way forward.

If we look at the events of the past couple of weeks — whatever about the decision at Belfast City Hall, a decision over which, according to my information in the Chamber, not a stone was thrown, not a petrol bomb was thrown, not a threat of intimidation was issued — we can see that what has transpired is very clearly a challenge to these institutions. It is a challenge to these institutions from people who do not have a mandate and represent nobody but themselves. I do not believe for one minute that they speak for the vast majority of unionists in our society. These are people who are associated with British National Party-type politics. These are people who are clearly, to some degree, sectarian bigots.

It is also quite obvious that the Ulster Volunteer Force in east Belfast has played its part in the disturbances of the past couple of weeks, to such a point where two of its leadership who are well known drug pushers in east Belfast — that is known on the far side of the House as well as it is known on this side — have been the main instigators, to the point where, although it has not been said publicly by anybody — I wonder why not — that organisation was involved in the attempt to murder a young policewoman sitting in her car outside Naomi Long's office.

This needs to end. Political leadership needs to be given. We all need to stand together. I absolutely believe that the PSNI needs to do its job, and I hope to meet Matt Baggott today. So, the attacks on the community — whether in the Short Strand or anywhere else — need to end. They cannot be justified, and that end must be immediate.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I very much welcome the opportunity to repeat in the House on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party what we have said many times on the streets and in the media by way of condemning violence. The violence that we have seen since 3 December last is wrong on every level. It is wrong legally. It is wrong morally. It is wrong strategically, and it is wrong tactically. Let us remind ourselves how it began. On 3 December, an unnecessary vote to lower the Union flag at City Hall provoked people to take to the streets because they were angry at a political decision by Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party. Almost immediately, those who were protesting through violence turned matters on their head. The Alliance Party, which they were subjecting to criticism, suddenly had everybody's sympathy — rightly so — because of the illegal attacks on premises and personnel. We then had the attempted murder of a police officer and dozens of officers injured in rioting. The very people who live in the communities represented — or so-called represented — by those engaged in violence, who began with a great deal of sympathy for the cause, became frustrated, then angry and now outraged by the tactics employed by those who engage in violence.

I have heard many times since 3 December, a call for unionist leaders to demonstrate leadership. We have to understand what the people on the ground mean by "leadership". What is their definition of that? I am trying to understand it. I am engaging on the ground. I have been, for example, to Westbourne Presbyterian Church no fewer than three times in the past 10 days to engage with people on the ground. Earlier today, I engaged with a group in this Building, and I hope to re-engage later today. What does that leadership mean? Well, it must mean condemning the violence and calling, once again, for it to stop, not least for the good of the youth who appear to think that it is recreational and quite good fun to lob a petrol bomb at a police officer and run away. They may not consider it such good fun if, in 20 years' time, they seek a visa to visit Florida or some other area of the United States and are denied entry because of the activities that they have been engaged in over the past weeks.

The leadership that I wish to offer is to condemn what is wrong but also to offer an alternative. That alternative, to me, is the Unionist Forum, a political way forward, where we can discuss the issues that underlie the vote on the flag — issues of cultural identity, of the economy and of the perceived failure of politics to live up to its billing of providing much better than direct rule. My message to those engaged in violence is very simple: please stop destroying the argument you are trying to promote.

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

I welcome the opportunity to speak this afternoon. The madness that we see on our streets and our television screens serves no purpose and can never serve any purpose. We could engage in the Chamber in petty "whataboutery" and score points. I get the sense that we may be entering an unconscious phase of denial about how the crisis came about. It did not come about on 3 December; it was well stoked beforehand. We can duck and dive around the hows, whys and wherefores, but, in my opinion, the most urgent need is to de-escalate the situation, and that means that protests must stop and stop now. That is a job for the leaders of political unionism. They must be honest with the people out there and tell them that the ways of the past on flags and many other issues are not always going to be the ways of the future. They will not and we will not improve the situation with a one-sided forum. In fact, there is always a danger that a one-sided approach or a one-sided, half-baked solution will escalate the situation further. Political parties have to come together — all the parties in the House — in a rolling series of discussions, not to tackle the flags issue in isolation but to look at the whole issue of cross-community relations on the ground and within the whole political process. There must be a parallel series of discussions with all the other external groups and organisations, where people are allowed to contribute. But the crucial steps must be taken by the leaders of political unionism.

The whole basis of our current political settlement and, indeed, our future together is parity of esteem. The leaders of unionism are either for parity of esteem or they are not. If they are, they must make that the basis of any flag settlement. For any leader to demand that a flag must fly on their terms and on their terms alone is in the past, and it is certainly not parity. Protesters are challenging the democratic right of politicians to make any dispensation on flags that they do not approve of. The protesters are denying parity of esteem. The choice of the leaders of political unionism is a choice that they have to make clear. It would greatly assist in de-escalating the situation if they would make that choice now and make it in the clearest possible terms.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Robinson talked about democracy and the rule of law when he introduced this matter of the day, and I agree entirely with him. The issues of democracy and the rule of law are vital for this society and need a lead from the House. However, we need to recognise that the violence that we saw on Saturday and preceding days was at the end of a line that stretches right back to last summer. Last summer, we saw the defiance of the legitimate and lawful rulings of the Parades Commission, and that defiance had, in some cases, political support. In the autumn, we saw that continuing. We saw 40,000 dubious leaflets whipping up fear and tension. That was carried out by unionist leaders. In recent weeks since 3 December, we have seen so-called peaceful protests that have been anything but peaceful and anything but lawful. Many of those protests have had support from unionist leaders. Did they not know what happened last summer? Did they not see Clifton Street and Donegall Street? Do they not know what happens when you call crowds out onto the streets in this society?

There is a fundamental question that has to be answered by those who engineered what has now resulted. What we have seen from the protests is the undermining of the rule of law. We have seen serious damage to the local economy and to property in many cases. We have seen almost 100 police officers injured and many others injured and put in fear. We have seen the damage done to inward investment and tourism by these pictures being shown on television screens around the world. As others have said, we have seen young people being given a criminal record that will damage their prospects for life. We have seen, in fact, the resectarianising of Northern Ireland.

I believe that it really is time that we saw a united approach, a united approach that starts with this House. We need people to wind down the language and to not build and hype up the language that got people onto the streets in protest. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

We need to see people who talk much of the rule of democracy accepting the democratic decision of Belfast City Council based on the equality and legal advice that was given to it.

Certainly, there are issues around deprivation in this society that need to be addressed. However, let us be absolutely clear: there is no correlation between deprivation in different areas of Northern Ireland and the areas that have seen the worst of the violence recently, even in predominantly Protestant areas. Mr McGuinness has already highlighted the role of the UVF in parts of east Belfast.

This society requires policing by consent. That means that there has to be support for the police and not constant criticism of operational decisions by people who do not like operational decisions one way or the other. The police require much more than that from us if they are to carry out the duties with which they are charged by this society. We can no longer blur the line between so-called peaceful and actually illegal protests.

We need from the House a firm commitment to build a genuine shared future. We need all parties working together. We need politicians not to feed fear but to resolve the issues that lead to fear, in order to build a better future. Most of all, we need to work together on a cross-community basis to build a shared future.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

The Green Party condemns the violence that we have seen on our streets over recent weeks and calls for an immediate end to the protests. We want to make it clear that attacks on the PSNI are unacceptable. Some have tried to use the actions of the PSNI to justify their violence, but the Green Party is clear: the PSNI did not attack the home of councillors Christine and Michael Bower, nor did it burn down Stewart Dickson's office. If there is evidence of mistreatment of protesters by the police, it should be reported to the ombudsman and the Police Service should be held to account by politicians. The Green Party gives its thanks to the PSNI for seeking to protect our democracy, our economy and our citizens in what are very difficult circumstances.

We in the Assembly need to take our role in tackling the underlying social problems that have created the context for the social unrest. High unemployment, educational underachievement and poverty of opportunity are the perfect mix for creating this type of unrest. We must be clear that these problems exist throughout our society in working-class areas across Northern Ireland. It is only when we unite in struggles that we can seek to overcome these difficulties. The protests have certainly done nothing to help the economic situation in Northern Ireland or to help us tackle the underlying social problems.

The protests have brought many issues to the fore. The flag issue may have sparked the social unrest, but many other issues have come to the fore. The Green Party believes that it is now time for a period of calm reflection and engagement, and we call on politicians to, at least, do no harm and, at best, engage to seek an end to the violence and the street protests and move the situation on to a peaceful resolution.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I abhor and without reservation condemn the repeated violence that we have seen in recent days and weeks. It has no legitimacy, and it brings nothing but disrepute and dishonour to the cause in the name of which, in distorted fashion, it is purported to be exercised. Let us be very clear: there is no way forward in violence. However, some policing decisions have been, to put it at its mildest, bizarre. There seems to have been an aggravating imbalance in the policing approach, with repeated known processions coming from the centre of the city into east Belfast but no appreciable, detectable attempt to stop attacks on those processions from within Short Strand and no adequate policing. That seems to have been an aggravating factor, compounded by the foolhardy policing actions of last Saturday. None of that justifies the violence, but it is not immune from criticism.

The House and its Members rightly want to speak and condemn these matters, but I have to say to the House that it is severely lacking in moral authority in condemning violence. The House and its structures are the product of the Belfast Agreement or the product of paying the ransom price to violence that was the Belfast Agreement. It makes the job of some of us who try to counter that there should be no violence very difficult. It poses a difficult question: with regard to Stormont, did violence not pay for others and for Sinn Féin and those whom it represents? That is a very difficult question to answer. The moral authority is lacking in the House to say to people not to engage in violence because this House and its institutions and the denial of the basics of democracy — the right to vote a party out of government or even the right to have an opposition — are the very things that show a lack of authority in the House on the moral issues.

Part of the problem is that we were told that the Belfast Agreement was a settlement, but it was a settlement only for some: for others, it was a process. Part of the problem is that that continually feeds a need for further concessions to republicanism, and every step on the road is marked by a further de-Britishising. Those who come to the House to demonise protesters are, of course, those who talk most about the process and the need to carry it further, which, in their terms, means more concessions to republicanism. That is what is feeding the commotion on the streets and demonstrably showing that the Belfast Agreement has not worked and will not work.

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

In the House, we are all agreed that there is no place for rioting, recreational or otherwise, or for violence directed at the police, elected representatives, ordinary people or their homes and businesses. However, I trust that there is every place to support and exercise the legitimate right to peaceful protest. The exercise of such a right cannot be contested and should be recognised by the House as an essential part of democracy.

What can be contested, however, is the escalation of the street disorder that flows from the ending of a peaceful protest. I attended a peaceful protest outside Belfast City Hall on Saturday. I left the area at peace and arrived home to hear the news that something had happened between Belfast City Hall and what is known as the Short Strand area. I cannot accept that a peaceful protest being turned into a street disorder is simply a happening. I cannot accept that it was not organised in some way, not calculated as a reaction to other things that are going on.

Is our country seeing something akin to the emergence of Northern Ireland's Arab spring, or is it just a frustrated number of people venting their anger against what they see as the Establishment, which they believe does not represent them? The Union flag was the catalyst for these events and is the focus of discontent. The unrest, as it develops after six weeks, is about much more than that.

It is about the sudden realisation of a section of Protestants that they have been disenfranchised by the post-Good Friday and post-St Andrews political arrangements. To them, it is also about the erosion of their unionist identity and the failure of the main unionist parties to deliver for them. That is how they tell it and that is how they see it.

This unrest is increasingly focusing on the failure of the main unionist parties to deliver. I believe that the main unionist parties have taken control of that with the formation of the Unionist Forum. I believe that that is how it can be addressed. That is where we come in, so to speak.

Unionism has shuddered and recoiled, because we warned of the repercussions and consequences of removing the flag. However, the question now is this: who speaks for political unionism? Whoever speaks for political unionism must also speak for this nation. I ask that those who are on the streets with discontentment — those who would join with me in peaceful protest — allow the Unionist Forum to take forward the dialogue that is necessary.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am sorry that we have had to start the first week of the new session of the Assembly with this subject. I say to those on the other side of the House who have condemned what happened over the past weekend — and we have condemned it quite clearly — that when they were engaging in activities such as voting for the release of people who attempted to kill a DUP councillor in Dungannon, naming play parks after killers, and stoking the fire by removing the flag from City Hall, they should maybe have asked themselves: did they not know what the reaction was likely to be across the community? There has been a grave responsibility on those who provoked this situation. That is not to say that what has happened is correct. It is wrong, and it is wrong for a whole lot of reasons.

I am proud of the flag of this country, not as a piece of cloth or because of the colours, but because of what it stands for.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I have already said that we do not take points of order during matters of the day. I am happy to take a point of order after we finish this piece of business.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

That flag stands for freedom. It stands for the right of people to believe what they want to believe and to express what they want to believe. As I listened to the news on Saturday morning and heard the poignant cries of a man who wanted only to get to see his wife in hospital but was jeered at by protesters, I thought that that is not upholding what lies behind the freedoms that the flag of the United Kingdom stands for. When I looked at the streets in Carrickfergus and spoke to the traders on Saturday morning, I thought that that kind of destruction is not what the flag of the country stands for. For that reason, the protests are wrong.

Secondly, they are wrong financially. I sat with people from the Lower Newtownards Road on Friday afternoon. They talked about the need for improved education for disadvantaged youngsters, jobs and lots of other improvements. If we are devoting resources to policing, if we are losing rates intake from businesses that close, if we are not getting jobs and having to pay more in welfare, we cannot spend money on the very problems that people who are protesting say need to be addressed.

This is my final point. To those who poked the fires, I say this: take responsibility for what you did. To those who keep those fires going, let me say this: violence does not pay. It does not pay for your community. It does not pay for the people in the streets of your own area who are hurting and it did not pay for Sinn Féin either. Sinn Féin is now having to sit in a UK-based Parliament, passing UK laws and seeking Royal Assent from the Queen. Violence did not pay for that crowd, and it does not pay for those who are engaging in the current disorder on our streets. My call to them is to find a way of expressing their frustration, and my call to those who have stoked the fires is to stop stoking and try to work for a better future.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I was not going to get up to speak until I heard some of the later contributions. Everybody condemning violence is the way to move forward. This is a terrible way to start off 2013.

Jim Allister particularly singled out Short Strand, and I could not let that pass without the voice of the Short Strand being heard again today. These were people who were sitting in their own houses, not involved — [Interruption.] They were sitting in their own houses and were not involved in anything. They were not involved in protests. The protests were supposed to avoid that area. That was agreed by the PSNI. So, the intent of those who broke off — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, order. Let us not have debate across the Chamber.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The intent of those who broke off from the parade and the intent of the organisers of the march was to cause violence, and that is exactly what they did. For over 40 years, this nationalist enclave has taken many attacks. I have to say that, when I was over speaking to them, grown men and women said to me that this was the worst time they ever remembered in terms of the fear that they had for themselves and their children.

So, the intent of the UVF in east Belfast needs to be dealt with. It is led by drug dealers and it is leading the protests, and that should not be ignored.

When David McNarry was up, he talked about the failure of the main unionist parties, and they can argue that out, but here is the issue: if the protesters are talking about deprivation, underachievement and all of that, why are they bringing it to the people in Short Strand? If they have an argument with the leadership of unionism, the place to bring that argument is to the leadership of unionism and not take it out in violence against people who are trying to go about their business.

Let me finish with this. Sammy got up and made his great speech about the Union Jack. I am Irish, and Belfast is now a shared city. That means that Irishness is important as well. So, the other side of the House needs to realise that the protests were over a compromise, that they are ignoring the fact that there is discrimination against Irishness and that they need to get their act in order on those things. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I recognise the right to peaceful protest but that peaceful protest must also be lawful. It is clear that the blocking of roads is most certainly not lawful and that the wearing of masks at protests is not peaceful. It is clear that a small minority of individuals are intent on exploiting protests in order to exert social and economic devastation on this community, which serves no cause whatsoever and has been rejected by the vast majority of this community. It is indeed an affront to the values that the Union flag represents, and the PSNI must be given the full support of this entire House and our entire community to respond to this robustly.

It is also time for unionist leaders to take responsibility for their equivocation on the rule of law. It is time for unionist leaders to stop misleading people by saying that the display of the Union flag on designated days signifies cultural erosion: it does not. It is time for unionist leaders and all of us to reassure and remind those with any legitimate concerns that the Good Friday Agreement enshrines the principle of consent, rejects violence and stands for mutual respect for all identity and diversity in Northern Ireland.

Political parties can call for protests to stop, and they can deal seriously with elected representatives who continue to flout such direction. Political parties can give their full support to the PSNI and its responsibility to uphold the rule of law, and they can deal swiftly with any of their elected representatives who question the PSNI approach in an irresponsible and inflammatory manner on social media or any other outlet. Unfortunately, we have heard that again today from some quarters.

There is now a clear onus on all political leaders to support the rule of law and to address fears and causes rather than manipulate them. The First Minister and deputy First Minister have a responsibility to deliver a shared future strategy for all people in Northern Ireland that addresses issues such as flags, parades, dealing with the past, education, housing, deprivation, and the human and financial cost of division in Northern Ireland. So far, we have had an abdication of leadership on that issue from the First and deputy First Minister. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

The Alliance Party and the vast majority of Northern Ireland is clear that the only long-term solution for peace and prosperity for all people in Northern Ireland is to deliver meaningful action and fundamental change on all those issues. It is the challenge for this generation to stand up to that task.

Michael Copeland (UUP, Belfast East)

I recognise as much as anyone, and perhaps more than most, the seriousness of the situation with which we are faced.

I will begin by quoting someone, who said:

"I have nothing and I am prepared to risk it all."

That statement has its origins, not in Northern Ireland and not on the streets of riots, but on the streets of Dublin, and it was said by someone who lived in Ballymun. I sense the urgency in this room to arrive at a solution, but I also sense that, in some respects, we are looking for answers to questions when we do not know what the questions are.

I can honestly encapsulate some of what people have said to me, not in so many words perhaps and not from a political point of view, but I can outline the fears of those who attend protests because they object to, or perhaps fear, the decision to remove the Union flag, not only from Belfast City Hall but from the Ulster Hall, which is the spiritual home of unionism. The symbolism of those two buildings should not be overlooked by anyone; it is akin to the symbolism of the General Post Office in Dublin.

When I speak to them, there is a sense that the Belfast Agreement, the amendments to it at St Andrews and the Hillsborough discussions were either sold, accepted or bought by unionism as an end to 40 years of murder, mayhem and the systematic destruction of the economy and the infrastructure of this country. Nationalism and republicanism was clear — perhaps it was not listened to — that they viewed the same document, the same piece of paper, as a progression along a series of stepping stones to the fulfilment of their original agenda. That is legitimate politically, but the movement along those stepping stones, in my view, is fuelling the fear that gives rise to the climate that these horrendous events can grow in.

I met someone on Saturday night who I have known all my life. He has been in business in east Belfast for 110 years, and he wept as he told me — [Interruption.] I mean the family business. If you think it is funny, in an atmosphere charged with emotion, that my meagre ability to communicate my views is a matter for humour, that somewhat suggests part of the problem on the streets. The family business had been in business for 110 years, and he was weeping and said:

"I am bankrupt. I cannot open on Monday."

I have seen young people, as has been said, setting themselves on a path to illegality and all that flows from it. There is a heavy responsibility on everyone in here. Anyone who knows me will know that, with my background, there are no circumstances under which I could ever countenance, never mind condone, violence. People see the police being used as an extension of the will of the state rather than as the guardians of the law.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member's time is gone.

Michael Copeland (UUP, Belfast East)

Sorry, sir?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member's time is gone.

Michael Copeland (UUP, Belfast East)

I very much regret that.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, Members. I will bring the matter of the day to a close and move on.

Ministerial Statements

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I wish to make a statement in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 regarding a meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in tourism sectoral format. This meeting was held in Armagh on 28 November 2012. Minister Carál Ní Chuilín MLA and I represented the Northern Ireland Executive. I chaired the meeting. The Irish Government were represented by Michael Ring TD, Minister of State for Transport, Tourism and Sport. This statement has been agreed with Minister Ní Chuilín, and I am making it on of behalf of us both.

The chairperson, Brian Ambrose, and the CEO, Mr Niall Gibbons, updated Ministers on the work of the Tourism Ireland board, including the implementation of the 2012 business plan and the development of the 2013 business plan. The CEO made a presentation to Ministers on market performance in 2012. The Council noted that the 2012 marketing campaign included the roll-out of a new global advertising campaign and the extensive ni2012 promotional campaign, which has been under way across the world, reaching 100 million people. Ministers noted the roll-out of a new suite of websites designed to capitalise on the growing importance of the internet in travel and holiday planning and to harness the phenomenal growth in social media.

The Council discussed major tourism events and initiatives planned for 2013, including the inaugural UK City of Culture in 2013, which provides the perfect follow-up to the ni2012 programme, and the World Police and Fire Games 2013, which will be the biggest single sporting event ever hosted in Belfast. The Council noted Tourism Ireland's role in the overseas marketing and promotion of these initiatives, the importance of co-operative marketing campaigns and engagement by the industry in the platforms presented by Tourism Ireland. The importance of increased access to Northern Ireland was also discussed. Minister Ring invited Ministers Foster and Ní Chuilín and relevant officials to attend EU presidency events relating to tourism and sport.

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

The Council noted progress on preparation of Tourism Ireland’s draft business plan for 2013. While noting the decline in visitors from Great Britain in recent years, Ministers welcomed the work of the tourism recovery task force, comprising Tourism Ireland, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, Fáilte Ireland and industry representatives, on the development of the GB Path to Growth strategy to address this issue. Ministers noted the recommendations of this strategy, which will be implemented by Tourism Ireland in 2013 and beyond. The Council agreed to meet again in tourism format in spring 2013.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas. Thanks to the Minister for her statement. We heard the earlier statements about the civil unrest on our streets and the difficulty that that is creating, especially for the tourism sector. The Minister mentioned two wonderful events: the UK City of Culture in Derry and the World Police and Fire Games 2013. Can she outline how the Tourist Board is particularly emphasising the positives of those in light of the current climate and the negatives around that?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Chairman for his question. We need to look back a little. It is fair to say that we had a very successful year with our ni2012 campaign until the first week in December. That year was, of course, about attracting people to Northern Ireland and was also about giving the people of Northern Ireland a sense of civic pride in the place where they live, work and study.

So, as you can imagine, I have been incredibly frustrated by the violent scenes that have been shown right across the world because Northern Ireland is back on people's screens for all of the wrong reasons. Therefore, we have to counter that by continuing to build on what was a good year in ni2012 with the fabulous opportunities that have been presented to us for 2013. The Member is right to mention the World Police and Fire Games and the fact that it is the biggest sporting event ever to come to Belfast. Of course, the very first UK City of Culture provides us with a huge world stage as well, and we should not forget the G8 summit, which is coming to County Fermanagh.

However, we should be under no illusion: the tourism industry is at a critical stage. We were poised for growth before the street violence and disturbances, but, as with so many other industries in Northern Ireland, safety and security, peace and stability are critical features if we are to grow.

Therefore, I join other colleagues who have addressed the issue of the civil unrest over this past six weeks. It has to stop. If we are to bring jobs and prosperity to all of the people of Northern Ireland, we need to portray ourselves as being a place that is ready for jobs, prosperity and tourism. Therefore, I have no hesitation in condemning the violence that has taken place, obviously at a very basic level. When I look at the damage that it is doing to the very place that those people claim loyalty to, it makes me very sad indeed.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for her statement. Will she confirm that she is confident in our ability, and that we have the infrastructure and skills that can be favourably benchmarked against any other part of the UK, to attract tourism to Northern Ireland?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his question. As the House knows, we have been investing heavily in our product offering over this past couple of years. When I look at the city of Londonderry, which is to host the UK City of Culture, I am very proud indeed of the investment that a number of Departments have made in the city. I look at the work that is going into St Columb's Cathedral, the First Derry Presbyterian Church and the Guildhall, and I say that we have really invested in some of the product. I have not even mentioned Titanic Belfast, the Giant's Causeway and all the other initiatives into which we have invested money.

As well as that, the Member is right that it is not just about product; it is also about service. It is important that, when we receive visitors from right across the world, we have a good level of service. Many members of the industry have been involved in training to make sure that their skills are up to date and, indeed, that they are the proper skills to have in their particular industry. I am glad to say that we are benchmarking very well against the rest of the UK.

Some figures came out, towards the end of the year, for the nine months of last year up to September. It was a patchy picture because we had not received the figures for the Republic of Ireland at that time, but the figures showed that the GB market had retreated and we were not receiving as many visitors from that market as we had done in previous years. However, I think that it is important that we look at the overall picture when we say that. If you look at Scotland, you see that their tourism figures are also down by 12%. Indeed, despite the fact that the Olympic Games were in London last year, their figures just managed to stay static.

So, there is a huge challenge for us in tourism, and it makes it all the more urgent that we settle down again and get back to doing what we do best, and that is welcoming people to our shores and making them very happy when they come here.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an ráiteas a thug sí dúinn. I thank the Minister for her statement. In her statement, the Minister made reference to the growth in the importance of the internet and, specifically, social media in relation to travel and holiday planning. I ask the Minister, therefore, whether she agrees with me that it is high time that a website is established that allows potential visitors to this island to plan and book their trip on a single portal instead of having to visit two separate websites? Potentially, as a result of the situation in which there are two different websites, visitors are not attracted to come to this part of the country.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Member is completely misrepresenting the situation, if one may say, as usual. The Tourism Ireland website deals with all the international visitors who come to the whole of the island of Ireland. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board website is simply there —

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Did you look at it?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Well, it is being looked at at the moment, and I said in my statement that they are looking at an upgrade of the Tourism Ireland website. I very much welcome that because we need to keep ahead of the curve in respect —

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

[Inaudible.]

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

If the Member wants to ask another question, I will sit down and allow him to ask another question.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for her statement. She said that visitors from GB are down by 15%, and she also referred to the Tourism Ireland draft business plan for 2013 and the tourism recovery task force. Are those feeding into a tourism strategy for her Department? Will she update us on whether she is working to release a tourism strategy or whether there is an action plan in the timing of that?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for a number of questions. As I think I said to her previously, and as her party leader said, there are too many strategies. We need action. We have taken that forward, and the tourism priorities for action plan is being finalised and will, I hope, be with the Executive for endorsement in the very near future. I will soon write to Executive colleagues about it. The strategy was brought together by a number of our industry partners and by working in conjunction with government, and the difficulty is that it was largely overtaken by the experiences and the new marketing strategies that we put in place for ni2012. It would be wrong if I were to put forward a strategy that was out of date. Would it not be much better if I had an action plan that pushed ahead with the issues that we have in place? That is what I intend to do.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I apologise to the Minister for not being here for the start of her statement. She will recall the discussion that we had last year about the major Irish tourism initiative "The Gathering", which will also be held in 2013. Given that this is a joint North/South ministerial body, has there been any further discussion about possible co-operation in 2013 with regard to the people coming to "The Gathering" and our major events?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

If people are coming to Ireland, either Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland, for "The Gathering" — I am aware that some events are being planned in Northern Ireland in conjunction with "The Gathering" — we will of course signpost them to events that we are holding here, whether that is the UK City of Culture, the World Police and Fire Games or any activities that happen annually such as the International Beckett Festival in Fermanagh and other festivals. We are happy to work with colleagues in Fáilte Ireland, Tourism Ireland or any body that wants to help us to bring more visitors to Northern Ireland.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for her statement. Will she update the House on the review of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board? Will it lead to a closer working relationship with other bodies, particularly on economic issues?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his question. As I have said many times, tourism is an economic driver in Northern Ireland, which is why it is important that the current civil unrest comes to an end so that we can get on with the business of getting more people to come to Northern Ireland, because those who have come are great advocates for Northern Ireland.

As I said, we are finalising the priorities for action plan, which identifies those responsible for delivery against each action, including the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. I felt that the time was now right to conduct a review to determine whether existing structures, policies, programmes and resource allocations are the correct ones to meet the objectives and targets that we are setting for tourism.

The Member mentioned an alignment with economic issues, and it is right that there should be a closer alignment between Invest Northern Ireland and the Tourist Board so that they can work together and not duplicate each other's work but add value to what each is doing in a particular area.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

With 2013 upon us and the two major events this year — the Londonderry UK City of Culture and Belfast hosting the World Police and Fire Games — will the Minister outline any specific campaigns to promote city breaks? How does a constituency such as North Antrim, where the Giant's Causeway is located, benefit from that?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am happy to tell the Member that the new Giant's Causeway visitor centre has been a tremendous success, and we hope that it continues to be so and that we get some clarity from the ongoing judicial review. I think that it would assist that area greatly to have a five-star hotel put in place for the visitors who wish to come to that area.

In relation to city breaks, we work very closely with a lot of the airlines and ferry companies to make sure that they know what is available. Last year, we announced a collaborative working campaign between the ferries and the airlines to make sure that people, either in GB or further afield, were aware of what was on offer, and we will continue with that. If the Member has any suggestions, I will, of course, be quite happy to take them on board.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for her statement. I note specifically the discussion that took place around the major tourism events, and, in the Chamber today, I am hearing reference to the two major events. I am asking the Minister for assurance that, in and around that discussion, recognition was given to the Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann taking place and its impact on the wider economy, and, indeed, for confirmation around the marketing bid for Derry as part of 2013. Go raibh maith agat.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I note some of the comments that the Member has been making about marketing the UK City of Culture and the fact that I am not behind the marketing of it. May I tell the House that that is the biggest load of nonsense I have heard in a considerable time? Nobody in the Executive has been more committed than me to the UK City of Culture coming to Northern Ireland, and I find it very disheartening when Members simply do not understand what is going on in relation to the marketing campaign for the very first UK City of Culture coming here — something that we are incredibly proud of.

If she thinks I am going to shirk any responsibility in that, she is, frankly, wrong. I am going to make sure that the whole of the United Kingdom knows about the city of Londonderry and knows what it has to offer for the coming year. Yes, Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann — sorry, I did not pronounce that correctly — is coming in August, but there is a whole year of activities happening in the UK City of Culture, and it is important that we do not forget that there is a whole year of activities in the UK City of Culture, and not just one at the beginning of August.

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

Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. May I first of all welcome the Minister's remarks in relation to the civic disturbances that have taken place over the past number of weeks? She has very trenchantly and eloquently condemned those. I wish to add my voice in support of that condemnation.

However, there is a problem in relation to the decline in visitors coming from Britain to Ireland generally, and to Northern Ireland in particular. Can the Minister advise the Assembly as to what she thinks is at the very heart of that? Obviously, there is a problem in relation to the economic and financial capacity of visitors coming here, but is there something more fundamental, leaving aside the present disturbances?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Leaving aside the present disturbances, global conditions, certainly, and in particular the ongoing problems in the eurozone, have provided a particular challenge for everybody involved in the tourism industry, regardless of whether you are in Dublin, Belfast or, indeed, Edinburgh, for that matter. Our friends in the Republic of Ireland have experienced a 4·5% reduction in their Great Britain visitors. Times are tough, it has to be said; that is clear.

The main area of decline in Northern Ireland in relation to GB visitors is those visiting friends and relatives here. Our holidaymaker market has not experienced the same level of decline. We have held our own in a difficult climate, as far as true holidaymakers are concerned. Sometimes it is hard to match up the hotel occupancy figures with the other figures, and that is why I think we need a fuller picture of the tourism statistics when they come out. It is the friends and family visitors who have been reduced, and not the true holidaymakers.

To be fair, I do not know what the reason for that is; I do not know whether it is because of Skype or FaceTime, or whatever, and people not moving about as much. Or maybe it is simply down to the fact that people cannot afford to travel as often as they have in the past. Over the past five years, the outbound market from GB has declined by 18·3%. In other words, people are not moving out of Great Britain in the way in which they were in the past, and I think that we are experiencing some of that here in Northern Ireland.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her statement. In relation to increased access to Northern Ireland, what is being done to attract new airlines into the Province?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

That is a key issue, and I have indicated to Tourism Ireland that I will ask about it every month. Unless we increase the number of air routes into Northern Ireland, we will not see a change in our tourism figures, because people need direct access into Northern Ireland. We will keep working on it.

Many of you who may have been through Dublin airport will have seen our huge display inviting people to come to Northern Ireland as they fly into Dublin, but we need direct air access from other destinations. We have good air access into Great Britain and the rest of the United Kingdom, but we need more access into European destinations. I have made no secret of the fact that I very much want to see a Canadian route back into Northern Ireland in the near future because there are a lot of links between ourselves and Canada, and I want to see us capitalise on those.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The Minister referred to the UK City of Culture and to Londonderry being the first ever UK City of Culture. She will be aware of some of the difficulties that arose early on in the campaign around trying to ensure that we hold a series of events right across the community that can be attended by all sections of the community. Now that, hopefully, we are over that problem, will the Minister undertake to ensure that she will do whatever she can to promote events that will attract attention and interest right across the community and not simply among those who seem to have a difficulty in using the "UK" part of the City of Culture?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I assure the Member that I share his concerns. Indeed, I have shared some of those concerns with the chief executive of the Culture Company because I want this to be a year that everybody can take part in. I want it to be a year when anybody from anywhere in the UK can come to the city and take part in the cultural events that are taking place.

As the Member is probably aware, there is a wide range of events. The Turner Prize, which is the UK's most prestigious contemporary art award, is coming to the city. We have 'The Return of Colmcille', which is a three-day performance based on the warrior monk. The writer scripted the opening ceremony for the London Olympics, and we are delighted that he is involved. We have the Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann, and the Walled City Tattoo, which I personally am looking forward to. The renowned Top Secret Drum Corps will be the international guests at that event. The all-Ireland pipe band championship is coming to Londonderry. There is a whole host of events, not forgetting the Maiden City Festival, which will take place in the city, as it does every year.

So, there is a whole host of things happening. I am very pleased to say that I will be attending the opening ceremony of 'Sons and Daughters' on Sunday, as is my junior ministerial colleague. We are very much looking forward to that because it is the start of what I think can be a real year of opportunity.

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

I thank the Minister for her statement. The Council discussed the major tourism events planned for this year, and rightly so. In respect of the UK City of Culture, the Council talked about the provision of the perfect follow-up from Our Time Our Place. Can the Minister give me assurances about damage limitation, particularly with reference to the World Police and Fire Games?

Our communities in this region are looking to extend the hand of friendship to police officers around the world and ensure that they come and take part in the biggest sporting event ever to be held in the region. I recognise the work that local councils have done in trying to promote tourism, and rightly so, through the growth in social media, which was also highlighted at the meeting. Can the Minister give assurances that the damage limitation will be explored with every official possible to make sure that we get the best out of this event, given that the world is witnessing the damage to our own police force here?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I hear what the Member is saying. Of course, I have been proactive in trying to deal with perceptions that may have grown because of the worldwide media attraction and the disproportionate reporting of trouble that is taking place in a few areas of Northern Ireland. There are parts of Northern Ireland that this has not touched at all, and I think that it is important to say that. It is also important that, when the Member asks whether I will take my responsibility to ensure that the World Police and Fire Games 2013 is a success, everybody in the House looks to themselves and their responsibilities to portray Northern Ireland as the place that we know it to be — one with a positive outlook that is ready for the future — and not to retrench into naming play parks after convicted terrorists.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Does the Minister think that Northern Ireland's tourism promotion and interests are best served by being a subservient part of Tourism Ireland? Would we do better standing on our own feet?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I think that the Member knows quite well that the creation of Tourism Ireland came from the Belfast Agreement, which I did not support. I did not believe that it was the best way forward. We are where we are. I continue to challenge Tourism Ireland to ensure that Northern Ireland stands out in all of its campaigns, as it is actually statutorily obliged to ensure that. He can be assured that I will continue to do that.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

With your permission, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 regarding a meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in trade and business development sectoral format. The meeting was held in the offices of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in Armagh on Wednesday 28 November 2012.

The Executive were represented by me in my capacity as Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and by Carál Ní Chuilín MLA, the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure. The Irish Government were represented by Richard Bruton TD, the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. The statement has been agreed with the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure. I am making the statement on behalf of us both.

The Council noted the findings of InterTradeIreland’s cross-border study on the innovation ecosystem, which reinforces the view that supporting innovation is a critical channel by which to foster growth. Ministers welcomed InterTradeIreland’s programmes that support an open system of innovation throughout the island.

Ministers also noted the work that InterTradeIreland has undertaken to support companies, which includes the piloting of two new programmes, Challenge and Elevate. Those programmes support small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and microbusinesses to grow and develop through innovation and exporting against difficult market conditions in both jurisdictions. Two specific Challenge programme participants were highlighted, the Clada Group and Fast Engineering Ltd. Both companies have reported significant benefits from participation in the programme.

Ministers welcomed ongoing and future initiatives that are being developed by InterTradeIreland to encourage and stimulate greater co-operation to increase applications to EU framework programmes. In the period from November 2011 to July 2012, there were an additional 63 North/South submissions, of which 19 were successful and resulted in funding of €20·5 million. That represents an increase in funding of 51·2% compared with the figure for the period from the start of framework programme 7 (FP7) to November 2011.

Ministers welcomed the continued success and development of the US-Ireland Research and Development Partnership, including the latest collaborative proposal, WiPhyLoc8, in the newly added area of telecommunications.

The Council noted proposals for the Irish presidency of the EU in 2013 in the trade, research and innovation, employment regulations and competitiveness areas. It was also noted that Ireland will host a number of conferences and events to progress science, technology and research issues during its presidency. Ministers also noted that, over coming months, officials will liaise on the potential for Northern Ireland's Ministers or their representatives to attend events that are relevant to the trade and business area during the EU presidency. Participation could include involvement at relevant events that are associated with trade and competitiveness informal councils, InterTradeIreland’s 'Collaborate to Innovate' conference, and the Week of Innovative Regions in Europe (WIRE) and EURO-SME conferences.

The Chairperson and the CEO updated Ministers on InterTradeIreland’s half-year performance against its 2012 business plan targets. InterTradeIreland has made good progress in the first half of the year against its end-of-year 2012 targets, including 21 first-time innovators against a full-year target of 35 and a jobs impact of 115 against a full-year target of 150. It is also on track to deliver efficiency savings of 6%.

The Council agreed that the next trade and business development meeting should be held in early summer 2013.

I commend the statement to the Assembly.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire chomh maith as a ráiteas. I thank the Minister for her statement. In regard to the Irish presidency of the EU this year, I note that there are broad thematic areas. Has the Department identified key areas or issues of specific interest or policies to be raised during the Irish presidency of the EU? Has it done any preparatory work in that regard?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his question. My permanent secretary, along with the permanent secretary from Minister Bruton's Department, sits on a group that identifies the areas where we think we can get the most out of this period of time. It will not surprise the Member to know that innovation, and research and development are the two key areas for us moving forward. That is why I referred to the innovation week conference being hosted by the Republic of Ireland, which we will, of course, get an invitation to attend. It is important that we try to get the most out of Europe in respect of innovation.

The Member will know that FP7 has been a tremendous programme, but a lot of SMEs had difficulties accessing the funding. We want to make sure that, with Horizon 2020, we are really up to speed in order to make sure that we draw down as much money as possible and, of course, get the benefit of innovation. So, I would say that innovation is probably the key area where we want to make sure we work collaboratively with the Irish presidency and make an impact on Northern Ireland.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for her statement and for what is, indeed, a very encouraging report, which comes on the back of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment (ETI) Committee report on research and development. Is the Minister satisfied with the level of co-operation on innovation and in that area generally? Is there an opportunity to further expand the level of co-operation by perhaps encouraging suppliers to work more closely with customers on innovation?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his question. At the meeting, we had a very good presentation on the work carried out on the innovation ecosystem. It looked at different firms from across Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to see what those firms believed was important to them. That gave them the opportunity to say whether it was higher education institutes; financial services organisations; universities; innovation support agencies; customers; or suppliers. The two with which the firms were very engaged were customers and suppliers, but they were not so engaged with other bodies that could help them with innovation.

So, we have a job of work to try to say to those small firms that, although we understand why their customers and suppliers are, of course, primary in their thoughts when they look at their day-to-day work, they should look beyond their customers and suppliers to maybe their local education establishment or, indeed, local banks or other financial services organisations because they can help with innovation as well. I must say that I found the piece of work by InterTradeIreland very helpful, and we can take it forward.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement. I will be a wee bit nicer this time, and hopefully I will get an answer. The Minister signalled her intentions to work proactively with EU presidency, and I thank her for that. Will she consider trying to get roaming charges put on the agenda for discussion during the EU presidency? That is a big issue in respect of competitiveness and trade, particularly in border areas where businesses and citizens cross the border on a regular basis. There have been some indications from the EU that it wishes to abolish roaming charges.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his question. Indeed, I note that the ETI Committee has taken this up again. I am more than happy to speak to my counterpart. It is probably Pat Rabbitte whom I need to speak to about telecommunications, and I am certainly happy to raise the issue with him again.

It is an issue I raised with Everything Everywhere, when I had the opportunity to meet them recently. It is an issue I have no difficulty in raising, because, as you say, it affects people on both sides of the border who have disproportionate fees applied to them. As I said in what is now maybe an infamous statement — I sometimes can be on something in Brookeborough that I should not be on — we need to take on board the concerns of businesses right across the border corridor. I am more than happy to do that, if the Member wants to write to me.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for her statement. Will the Minister expand on the piloting of the two new programmes she mentioned, Challenge and Elevate? I did a quick Google search to see what they were about, but maybe the Minister will expand on the timings of the pilot, the targets and how Northern Ireland will specifically benefit from those. I had better stop there.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As the Member knows, a number of programmes are available to companies through InterTradeIreland. InterTradeIreland is not there to duplicate the work of Invest Northern Ireland; InterTradeIreland is to add value. Indeed, as its title suggests, it is a trade organisation and is there to help people to trade. Of the two programmes I mentioned, Challenge is to inspire companies that may be quite comfortable and do not want to think about growth to think about growth and be ambitious about growing their company and looking at all the opportunities to do that. The Elevate programme is to get small companies ready to export and to look at markets that maybe they have not thought about looking at before. You may say that that is surely an overlap with Invest Northern Ireland; it is not if they do it collaboratively. I am pleased to say that the chief executive of Invest Northern Ireland and the chief executive of InterTradeIreland, along with the chief executive of Enterprise Ireland, work together to make sure that there is no overlap between the organisations. I do not have the targets in front of me, but I am happy to write to the Member in relation to those targets.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for her statements. On the first, I thank her for her determined and robust support for the UK City of Culture. The Minister will know that the chief executive of the City of Culture is a young, confident, dynamic lady by the name of Shona McCarthy. Anything that comes from Shona McCarthy will be a success, I assure the Minister.

In relation to the second statement, has the Minister held any discussions on the treaties established with other countries by the Republic that have implications for the level of tax payable by companies there in the telecommunications and broader technology sector?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have not had any conversations in relation to that matter. If the Member has the detail, I am happy to look at that. As I said to Mr Flanagan, the telecommunications field is probably Mr Rabbitte's, but I am happy enough to raise the issue with him.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her statement. Will the Minister advise what progress is being made in relation to access to finance for businesses and industry in Northern Ireland and, indeed, the Republic of Ireland?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Access to finance is an issue that continues to be dominant, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses. In December, the Finance Minister and I met seven banks based here in Northern Ireland. We listened to what they had to say and shared with them some of our concerns. I was able to say to all the banks that they should have a closer relationship with Invest Northern Ireland, so that they can understand the market here and the sectors that we are trying to grow. The economic advisory group, chaired by Kate Barker, has been engaged in a review of access to finance for business in Northern Ireland. I look forward to receiving that report to try to establish, in particular for SMEs, what support is currently available, the level of uptake and the potential reasons for any gaps or deficiencies in the market. That report should be with me in the near future. I am sure that I will make a statement in that regard.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Like others, I welcome the statement made by the Minister. Minister, you mentioned the initiatives developed by InterTradeIreland to encourage and stimulate greater co-operation for applications around EU framework programmes. An increase of 51·2% in funding, compared with the previous period, is welcome news. Nineteen of the 63 groups were successful, which means that over half were not successful. I do not want to be negative because that additional money is to be welcomed, but is there a theme to why over half were unsuccessful? Are we learning lessons from the programmes whose applications were unsuccessful?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I think that we are learning lessons. In some cases, it is about bureaucracy, to be blunt. This is not new; I have talked about it in the House on many occasions. It is why we have been pushing Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn to make sure that the next programme does not involve as much bureaucracy. Of course, as with anything, the applications go through a process, and some will be winners, and some will be losers. It is important that we continue to push this agenda. As you know, Northern Ireland has increased its spend on research and development. Like you, I very much welcome that, but there is much, much more to be done. We need to continue to support innovation because it is the critical challenge for growth. It means that we can move the economy forward. We can translate innovation into profit and commercialise research and development into real and meaningful products. It is the very essence of what we are trying to do, and I am pleased to say that InterTradeIreland is playing its part in helping us to push that whole innovation agenda.

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

Following on from Miss Ramsey's question, I note the increase in applications to the EU framework programme. That is to be welcomed because innovation and research should be the lifeblood of business in Northern Ireland and, indeed, throughout Ireland. The Minister referred to bureaucracy as an obstacle, and that was certainly pointed out by the Committee in its report on this area. What is the Minister's analysis of the reasons for the additional success now being achieved by InterTradeIreland in relation to such applications?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We and InterTradeIreland have, it is fair to say, become very focused on innovation. In particular, InterTradeIreland has held a number of workshops, and I have attended conferences with them. It is all very well talking about the concept of innovation, but, unless we can show what it means to businesspeople, they will probably think that it is a good idea but decide not to get involved. So it is important that we show them the impact that innovation can have. InterTradeIreland has been doing that, not only through its workshops and conferences but through its programmes. As I said, some of those have been very good, and the Innova programme is one that takes a research and development proposal and tries to make it a reality for a company. So InterTradeIreland's success is down to a combination of focus, workshops and conferences and, of course, programmes to try to assist in all of that.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for her statement, and I hope that I will get an answer to my question. I note and welcome the statement's focus on the SME sector. I ask specifically about the Horizon 2020 programme that is coming on stream and the appointment of its manager. Will the Minister update us on progress on the various contact points to be aligned with the universities across the North?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Invest Northern Ireland and InterTradeIreland are very focused on Horizon 2020. The Member referred to its manager. We also have someone working for us in the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels, and she intends to be at the coalface so that she can pick up any intelligence and information on what is new and what is happening in those areas. The programme is, of course, at an early stage, but I assure the Member and the House that we intend to up our game on Horizon 2020. That is why we have put in place the resources to do so.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

With less than 10% of our manufacturing exports going to the Republic of Ireland, in contrast to 60% going to GB, is there not a much more compelling case for an inter-UK trade body rather than an InterTradeIreland body? Is that another example of misfocus in the systems and strategies that exist?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Member knows fine well that there is a UK trade organisation: it is called UK Trade & Investment (UKTI). We work very closely with it. Of course, our main source of exports will continue to be to the rest of the United Kingdom, to GB. InterTradeIreland was set up, as he well knows, under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. For the record, that is not something that I supported, but I have to deal with the hand that I was dealt. That is why I am trying to make it more focused, make it relevant to Northern Ireland and make sure that companies get the most out of it. It is a trade organisation; it is not a jobs organisation, as I think he may have mistaken it to be in some of his statements over the summer. It is a trade organisation; it is there to help companies. I hope that it continues to do so.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I was hoping that the Enterprise Minister would keep going until I had eaten this sweet, but anyhow. Thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to update the House on the Chancellor’s 2012 autumn statement and its impact on Northern Ireland.

The Chancellor’s statement included a wide range of announcements and measures. I will highlight only the key issues that impact most on Northern Ireland. They include the public expenditure implications for us of spending decisions taken by the UK Government. I would also like to say a few words about some of the tax and benefit measures announced by the Chancellor. I will conclude by highlighting some of the high-level public expenditure projections for the year 2015-16 and beyond, which will have significant implications for us all.

I will turn, first of all, to the Barnett consequentials for Northern Ireland that result from the autumn statement. One of the key announcements that was made by the Chancellor was the top-slicing of Whitehall resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) budgets to fund capital DEL allocations. The Northern Ireland Executive received a Barnett formula share of the additional capital investment allocations made to the Whitehall Departments. That amounted to £53·7 million in 2013-14 and £76·9 million in 2014-15. I very much welcome the additional capital resources that have been made available to us over the next number of years.

Members may also have noticed the reference to additional flexibility in our reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) borrowing. That reflects a specific concession that we negotiated with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It involves a flexibility to carry forward £50 million of RRI borrowing power to 2014-15. That additional flexibility provides us with the scope to manage the ongoing delays to the A5 road project. It is immensely helpful to us, as it minimises the risk of having to surrender money to Her Majesty's Treasury (HMT) at the end of this financial year. I thank the Chief Secretary for his co-operation on that matter.

The additional capital DEL allocations were funded by top-slicing Whitehall Department resource budgets. Thankfully, the Barnett impact on Northern Ireland was somewhat mitigated by the fact that the health and education sectors in England were protected. Those are areas where we have full Barnett comparability. In other words, our resource DEL was largely insulated against the negative impact of the Whitehall cuts. Indeed, there are some resource DEL Barnett additions to the Executive resulting from minor allocations for English business support.

The overall impact on the resource DEL budget was a small increase of £2·4 million in 2013-14 but a reduction of £34·3 million in 2014-15. The reduction in 2014-15 is relatively modest in the context of the entire block. Therefore, it does not require us to reopen the departmental budgets.

As usual, the Chancellor announced a raft of tax and benefit changes. I will highlight only a few of the most significant here. A major concession for Northern Ireland was the announcement that Northern Ireland will, subject to confirmation from Brussels, be exempt from the carbon price floor, which is a tax on energy producers in the UK. For Members who are not familiar with this issue, let me be clear that that tax would have had a disastrous impact on our local energy market. Our energy generators would have been unfairly priced out of competing in the all-island market and would quickly have been displaced from the market. This would not only have raised local security of supply issues but would have led to significant increases in electricity bills for our domestic and business consumers. I am, therefore, delighted that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor listened to the case that I put to them and have announced an exemption for Northern Ireland. I believe that that will safeguard jobs in our local energy sector and prevent local electricity bills increasing to accommodate the proposed new tax.

There were also a number of tax changes that should benefit businesses here. I welcome the further reduction in the rate of corporation tax to 21% from April 2014. Of course, that is of interest as we await the outcome of our negotiations with HM Treasury on devolving that tax. I am also sure that everyone — businesses and consumers — welcomes the cancellation of the 3p fuel duty uplift, which was planned for this month. That is a relief to the many businesses and people who rely on their cars as the main mode of transport. Our small and medium-sized business sector should also welcome the temporary tenfold increase in the annual investment allowance to £250,000 from this month. This should support and incentivise investment by small and medium-sized businesses.

Changes to personal tax and benefits were also announced that will have an impact on most people in Northern Ireland. I welcome the increase in the personal allowance to £9,440, which will benefit those in work and take more people out of the income tax bracket altogether. In fact, I think that about 8,000 people in Northern Ireland will now be taken out of the income tax bracket altogether.

The announcement that increases to work-related benefits would be capped at 1% has attracted a great deal of attention in the media. Indeed, it is likely to mean a real terms cut in spending power for those who rely on benefits and tax credits for their income. I fully understand why that decision causes concern. Of course there is a disproportionate impact in Northern Ireland since a relatively high proportion of our population relies on benefits and tax credits, and it will present particular financial hardships for that group of people. That said, I can understand why the Chancellor took this decision in the wider context of reducing the deficit. The alternative would have been to reduce the DEL budgets further, which would have had a negative impact on citizens through reduced levels of public services. In that context, I would also sound a note of warning in relation to the wider welfare reform agenda. Let me make it clear that it is critical that we implement these UK policy changes in Northern Ireland in a manner that maintains full parity with the UK position. Failure to do so would likely result in unnecessary cuts to our block grant, and that would undoubtedly have a major negative impact on local people through reduced levels of key public services.

In that context, I would now like to say a few words about the latest Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecasts announced in the autumn statement. Members will be aware that the Office for Budget Responsibility provided updated economic and public finance projections for the immediate period beyond 2014-15. It is clear that the OBR anticipates that UK economic growth will remain weak for a prolonged period. The implication is that UK public expenditure is now expected to remain constrained until at least 2017-18.

The Chancellor announced a single-year UK spending review to cover 2015-16. Although the broad parameters of the spending review have been announced, the outcome for Northern Ireland will ultimately depend on what spending areas the UK Government decide to prioritise. On the assumption that the UK Government will continue to protect health and education in 2015-16, our resource DEL is likely to increase by around 1·3% in cash terms compared with the latest 2014-15 position. Members should note that that is equivalent to a real terms reduction of 0·7%. On the capital side, we are likely to face a cash reduction of some 5·1% compared with our recent 2014 position.

It is important to realise that these projections are based on a comparison of the 2014-15 position, taking account of the autumn statement, which, of course, included a large capital DEL injection. In fact, compared with the 2014-15 capital position in the Executive’s published Budget document, the capital DEL in 2015 will actually increase. It is also important to highlight that these projections relate to Her Majesty's Treasury DEL controls only. Ultimately, the Executive’s spending power will also depend on local decisions in the Assembly on issues such as revenue-raising measures, borrowing, sale of assets etc.

Going beyond the 2015-16 year, it is important to highlight that the OBR forecasts further reductions in UK resource DEL, with only modest increases in UK capital DEL. Again, the impact on the Northern Ireland block grant will not be known until the UK spending review for that period is announced, although it suggests a continuation of the trend of public expenditure constraint.

This environment of relatively scarce public resources moving forward means that we must deal responsibly with all the major policy issues — existing and new policy proposals. Collectively, we must ensure that delivery of priority front line public services is protected in that environment, otherwise we will do the people of Northern Ireland a huge disservice. With that, I commend the statement to the Assembly.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome the carbon price exemption, which will maintain competitiveness in the energy market across the island and save money for consumers.

The OBR figures do not provide a greatly optimistic outlook across the board. GDP difficulties aside, what projections for potential growth for the North have the Minister or the Department? If the growth projections are below average, could they be used to underscore the argument for devolving corporation tax powers?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

First, if we look at growth in Northern Ireland, we can see that it has been sluggish; it has actually been behind that of the rest of the United Kingdom. Although we do not produce local GDP figures, the experience has been that we tend to follow the trend in the rest of the United Kingdom. Sometimes, that trend has been exacerbated here. We were slower to slide into recession, and we are slower coming out of it. There are implications, of course, for the devolution of corporation tax powers. If the public expenditure position is tight, we must finance the devolution of corporation tax out of a tighter public purse, and that increases the pain. Secondly, it adds another side. If we believe that it can have an impact on generating additional private sector activity, that gives us a further reason to argue with Treasury that we need a decision on this quickly and the decision must be one that does not have a huge detrimental impact on the money available for public services in Northern Ireland. In other words, the Treasury should not use this as an excuse for grabbing more than the tax costs.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

Thank you, Minister, for the statement to the House. What has been agreed on the carbon price floor? I appreciate that it is a very important issue for staying competitive, especially in our energy and power generation end.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

What has been agreed is that we will be exempt from the carbon tax. Basically, the way in which the carbon price floor was going to operate was that, when generators produce electricity, they burn fossil fuels, and there was going to be a tax for every ton of carbon that was produced. Since that was only going to apply to generators in Northern Ireland, that meant that the cost of generating electricity in Northern Ireland was going to be made artificially higher than it would have been in the rest of the island of Ireland. Indeed — here is the significance for people who believe that the production of carbon is important and has any impact on the environment — the irony would have been that power plants in the Republic that produce far more carbon could have become competitive over power plants in Northern Ireland that produce less carbon per kilowatt of electricity generated. It was absolute nonsense, and that is the point that was made to the Treasury.

The Treasury has agreed that we will be exempt. However, it has to have European support, but the argument that we have made to Europe is that it should not distort trade. In fact, if anything, the carbon price floor was a trade distorting mechanism, because it would have made us artificially uncompetitive with producers in the Republic. For that reason, I hope that there will not be any difficulty in getting the arguments past Brussels either.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for the report. Like all those reports, there is good news and bad news. One particular point occurred to me. The recent Budget realignment exercise resulted in the Executive being overcommitted by some £94 million in capital for 2014-15. How does the Minister envisage that being addressed?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The autumn statement helps us on that, because, of course, in 2014-15, we will have an additional £76·9 million capital allocated to us, so that helps to address that. Secondly, being able to carry the RRI borrowing — £50 million — over into the final year of the Budget also helps to address the capital pressures that there are. So there are two bits of good news in the autumn statement: the Barnett consequential and the ability to reprofile our borrowing.

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

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a ráitis. I thank the Minister for his statement. I notice that, in correspondence that the Committee received from the Minister's Department, we have been advised that ultimate spending power here will be influenced, either negatively or positively, by other issues, including revenue-generating measures, RRI borrowing, progressing revenue-financed investments and other major policy initiatives. That seems to me to be quite a precarious position to be in. Will the Minister elaborate on the issues involved and say to what extent the outcomes are liable to be more positive than negative?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

It is not a precarious position to be in. All I was highlighting was that, in Northern Ireland, we have two sources of money available for public expenditure. We have that source that is handed down to us by the Treasury and that source that we have some control over as an Assembly and an Executive.

For example, we do have the ability, if we wish, to raise some money from local taxation. We have got the regional rate. We have the ability to raise money through the charges for some of the services that Departments sell. Again, that is a political decision. We have the ability to raise money from the sale of assets that we deem to be surplus to requirements.

We also have the ability to raise money from borrowing. That borrowing is somewhat limited, however, because we have to make sure that we do not undertake the borrowing in a way that scores against the capital DEL. There is no point in us borrowing and finding that, as a result, we lose some capital money from Westminster. We get the capital money from Westminster at no interest cost and with no repayment, whereas borrowing has an interest cost and a repayment. However, if we could find ways to make some of our public services more arm's-length, we could use that for borrowing. A classic case in point was the housing associations. We have encouraged them to borrow more on the market and rely less on central government grant. The more they borrow from the market, the more of that central government grant that we are not giving out we have available to spend on other things. We are bringing private money in without having an impact on the overall amount of money that we get from Westminster.

So, there is a number of things. It is not precarious; it simply means that some tough political decisions have to be taken at times. That is where this Assembly has, sometimes, been fairly poor, because we have always played on the cautious side instead of maybe looking at opportunities that may be available, albeit opportunities that may then bring some political criticism from various pressure groups or interest groups.

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

I, too, thank the Minister for his statement. I note that he talks about the wider welfare reform agenda and how important it is that we maintain full parity with the UK position. Although I understand that comment, will he confirm whether he is still in negotiation, along with the Minister for Social Development, with the Treasury about any NI-specific circumstances?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

There have been negotiations. The Minister for Social Development is probably better placed to answer some of these things than I am, but we have already had a number of concessions from the Treasury on direct payments of housing benefit to tenants, for example. The Minister for Social Development is still in negotiations about housing benefit and the occupancy issue because there is a particular problem in Northern Ireland in that regard. So, we have succeeded in getting changes in some things, and there are other things that have not been completed yet. That work is ongoing, mostly through the Minister for Social Development and his Department. Where DFP can add some weight to that, and where it is important to do so, we will.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for the statement. He mentions local decisions taken on issues such as revenue raising. Will he commit to bringing forward alternative financing during this budgetary period, given that the investment strategy does not set out that that will happen before 2016?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

With all these things it is important, first, that we identify how we can undertake to raise additional money without hurting the amount of money that we get from Westminster. Although I have had lots of discussions with the construction industry, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and a whole range of people who are interested in finding ways to bring greater private sector involvement to the provision of services in Northern Ireland, thereby enabling us to expand those services or to release the burden of paying for them so that we can use the money elsewhere, no workable ideas have come forward to date.

The second thing is that even if they did — I mentioned the example of making some bodies that are currently within Departments more arm's-length and independent and, therefore, not subject to the same Treasury controls — they would require legislation, which would involve consultation on that legislation and then the work of getting it through and making tough political decisions. There is no quick, easy fix there either.

One of the things that we could do better is to look at how some services are provided and see whether that could be done in a more cost effective way by the private sector or the social economy sector rather than by the statutory sector, freeing up money in doing so. I can think of lots of initiatives, even in my own area, in which good work can be done for a small amount of money, especially in social services and so on by the social economy sector, hence saving Departments money and releasing money that could be used for other front line services.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement and his answers. One piece of good news in the statement that was not mentioned is that my constituency is to benefit from the urban broadband fund. On the bad news front, the Minister noted that the capping of increases to work-related benefits will have a disproportionate impact here. Will he advise whether that impact has been calculated and provide figures?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

It has not been calculated. Work by a variety of organisations is ongoing to try to ascertain the exact impact of welfare benefit changes. That is also being done at central government level. One of the worrying things about changes in welfare is that, although high-level principles and objectives have been highlighted by the Government, they are still unable to provide information about the likely impact on particular groups.

That is one reason why the Assembly welfare reform group has been looking at what we can do with some of the resources that are currently used to support vulnerable people. Should we be looking at pulling those resources together and finding an alternative way to support vulnerable groups once they have been identified? Again, that may mean making hard political choices about whether money is taken from some of the more marginally vulnerable groups. That is where real political problems will arise, and political leadership will be required.

I am glad that the Member acknowledged that the north-west has once again benefited from my lobbying and that of the ETI Minister. It is good that Northern Ireland has gained a disproportionate benefit from the infrastructure fund for broadband. We know how important that has been in attracting many businesses that use IT and need good IT communications.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I note that the Minister is to benefit on the capital side from a windfall of about £130 million over the next two financial years, effective from the autumn statement. On the resource side, how and when does the Minister expect to get help to fund the G8 extravaganza? How much is it expected to cost, and how much of the bill will the national Government meet?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

That is a good question. We do not yet know the full cost of policing the G8 event. I want to make three points. First, the G8 event will, I believe, be good for Northern Ireland. Given the sort of kicking that our image has had over the past couple of weeks, any event such as this, which highlights the willingness of other nations to come to Northern Ireland to hold major events, can add to stability in Northern Ireland and will have an important part to play in our image and profile.

Secondly, there will be significant security costs. There have been negotiations with the Treasury and the Home Office about how those costs will be financed. Although we have not yet been able to produce full costs, and it will be some time before that can be done, we have nevertheless been talking about the principles of support.

I am satisfied from the negotiations so far that the huge bulk of the security costs — I am not going to claim, because I do not think that it would be expected — will be borne by the Treasury and the Home Office. I am sure that the Member will appreciate that, since we do not yet know the actual figures, it would be impossible for me to tell him exactly how much in money terms or what the percentage will be. However, we expect the bulk of the costs to be carried by central government.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Will the Minister outline to the Assembly why we should be reconsidering the use of revenue-financed investment over the next few years?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I will tell you why we are reconsidering it. The first thing is that, going into the next Budget period, all the indications are that any easing is likely to be on the capital side rather than on the revenue side. That being the case, most of the pressure will be on the revenue budget. Revenue-financed investment requires us to take money out of revenue expenditure. It was reckoned that, for every £10 million that you took out, you could get £100 million of investment. However, if capital resources are going to increase or at least not be as badly hit as revenue resources, it is right that we ask ourselves whether, if all the pressure will be on the revenue side, we want to create further pressure. Mr Bradley asked the question earlier. Those are some of the political considerations that we have to take into account. It may well be that, when we come to look at the next Budget, the Assembly will say, "Look, there are so many important capital infrastructure projects that we need to do that we have to make that sacrifice". All that I am saying is that what we are being told by the OBR indicates that we perhaps ought to rethink whether we want to cut our revenue budgets any further when capital moneys may become more readily available, relatively speaking.

Executive Committee Business

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

I beg to introduce the Planning BilI [NIA 17/11-15], which is a Bill to amend the law relating to planning; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The next item of business is a motion to approve a statutory rule. I remind Members that section 33 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 applies to the regulations as they will impose a tax. I inform the House that the Minister of Finance and Personnel has given his recommendation to the regulations, as required in section 63. Members should also note that the vote will require cross-community support.

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

I beg to move

That the draft Single Use Carrier Bags Charge Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 be approved.

Before I detail some of the impacts of the single-use carrier bags charge regulations, I want to outline the broad shape of this initiative and how it weaves itself into a wider strategy. It is my view that Northern Ireland should be a world leader in carbon reduction. That is actually a quote from the Scottish Government's Programme for Government, which is well worth reading. It says that their ambition is to be a world leader in carbon reduction. Given the size of this jurisdiction and our population and the opportunity for government and our population to deal with issues of carbon reduction, not least because of the green and clean quality and character of this land, we should have the ambition to be a world leader in carbon reduction.

That ambition can have many expressions. Renewables can be Ireland's biggest opportunity going forward. The climate Bill, around which I intend to consult in the next number of weeks, can be an expression of that ambition. The waste strategy, which is out for consultation and which a senior member of a green NGO recently told me moves us from being behind other jurisdictions to being ahead of other jurisdictions, is an expression of being a world leader in carbon reduction. The opportunities on the island of Ireland for recylates, not least bulky goods and plastics, are another expression of that ambition. In my view, the regulations before the House can be another expression of how we, in this part of the world, can legislate for and implement a change of culture and practice that sees the reduction of carrier bag use as we pursue being a leader in carbon reduction.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

The regulations are to be made under sections 77 and 90 of and schedule 6 to the Climate Change Act 2008. The Act requires that the regulations be laid in draft and approved by a resolution of the Assembly. I am pleased to be able to bring forward the regulations, which will introduce a 5p levy on new, single-use carrier bags. The target date for the commencement of charging is 8 April 2013, which is less than 90 days away. The key objective of a carrier bag levy is to reduce or eliminate — that should be our aspiration — the unnecessary use of bags, regardless of the material from which they are made. In that regard, we are very different from the Republic of Ireland. While the levy has been in place there for a number of years and has worked very effectively, it captures only plastic carrier bags and not other carrier bags, which is the purpose of these regulations.

Carrier bags make up only a small proportion of the waste stream, but the environmental impact of unnecessary production, transport and disposal is still substantial. That said, the annual use of carrier bags in Northern Ireland is 250 million. That is the scale of use, the scale of the threat to the environment and the scale of the ambition of the regulations. The introduction of charging will encourage a move away from the throwaway society and improve waste management by focusing on reduced waste regeneration and on reuse. Also, carrier bags are iconic. The introduction of charging will help to communicate the wider "Reduce and reuse" waste message.

Whilst I acknowledge the success of voluntary efforts in reducing the number of bags in circulation, recent figures have shown a notable increase in the number of single-use carrier bags handed out by major supermarkets. So, while a lot of retailers will be captured by the law and these regulations, the major supermarkets make the major contribution to carrier bag use and therefore they will make the major contribution when it comes to reduction on the one hand and the levy on the other. That demonstrates the need for charging if Northern Ireland is to achieve the progress seen in Wales, where the 5p levy came in in October 2011 and there has since been a reduction in carrier bag consumption.

I anticipate that the introduction of the levy will reduce carrier bag consumption by at least 80%. The cost to consumers is therefore expected to be very low. In addition, consumers can minimise any impact on their budgets by adjusting their behaviour and carrying their own bags with them when they go shopping. The 80% figure is not arbitrary. If you look at the experience of Ireland, Wales, Washington DC in America and other places, you see that the evidence indicates a reduction of between 80% and 85% in the use of plastic bags or single-use carrier bags when a levy system is put in place.

I reassure the House that there is evidence that those sorts of initiatives can have a disproportionate impact on those on a low income. My Department has, through the two consultations, looked closely at that issue because, generally and not least in the hard circumstances that we have at the moment, we do not wish to put an undue burden on any section of our society, including those on lower incomes. The evidence is that the consequence of the carrier bag levy will be £2 per person per year and £5 per family per year. Given the scale of those figures and given that the consultation demonstrated that very large numbers of those on a low income agreed or strongly agreed with the purpose of the regulations, I believe that the impact on those categories of people will not be disproportionate.

Members will also be aware that I propose to adopt a phased approach to the implementation of carrier bag charging. Phase 1, which we are talking about today, introduces a charge on single-use carrier bags, while phase 2 will extend charging to low-cost, reusable carrier bags. Phase 2 will require new primary legislation. That has been endorsed, in principle, by the Executive, and I hope to bring the Bill to the Assembly later this year. The reason why we need phase 2 legislation is the risk that, if we introduce a levy for single-use carrier bags, people might move to multi-use, low-priced carrier bags and thereby defeat the ambition of the legislation passed by the Assembly in the last mandate. Today's business, therefore, relates exclusively to phase 1, which is about a charge on single-use carrier bags.

Public consultation on the draft regulations took place between 16 April and 9 July, and 37 substantive responses were received, many of which were from groups responding on behalf of retailers as well as those representing consumers. In the main, consultees were supportive of the proposals. Having considered the responses to the consultation, however, I decided to amend the provision for exemptions. The draft regulations already provided for exclusions from the levy. However, I took the decision to provide for additional exemption. The draft regulations now include an exemption for bags used to contain hot food or hot drinks intended for consumption away from premises on which they are sold. That is different from, for example, the practice in Wales over the last 14 or 15 months, but I was persuaded by the representations, and, for the simplicity of the new regulation — I believe in simple regulation — I believe that, in those circumstances, bags are needed to prevent spillages and to protect consumers from the heat of the product.

I also considered whether to exempt certain biodegradable bags. On reflection, I decided not to provide for such an exemption at this stage. My policy objective is to avoid the unnecessary use of single-use carrier bags regardless of the materials from which they are made. I accept — it is self-evident — that some bags may be less damaging to the environment than others. However, even biodegradable bags have an impact on the environment through their production, transport and disposal. An exemption for those bags has the potential to reduce the environmental benefits of the levy, but an argument has been made. It is not an overwhelming, clear-cut case, and, consequently, I will continue to look at the matter on the far side of April 2013 to see whether any further adjustments are seen to be justified.

I believe that the exemptions provisions included in the draft regulations are sufficient to limit the use of free carrier bags to cases where they are really needed on the grounds of patient confidentiality, such as for prescriptions; hygiene and food safety, such as for meat from butchers; and the protection of goods and consumers. However, as I said, I fully intend to keep charging arrangements under review as implementation progresses. I will, therefore, ensure that the primary legislation to be brought forward in phase 2 makes suitable provision for the future review of the legislative framework, including the provision for exemptions from the levy. I stress to the House that that proposal can be relied on. A gateway review was conducted on how the Department has managed the proposal. That is where people from beyond the Department and beyond government look at how government is managing a policy development and implementation. That gateway review, which is a publicly available document, says that this has been a very good example of how the Department has managed a policy initiative through law, through regulation and through implementation, and I acknowledge that all the officials in the Department, as well as the Committee, have managed that as a good, classic case study of how devolution can make a difference and work effectively on both the administrative and political sides.

I can confirm that the levy will apply to all sellers in Northern Ireland who provide new single-use carrier bags, including those who use such bags to deliver goods ordered by mail order or online. Given the figures that came out recently about online shopping over Christmas, it is quite right that the ambition of the regulations captures online retail as well. However, I am committed to keeping the administrative burden on retailers as light as possible to minimise what sellers need to do to demonstrate compliance. Retailers who are likely to be liable to pay the levy have received correspondence providing details of the new arrangements, and two letters were sent to retailers before Christmas with two more to go as part of the communication strategy in the run-up to 8 April. As I said, contact will continue between now and that date. More generally, a communications campaign is well under way to ensure that everyone is fully aware of the new charging proposals. I do not think that we are coming from a zero base in that regard; I think there is a public and retail awareness about a levy scheme for plastic bags because of what has happened in the Republic and in respect of carrier bags generally because of what has happened in Wales. Therefore, I do not think that there is a lack of awareness out there, but, clearly, we have to escalate the awareness in the run-up to 8 April.

The draft regulations represent the legislation needed to implement phase 1 of the carrier bag charging arrangements. They make appropriate provision for the implementation of charging in Northern Ireland. I ask the Assembly to approve the draft regulations.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

The Committee considered initial proposals for these regulations at its meeting on 29 March 2012, when the Department presented its public consultation paper. The Committee was eager to engage with the public on this issue, and it launched a blog on its Assembly web page seeking views on the proposals for a charge on single-use carrier bags. The Committee was very grateful for the comments it received, the vast majority of which were in support of the charge. However, it was very clear from the blog responses that any charge on bags should be done for the right environmental reasons and must not be a tax to fill a hole in the Department's budget.

The Committee also tabled a motion to initiate a wider discussion on the issue. A lively and highly informed debate took place on 29 May 2012, when the Assembly carried a motion recognising that the intention of a charge is to reduce bag consumption and calling for the list of exemptions to include environmentally friendly reusable bags. One of the key features of the legislation is the exemptions. The Committee received presentations from numerous interested stakeholders, including the retail and hospitality sectors, on which bags should be exempt from the charge. The Committee broadly supported the Department's decision to follow the Welsh approach on exemptions but had some misgivings about the additional exemption here for bags being used for hot food. The Committee also questioned the extension of the charge to lower-cost biodegradable plastic bags. Members were concerned that this would send out a mixed message and were eager for the Department to explore ways to exclude these from the charge. The Department maintained that such a scenario was unlikely to achieve a significant reduction in bag consumption and could be detrimental to the environment as well as impacting on revenue.

This brings me to the estimated proceeds of the levy. Analysis of bag levies in other jurisdictions shows that a charge of just a few pence will result in a reduction of bag consumption of around 80%. The Minister mentioned that earlier. Although this reduction is to be welcomed, it raises doubts about the Department's forecast income in the coming years, and, with fewer chargeable bags in production and consumer behaviour moving towards reusable alternatives, there is the distinct possibility that the Department could be left with a black hole in its budget.

The Committee also recognised the importance of how the levy is communicated to the public. For many, this will be a major change to their shopping habits, and it is vital that the correct message is delivered. I know that the Department has an advertising campaign drawn up, and I look forward to seeing it implemented in the coming weeks.

Finally, I express the Committee's gratitude to the Department for its thorough briefings throughout the process and for its prompt responses to any queries that were raised. The Committee considered the draft statutory rule at its meeting on 29 November 2012, and members were content for me to recommend to the Assembly that it be affirmed.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá as Gaeilge ar an ábhar seo. I would like to say a few words on this subject.

The Minister has highlighted that this is a levy, not a tax, and that the principle of all this is to reduce usage and the number of plastic bags. This is another step forward in addressing environmental damage and litter. Will the Minister outline a couple of things for me? Will the Minister indicate how much revenue will be generated and how much of that will go to administration? If there is extra revenue, will he indicate how much that will be and how much of it will go to other environmental programmes? That is the key to all of this. In relation to communication, how does the Minister propose to work with retailers and consumers on the roll-out of the statutory rule? With that in mind, I welcome the rule.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for bringing this forward at this time. Obviously, there is cross-party support for it, and the Committee has been supportive of the process, as the Chair has outlined.

My questions are along the lines of Mr Boylan's. I note that in the debate at the end of May, which the Chair of the Committee referred to, there was an indication from the Minister that 265 million plastic bags were issued a year. I do not know whether that was single-use bags or plastic, but the Minister said today that the figure is 250 million, so it is there or thereabouts. The Minister indicated that we are looking for a reduction of 80%, which would bring that number down to about 50 million. There was also an indication in the earlier debate of bringing it down to 40 million. One way or the other, the calculations relating to Mr Boylan's points are reasonably simple: if you get 5p back on each bag and there are 40 million bags, it brings in £2 million in revenue; if there are 50 million bags, it brings in £2·5 million. That is far short of the £4 million or £5 million that is in the budget lines for it. I know that, this year, we have already missed that target.

Mr Boylan asked how much the administration of the levy will cost, and figures for that differ from £500,000 to about £875,000 a year. So, again, that takes out something between £500,000 and £1 million. Although I fully support and appreciate the Minister's proposal that it is about better environmental practice and having a better environment, we cannot escape the issue that there are monetary values in the budget lines for it. I want to establish from the Minister how he will square that budget circle.

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

I do not have much to add except to welcome the regulations. It would be useful if the Minister could outline the methodology for enforcing the regulations. In particular, has the Department learned any lessons from how that has been handled in Wales or in the South of Ireland?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I call Barry McElduff.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Mr Speaker, I had not indicated.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Your name is on the speaking list.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Apologies for that.

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

I also thank the Minister for his statement and his expertise at linking the levy with the environment. Does he agree that investment in the environment is far too serious an issue to be dependent on the collection of money from bags?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I confess that, in many regards, I struggle to follow the rhyme and reason of the regulations. A point was made, quite properly, about the financial balance sheet and the regulations. As Mr Elliott said, it is expected that the number of bags will be reduced to 50 million a year at 5p a bag, giving revenue of £2·5 million. I have yet to hear from the Minister how much the unit that has been set up in Londonderry to administer the scheme will cost the public purse, how much it will cost retailers to administer this wonderful scheme and what it will cost those who provide jobs in this country in bag production in losses. When the Minister answers, can we have some sort of credible balance sheet about where we are going with the idea of introducing charges on bags? Will it take account of all those issues? It seems that we are once more in the business of imposing a burden on retailers with little net gain for the environment.

I said that I had difficulty understanding the rhyme and reason of the regulations, and I find that particularly so when two facts are taken into account. The popular conception peddled for public consumption is that the regulations are about dealing with plastic bags. The regulations will, in fact, extend to biodegradable bags, so those bags, which do no harm to the environment, will be subject to taxation. At the same time, under the Minister's regulations, someone who picks up a carry-out from a local Chinese or from McDonald's will be exempt from taxation on those bags, which are most likely to be thrown out the window of a passing car with its empty containers littering our country roads. However, a pensioner who walks to a corner shop to buy a few things will have to pay 5p for a disposable bag to carry them back home. That is why I struggle to understand the rhyme and reason of many of the regulations.

I am also concerned that we are at the beginning of the process and the Minister is promising or threatening that there will be a 10p levy on bags next year that will apply to all reusable bags. We have this notion that we will put a charge on plastic bags because we will cause people to think about their misuse of plastic bags, but, lo and behold, we will then put the same charge on reusable bags. I just do not know what we really are in the business of with a carrier bag charge. Financially, it does not seem to add up, and, environmentally, it does not seem to add up. When the Minister replies to the debate, I will be interested to hear whether he can at least answer some of the financial questions that are crying out to be answered.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I ask the House to take its ease for a few seconds as we move into Question Time.

The debate stood suspended.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

1. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the work of the Barroso task force. (AQO 3107/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

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

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

The Executive published their 2012-13 European priorities in May, maintaining the thematic approach that was established in previous years. Departments have set themselves 124 targets to drive forward our European priorities. I am pleased to say that at the halfway point this year, thematic groups have reported back to us that 95% of our targets are on track to be met and achieved and that 30 targets, almost one quarter of the total, have been fully achieved. We continue to drive that work forward through the Barroso task force working group. We are looking to enhance Northern Ireland's competitiveness and to promote new skills and jobs. We also want to encourage innovation and technological advances to address the climate change issues, reduce harmful emissions and promote energy efficiency. Finally, we want to promote social cohesion, including conflict resolution.

Last December, we were in Brussels to update the European Commission task force members on the key economic and social challenges that we face. Minister Foster also met Commissioner Almunia to discuss regional aid matters, and Minister O'Neill attended the Agriculture and Fisheries Council. So, European engagement remains a high priority for the Executive, and the First Minister and deputy First Minister will continue that work when they visit Brussels later this month to participate in an EU peace conference at the invitation of Commissioner Hahn.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. I thank the junior Minister for his answer up to now. Some years ago, with a fair amount of fanfare, the EU launched a microfinance initiative. At that time, I think, there was something like €500 million right across the EU. It seemed to be a great idea at the time because it was there specifically for small and medium-sized enterprises. I think that you could get a loan of up to something like €20,000.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Member to come to his question.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Can the junior Minister update us on that? My memory is that when the financial institutions were brought in, and you needed the financial institutions, they were less than helpful. Has that changed in the meantime?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I share the concerns that we promote our small and medium-sized enterprises in Northern Ireland. That work is largely taken forward by my colleague Minister Foster in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI). The impression that I have received through my experience to date, and the active co-operation that we have received in Europe, indicates that there is a very positive focus from the European Commission on trying to support local businesses here in Northern Ireland.

It is worth considering, for a moment, the achievements we have made. In the 2012-13 implementation plan, there were 124 individual targets for delivery during the year. At the six-month stage, 118 of those, which is effectively 95%, are on track to be achieved; 24% have been fully achieved; and none is considered to be at risk of failure. The four thematic subgroups of the Barroso task force are continuing their engagement, and when we spoke to the desk officers in Brussels in December 2012, we heard that they were getting excellent co-operation, and the feedback from the Northern Ireland Executive office in Brussels was very positive.

The recent progress report from the working group is that it is assisting the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to present to the Commission the renewable energy project — the ISLES (Irish-Scottish links on energy study) — to achieve project of common interest (PCI) status. That will strengthen the case for future funding. It also presented the regional position on greenhouse gas emissions at the recent environmental council and is supporting DETI and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in promoting the region as an exemplar of best practice and research excellence in the connected health arena.

I could go on, but time does not allow me to do that. There are a number of marks of progress there.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Will the junior Minister provide an update on progress on the Executive target to increase drawdown of European corrective funding by 20% in 2015?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Yes. In the coming months, as part of year two, which is 2012-13, we will re-examine the baseline and report on progress that officials are making. The positive news is that the Executive set the target of a 20% increase in the drawdown of EU competitive funds over the four years from April 2011 to March 2015. That equates to a drawdown of £53 million over the four-year period, which is an average of £13·2 million per year. I am pleased to report that in year one, 2011-12, the total reported drawdown has been £15·8 million, and that in the current year, year two, indications are that we will secure around £13·5 million of additional drawdown. Departments have now agreed targets for the remaining two years, which, if fully met, will exceed the £53 million target.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

The junior Minister will be aware of the Whitehall upstream engagement process, where devolved Administrations are consulted by Westminster on matters of priority in Europe. Will the Minister outline the objectives that have been highlighted by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) through this process?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

The objectives that we have been working on are set out in our European priorities that we have taken forward but we continue to work on a quarterly basis. We meet in Whitehall, and the meeting is chaired by the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, or Minister David Lidington. On the last occasion, both were in attendance. We continue to work fully with our UK counterparts to deliver against our programme. What we also do when we are in Brussels — we did it again in December — is meet the head of the United Kingdom Permanent Representation to the EU. We set out the way ahead and what our European priorities are. As you know, those are being taken forward through the thematic groups in the Barroso task force, and continuing a cross-departmental approach is the way forward.

The groups are now looking to 2013-14 to set their priorities, reflecting the Commission's legislative programme of 2013 and our Programme for Government priorities. We are also looking to recognise the opportunity that this year will provide to influence and shape European Union decisions on policies such as the common agricultural policy, regional aid, structural funds and Horizon 2020, all of which will have a major impact on Northern Ireland over the next seven years.

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

Given that Ireland has just taken over the presidency of the EU for the next six months, can the Minister outline what interdepartmental discussions are taking place about trying to make sure that we maximise our potential in the CAP reform discussions?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I know that there is a question to that effect, question 10, but we last updated Members on our involvement with the Irish Government during their presidency of the Council of the European Union in November 2012. Since then, the Irish Government have finalised their detailed programme and priorities for their presidency, with particular emphasis on stability, jobs and growth. We met the Irish Permanent Representation to show the needs that we have in Northern Ireland in respect of our Programme for Government and our European priorities. The focus of the presidency will be to drive recovery in Europe and to secure agreement, including with the European Parliament, on a comprehensive programme of policy and legislation. That will include advancing and concluding negotiations on the 67 or so regulations, including those, as the Member has asked, covering common agricultural policy reform and the cohesion policy, which would follow the agreement on the multi-annual financial framework for 2014 to 2020.

During our visit to Brussels in December, we took the opportunity to raise our interest in many of the issues with the head of the Irish Permanent Representation. The First Minister and deputy First Minister will have the opportunity to receive an update on the progress of the presidency from the ambassador when they meet him in Brussels later this month. Of course, final decisions rest with the Irish Government, whose job it is to broker the agreement between the Council and the European Parliament. For that reason, the First Minister and deputy First Minister will also meet the President of the Parliament, Martin Schulz, with a view to promote our interests during the presidency. We are particularly pleased to be involved in the first informal Council presidency meeting in Dublin on 20 and 21 January 2013. We understand that invitations to attend presidency events have been and will be extended to other Ministers as the presidency progresses. That will give Executive colleagues a similar opportunity to share perspectives and promote our interests internationally.

We present a good case with our European priorities. We have a challenging Programme for Government. We have got to focus on that. We will use every opportunity in Europe to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.

Social Investment Fund: Educational Underachievement

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

2. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister how the social investment fund could be used to target educational underachievement among Protestant working-class boys. (AQO 3108/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

A key strategic objective of the social investment fund is to build pathways to employment by addressing educational underachievement, tackling barriers to employment and reducing skills deficits. The Executive recognised the need to address the systemic issues that are linked to deprivation. We took action to introduce the new social investment fund as an important lever to tackle multigenerational poverty and to improve future outcomes for children and young people.

There is a specific issue of educational underachievement among Protestant working-class boys. We want urgent action to improve outcomes. We expect steering groups to target interventions where evidence shows that there is a need to address the issue. Groups are working on plans. They are due to be with the Department by the end of January. In addition, we have identified educational underachievement as a priority issue to be addressed by our new cross-departmental Delivering Social Change agenda. Educational underachievement impacts negatively across a wide range of social policies. We are determined to make tangible improvements. Indeed, the signature programme for numeracy and literacy that we announced recently under the Delivering Social Change framework signals our commitment on that issue. I am pleased to say that plans are at an advanced stage. The Department of Education will move shortly to begin the recruitment of teachers for the scheme.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the First Minister for his answer. He will be aware that at the first public meeting of the Unionist Forum on the Lower Newtownards Road on Friday 11 January 2013, educational underachievement by Protestant working-class boys was one of the key issues. I wonder whether the First Minister agrees with that community that that is one of the definitions of the failure of Sinn Féin's tenure of the Education Ministry over the past 10 years?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The issue of educational under-attainment in working-class Protestant communities has, probably, got a lead-in period that goes much beyond even the life of the Assembly itself. It needs to be tackled. It should be tackled. The first point in doing so is, obviously, the Department of Education. I am sure that the Minister of Education would want to tell the Assembly of the various steps that his Department has taken to tackle that issue.

When we looked at our agenda of Delivering Social Change, the deputy First Minister and I were of the view that we should make a contribution. I do not think that any one Department needs to take sole ownership of the issue. We made our contribution by bringing forward proposals that looked at employing another 230 teachers for one-to-one tutoring of children who are falling behind. With a joined-up approach required, we also put funding into improving parenting, which is an important aspect. I know from my own contacts in the social investment fund steering group for East Belfast that it is one of the issues that the steering group is taking seriously. I think, therefore, that one will see local proposals come forward that will also assist in that.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

Last week, it was reported that the literacy and numeracy project had been delayed by the Department of Education. Can the First Minister assure the House that that important project will be taken forward as soon as possible?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

There was a report, which I think was in the 'Irish News', that indicated that the project was now three months behind and had not been published. In actual fact, when the deputy First Minister and I announced the scheme, we indicated that it would be early next year before the Department could start to move forward with that. We simply make the money available, which then goes to the Department of Education to prepare a scheme.

Obviously, we are disappointed that we did not get the numeracy and literacy scheme from the Department earlier, but we have made moves to address any lack of progress and are pleased to say that we now have a detailed scheme from the Department for consideration.

I think it is also worth pointing out that the new Delivering Social Change agenda is cross-cutting and cross-departmental. I acknowledge that this new way of working will challenge Departments that have traditionally been comfortable doing what they have always done or sitting within the silo of their own Department, and I am not just talking about the Department of Education. The attitude of Departments acting on their own needs to be challenged, and we need to increase cross-cutting and cross-departmental working on these matters. Departments need to acknowledge that what they do impacts not only on their own departmental field but right across government and society. We are determined to break down that silo mentality and ensure meaningful collaboration on these significant policy areas.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

The Minister singled out educational underachievement amongst Protestant working-class boys. Will he also acknowledge that educational underachievement is not located solely in any one section of our community? Additionally, does he recognise that the best way of addressing underachievement is through mixed-ability learning? In light of that, will he now sign up to opposing the segregation of our children at 11 years old?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am very keen that we should end segregation in education. I wonder whether the Member will join us in calling for shared education in Northern Ireland at every level, not just from 11 years of age. I acknowledge that although it is clear statistically that there is a greater prevalence of educational underachievement among Protestant working-class boys, this is not an exclusively Protestant working-class issue. Wherever it is manifest, the social investment fund steering groups are clearly able to target it and take steps that might assist.

It must be a cause for concern for any of us in the House that significant numbers of people who go through our education system do not, at the end of many years, have the numeracy and literacy skills necessary to be able to get decent jobs in Northern Ireland. That is a concern across the community, no matter from which section of the community you come.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

First Minister, can we be assured that the use of social investment fund (SIF) money will be subject to the appropriate scrutiny, that we may see what the outcomes will be, and that the social investment fund will not be seen or perceived as a reward for violence?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The requirement will be exactly the same as it is for other Executive funding, in that it will be necessary for it to go through the same challenging business case and other processes. We have a period — I think that it is between March and May — for the various plans to go through that process. So it will be the same rigorous process that is used for any other government spend.

Social Investment Fund

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

3. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the social investment fund. (AQO 3109/11-15)

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

5. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what measures are being put in place to ensure prompt payment to subcontractors and suppliers by the main contractor working on public and private sector contracts. (AQO 3126/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will answer questions 3 and 5 together. At the outset, let me say that it has always been important to us that the social investment fund is delivered in partnership with communities. SIF is a practical example of key stakeholder groups working together, side by side, for the benefit of communities as a whole.

Since October, our officials have been working alongside steering groups to ensure communities across all nine social investment zones are engaged in the process to identify objective needs and potential projects to tackle those needs. Following that engagement, steering groups are now entering the final stage of completing their draft area plans and prioritising projects, with local input to ensure maximum impact on the ground.

As you may be aware, we recently confirmed that the first phase of the social investment fund will operate until March 2016. That provides a longer time for the delivery of projects in targeted communities and will encourage maximum impact. In order to ensure that area plans are reflective of that and to respond to requests from a number of partnerships and key stakeholders, we have extended the area planning stage by one month. We now expect steering groups to submit final plans to the Department by the end of February, although I expect to get draft plans by the end of January. Upon receipt, the plans will be subject to a quality assurance review, with economic appraisals being completed before final decisions are made on the projects that are to be funded. We expect projects to begin in communities soon afterwards.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

I thank the First Minister for his answer. Does the First Minister agree that the social investment fund has huge potential to deliver for areas that have traditionally fallen outside funding streams such as neighbourhood renewal? Is he able to outline a timescale for the release of funding under the community plan?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I do recognise that the fund will have significant importance not only for areas that have traditionally been outside the neighbourhood renewal areas but for neighbourhood renewal areas. Considering that large swathes of the country did not enjoy the benefit of neighbourhood renewal, it will be particularly so for those areas.

This is a new way of doing things. That is some of the reason why it was necessary for us to take so long to ensure that our processes were right. This is a partnership with the community. Instead of Stormont telling people down in the local areas what their area needs, this is the opportunity for local communities to examine what the needs and requirements are in their communities and to put forward proposals for funding to meet the desire and need of that area. I think that it is particularly useful in building up local democracy. I see it, and I know that the deputy First Minister is in the same position, that we will monitor very closely how it proceeds, to see what further we can do. My concern is not so much that it be welcomed on the ground; my concern is that the expectations on the ground are so great, the funds may not be able to meet those expectations.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I think that, in answering Mr Easton's supplementary question, the First Minister has, in fact, covered much of what I was going to ask. It is about the local democracy, and the fact that the social investment fund panel will be the lead, with officials and consultants there to provide assistance. The First Minister has confirmed that that is the case.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

That is the case. It is worth pointing out that the local input goes beyond the steering groups. The steering groups are required, although they would do it even if they were not, to speak to groups throughout the zone that they have responsibility for. They are being aided by consultants in doing that. So although, at present, the panels consist of political and community representatives, they do have the benefit of getting input from the wider community before they bring forward any proposals. It might be worth saying that, beyond the community and political representatives, we do have to add to those groups representatives from business and statutory organisations. It was, however, felt to be important that, before we started doing that, we would see the shape of what local communities wanted, which would give us a better idea of which statutory agencies should be involved in a particular zone. As far as the business community is concerned, it would let us know what kind of business interests would be best suited to the needs of that zone.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I welcome the comments from the First Minister in answer to the previous question on the social investment fund, and that he is keen to see more collaboration across Departments and an end to silo mentality. Does he agree that that can happen if there is clear leadership from the top, but that if we want to turn best practice into common practice, that collaboration needs a statutory underpinning?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

There is nothing that stops Departments working together. One of the difficulties with the kind of political system we have is that there will be greater collaborative working between Departments with same-party Ministers. That is perhaps what we need to break down, so that people involved in the various themes can come together. We do that with a number of the groups that have been set up out of the Executive. We have a number of Executive subgroups that bring Ministers from different Departments together to deal with issues. It is not a new thing, and not unique to Northern Ireland, that Departments — I do not talk about Ministers only in this respect; I talk also about officials — get very defensive of their empire and very reluctant to allow others to collaborate with them. So it is a culture that needs to be broken down. From everything that I have seen of this Executive, they are up to doing that.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I revert to the potential of the social investment fund to help to address educational underachievement. How does that sit with the Executive's policy, as administered by the Education Minister, of closing educational establishments, such as Orangefield High School, in affected areas and the proposition that Ballee Community High School in Ballymena, which serves the Harryville district, another area of high underachievement, be closed?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Decisions have to be taken. I have been in opposition for most of my political life, and it is always easy to criticise Ministers for closing a school. However, you have to look at the facts and figures behind that. If, for instance, the number of pupils in a school gets down to about 100, and the children are being urged to go to other schools in the area, it becomes difficult economically and feasibly for that school to continue. The Member mentioned Orangefield, and I am in a better position to talk about that school than some of those in his constituency. When a meeting of Orangefield parents took place, the overwhelming majority were very glad to have the offer to send their children to Ashfield instead. So we need to look at the particulars because what may be right in one set of circumstances may be not be the answer in another. We need to get the best value that we can for the money that is available to us, whether in the Education Department or for any other Department's work. Closing an establishment is unpopular, and it is a difficult decision for anybody, whether we are talking about hospitals, other health facilities, education or anything else because there is an attachment to it. If the education of children is what is important, you have to look at how best they can be educated and whether they will be best educated if the resources are spread out in such a way that they do not get full value from the school in which they are currently taught.

Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

4. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the cost to date of the historical institutional abuse inquiry. (AQO 3110/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

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

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

As of 31 December 2012, the amount spent on the inquiry into historical institutional abuse stood at approximately £153,000. OFMDFM's commitment to meeting the cost of the inquiry is enshrined in the Inquiry into Historical Institutional Abuse Bill, which passed its Final Stage in the Assembly on 11 December and awaits Royal Assent. The inquiry has been carefully planned and costed to ensure that it meets the needs of victims and survivors and fulfils its terms of reference. Appropriate governance and accountability arrangements are being put in place to ensure robust budgetary control while protecting the independence of the inquiry.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fheagra sin. I thank the Minister for answering my question. I am sure that the Minister, like the rest of us, has heard stories of lawyers filling in forms to enable victims and survivors to attend the acknowledgment forum and putting themselves down to accompany them. In light of the fact that lawyers are not being paid for doing so, does the Minister have any information on how many have attended the forum with their clients?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

First and foremost, this issue was raised with us by many of the victims whom we spoke to across Northern Ireland. It was the victims who said to us that they did not want an over-lawyered, expensive inquiry. They were interested in getting to the truth of what occurred; in having a proper independent and very judicious examination of what occurred; in the publication of a proper report; and in the apology and different elements of the inquiry that I outlined in earlier debates. The position of lawyers accompanying victims and survivors to the acknowledgement forum or the inquiry is clear: victims and survivors are welcome to bring a companion with them when speaking to the forum or the statutory inquiry. Although there is no bar on a lawyer attending in the capacity of a companion, the role of a companion is to assist and support a victim or survivor in recounting his or her experiences.

It is not the role of a companion to represent them in a legal capacity or otherwise. A lawyer who attends as a companion will not be paid for their attendance by OFMDFM or the inquiry.

We should note that one of the most eminent former judges Sir Anthony Hart is taking forward the inquiry. He has considerable experience in the legal field. Referrals for child abuse, the criminal process and the civil proceedings all go ahead outside of the inquiry, as per the normal joint protocol rules between social services and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. There is legal aid for legal representation in criminal cases.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

1. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what help he can offer to businesses in Belfast and other areas which have suffered losses due to the recent flag protests. (AQO 3122/11-15)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am glad that the SDLP has now shown some concern about the impact of an issue that it is partly responsible for. Unfortunately, traders across Northern Ireland are bearing the brunt of a very bad political decision that did not need to be made in the first place.

We have to look at what is possible. It is really a matter for the Executive to consider what help, if any, can be given to those who have been impacted by some of the protests. There is scope, of course, in the Financial Assistance Act (Northern Ireland) 2009 to devise some kind of hardship scheme to assist businesses, especially those dependent on the night-time economy and the hospitality trade which have been perhaps the most badly affected in some areas. However, it would have to be thought through. The Assembly cannot simply afford to use public expenditure to provide blanket financial support to the business sector. Nor, indeed, would it be appropriate to do so.

My Department has little or no authority to deal with the issue. I have looked at a number of things. The hardship rate relief scheme is in existence, but it requires firm evidence of consequential trading loss over a sustained period before we can lend help to those who are in financial distress. In the past, it was used during the time of foot-and-mouth disease, the volcanic ash cloud and other periods of long-term sporadic civil unrest. There could be rateable revaluations, but that requires an appeal; it would not bring immediate respite to the businesses.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I take it that the Minister agrees with me that the flag protests have created a huge burden on the business owners, especially those in his city of Belfast. I am glad to hear that he is looking at options. Will he do that with a real sense of urgency to try to lift the burden off some of those very hard-pressed retailers, restaurateurs and bar owners? If this thing goes on any longer, a lot of them will go out of business.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

It is a great pity that the consequences of the decision on the flag issue were not thought through more by the parties that sit on the other side of the House. The decision did not have to be made. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

There was no demand for that decision to be made. The decision came at the worst possible time. Perhaps a bit of political insight at that stage, rather than simply pandering — the SDLP, of course, is very good at following the lead of Sinn Féin — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Then, of course, it was aided and abetted in that by the Alliance Party. Perhaps that is when thought should have been given to this issue.

Of course, with all the constraints that I have given in the answer to date, we will look at the possible options. In fact, I intend to meet some people from the hospitality industry, along with Arlene Foster. I will spell out to them what options might be available and the difficulties with all those options.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

There definitely was an impact on the traders — nobody is going to dispute that — but it might be possible to identify how we can practically help if we also factor in the pressure from the general economic downturn and the increase in online shopping and trading. Those were also factors.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member has made a very important point, and this is the problem with any relief scheme. First, we have to establish what other factors, aside from the public disorder, might have created the problem. Of course, the effect has been patchy. I notice from some of the reports that, even in Belfast city centre, some traders said that they had had a much better Christmas than in previous years, even in the middle of a recession. It is about identifying those who were genuinely hurt and hit by the disorder and disruption and ascertaining what support, if any, can be given to them. The one thing that we cannot do is simply throw bucket-loads of public money at a problem that, for some traders, might not have existed at all. We also cannot give an unfair advantage to some who might fall within the scope of the scheme while others who were equally badly hit do not fall within its scope because it is badly designed.

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

Does the Minister agree that the DUP's refusal to include a clear policy on flags and emblems as part of the cohesion, sharing and integration (CSI) strategy has contributed to the serious situation that businesses have found themselves in?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

First, if Alliance Party Members want to make themselves relevant, it might be useful if they ask supplementary questions that are relevant to the original question and, secondly, where there are opportunities to discuss the CSI strategy, that they would actually attend the meetings. It is a bit difficult to take lectures on the CSI strategy from someone who is totally, to use a word that seems to be bandied around the political arena quite frequently at the moment, "disengaged" from that strategy.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Will the Minister consider a rate reduction for those businesses that can demonstrate they suffered a downturn because of the flag protest?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

First, a rate reduction would have to be applied on the basis of a consistent policy. We have done that, for example, for small businesses. If we are going to have a policy like that there have to be clear criteria.

Look at the language the Member used — those who have been adversely affected by the protests. How do we ascertain how much a business has been adversely affected? As Mr McLaughlin pointed out, that adverse impact could be part of the general downturn in trade or changing trade patterns. It could also be part of the deterioration of a particular section of the city, like an arterial route or something like that. Before we start to apply things like a rate reduction, all those factors need to be considered. To draw up a policy of that nature — it would have to be a consistent policy — would require consultation, etc, and would not provide immediate relief for any of those businesses. Of course, we would also have to take certain statutory steps to get the kind of solution the Member has suggested.

Peace III Projects

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

2. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to outline the cross-community split on projects being funded under Peace III to date. (AQO 3123/11-15)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

EU funding is allocated on the basis of the quality of the funding applications received and not really on their source. Applications have to be assessed against agreed selection criteria that reflect the programme’s aims and objectives. No shares can be set aside for particular communities. The one thing that I would say, however, is that we do monitor where the money goes, not because we have an obligation to make sure that it is shared out on a certain basis but because we really want to know whether any particular parts of the community are not benefitting.

In May 2011, its most recent survey, the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency undertook a community uptake analysis for the Peace III programme. At that time, it was estimated that 54% of the money allocated benefited the Catholic community and 46% the Protestant community.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his response. It is certainly not an issue that affects any particular section of the community; but can any more be done to encourage the development of projects from the complete community?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am glad that the Member has asked the question in the way that he has. This money is called a peace fund and is not designed to sectionalise pockets of the population but to bring the population together. In light of what has happened in the past weeks and in pockets of places over the past year, some people would question its effectiveness in delivering on some of those peace objectives. The Special EU Programmes Body seeks to encourage widespread applications from a range of groups. It advises them on how to succeed in those applications and how to build up capacity where it is lacking, and I believe that that work has to continue.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Does the Minister agree that it is more important that, regardless of their origins, projects that are selected for funding meet the criteria set, have merit, are sustainable and contribute to community cohesion and development?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I do, and, in fact, that is the point that I made. Unfortunately, I have to say to the Member that it is very often his party that raises the issue of the community balance of employment, of where investment projects go and of where government money goes. It is pleasant to hear that there may be some conversion on the SDLP's part because it has, in the past, been the party that has most demanded breakdowns of all kinds of government activity between the Catholic community and the unionist community. As far as I am concerned, when it comes to the distribution of government money, and when it comes to employment and a whole range of things, decisions should be based on merit and not community affiliation.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Will the Minister outline how much Peace III money has gone to victims' groups? In doing so, will he highlight and elaborate somewhat on the necessity to ensure that any future funding from here on in is seen to benefit genuine victims of past terrorism?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

To date, £12·9 million has been awarded to projects that deal with victim or survivors' groups. In addition, £3·9 million has been awarded to projects that include victims or survivors as a specific, named target group. Obviously, we are coming to the end of the current Peace III money. There may be a Peace IV; we do not know. There will be significant consultation on that. I would certainly like to see a greater balance of the money that is available under Peace III going to those who have been victims of the terrorism that we suffered over the 40 years. I believe that those people need support, given the trauma and the difficulties that they have gone through as a result of actions inflicted on them that they did not invite.

Fiscal Balance Report

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

3. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to outline how the Treasury's total expenditure on services framework is employed to calculate the total expenditure associated within the 'Net Fiscal Balance Report 2009-10 and 2010-11' published by his Department in November 2012. (AQO 3124/11-15)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

As outlined in annex c of the report, total expenditure on services comprises two components. The first is identifiable expenditure and the second is non-identifiable expenditure. As its very name indicates, identifiable expenditure is money that is clearly attributable to Northern Ireland. It is published by the Treasury in its 'Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses'. The non-identifiable expenditure is that which is undertaken for the United Kingdom as a whole and then apportioned to Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales. That would be, for example, money that is spent on defence, money that is spent on interest on public sector debt and money that is spent on foreign aid, etc. Of course, there are estimates done on how much is attributable to Northern Ireland expenditure.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for the reply. Can I take it that money has been allocated to the Assembly but is then drawn back and used by Westminster? Does that mean, or does the Minister agree, that aspects of expenditure in the total expenditure serve as a framework, which the Executive have very little say over? The Departments actually have little or no say. It is allocated to the Assembly in the block grant, but is then drawn back again, with little or no input from the Assembly.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

No, that is not the case. The money that is allocated in the block grant is that identifiable expenditure and, on top of that, the annually managed expenditure — that is, money that comes for social security, etc. That money comes to Northern Ireland, it is given to the Executive, the Executive vote on how it is spent, and it is not taken back by Westminster in any way. However, there is other UK-wide expenditure that is never allocated to Northern Ireland. It is simply UK-wide expenditure. To give a full picture of the resources that have been spent by the Government in relation to people in various parts of the United Kingdom, part of that expenditure is then attributed to Northern Ireland. Sometimes it is done on a population basis, sometimes it is done on the gross value added basis, or maybe on the basis of consumption, but the Government simply make an estimate. Northern Ireland benefits from the fact that we have an army and we have defence expenditure. We, as citizens of Northern Ireland, benefit from that. We have benefited in the past from borrowing that has been used for capital expenditure. However, there is interest to be paid on that borrowing, and there are costs for the army. When the Government look at the total amount of money, they attribute part of that to Northern Ireland, and that is the non-identifiable expenditure. It is an estimate but, nevertheless, provided that you use consistent methods across regions and across time, it should give an accurate picture.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

I believe that the net fiscal balance report only provides an overview of Northern Ireland's public sector finances. Can the Minister usefully use the corporation tax estimates that are in the report?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

We can, in so far as the estimates are, first of all, done on the basis of the normal method of compiling those statistics. Secondly, in our negotiations with the Treasury, there is the notional figure of what is raised, because not all of it is clearly identifiable in Northern Ireland. For example, companies that are based in England but earn profit in Northern Ireland may declare that profit in England, etc, so there is some drilling down work to be done there.

Of course, when it comes to the total impact of devolving corporation tax, we have thrown in other factors, such as the secondary impacts if, for example, as a result of reducing corporation tax in Northern Ireland, other taxes were gathered. We believe that that is part of the benefit of devolving corporation tax. Therefore, there is the basic figure of how much is collected, then there is the adding in or subtracting for some of the things that may not be immediately available in those estimates, and then the consideration of what other secondary impacts there might be. When we put all that together, that is where the haggling with Westminster occurs about what the total requirement should be for us in paying for the devolution of corporation tax.

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

Does the Minister have a breakdown of the non-identifiable expenditure for Northern Ireland?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I do. I could read it out to the Member, but I will give him some of the information. The biggest non-identifiable expenditure is on debt interest, which is £1·276 billion. The second biggest is defence, which amounts to £1·12 billion. The list goes on and includes international services, public and common services, EU transactions, public order and safety, social protection and recreation, culture and religion. There is a whole range of them there. Non-identifiable expenditure amounts in total to £3·217 billion.

Pensions Legislation

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

4. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what impact the Westminster pensions Bill will have on the Executive’s decision to promote their own pensions Bill. (AQO 3125/11-15)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Westminster Public Service Pensions Bill is designed to give effect to the recommendations made by the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission, which were accepted by the coalition Government as the basis for reform of public service pension schemes. The commission recommended that its reforms should be applied on a United Kingdom-wide basis.

Public service pension policy is devolved. In March 2012, the Executive agreed to adopt the pension reform policy in Northern Ireland, the key elements of which replace final salary pension provision with career average pensions and link retirement age to the state pension age. So, the Executive have already agreed to the implementation of the principles of the Bill. However, because it is a devolved issue, and because we decided not to attach ourselves to the legislation that is going through Westminster, we have to take the legislation through the Assembly.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I am concerned about the implications for financial sanctions if we do not hit the time frame that the Minister is looking for. Can he shed any light on where we are as far as the time frame is concerned and on possible financial sanctions if we do not meet it?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member is right to be concerned about the financial sanctions. The Treasury Minister has already made it quite clear that he will not give us an exemption. If they are going to go through the pain of pension reform in the rest of the United Kingdom, there is no intention to give Northern Ireland a bye-ball on this issue.

The cost has already been estimated. If we made no change and carried the current liabilities that we have for pensions in Northern Ireland while they had been reformed in the rest of the United Kingdom, the cost would be about £270 million a year. The Treasury has made it quite clear that on a rolling basis, month-by-month or even day-by-day, for every day's delay, there will be an imposition on the block grant for the difference in the pension liability. So, it is important, as the Member has said, that we abide by the timetable and introduce the legislation on time.

As a result of some of the work that I have done, I hope that, despite the fact that the Assembly did not take the easy way of attaching itself to Westminster legislation, we still can get Royal Assent in time for this to be done. Nevertheless, I must issue a warning. That means that there cannot be any play-acting with this. The Committee for Finance and Personnel, which has given its commitment, cannot delay the deliberations on this matter. There can be no delay in the Assembly or in the Executive in getting the Bill out for consultation. When it comes to the regulations, it is important that the four or five different Ministers who are involved do not cause any delays once the primary legislation has been established.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Does the Minister agree that whatever approach is applied in this region to pensions, we must recognise that the incidence of poverty, especially fuel poverty, must be addressed for our pensioner population?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

That is a totally separate issue from the level of pensions and the pensions legislation. Of course, there needs to be a means by which we address the whole issue of fuel poverty. The Department for Social Development has a role to play, as does the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. I was pleased to announce Northern Ireland's exemption from the carbon price floor here today when we discussed the autumn statement. I raise the issue only because the Member was not here when I made my statement. However, I suppose the only person in the Assembly who will not be pleased about the announcement of Northern Ireland being exempt from the carbon price floor will be the Member for the Green Party, who sits here in the corner. As a result of that exemption, the potential for a 15% rise in electricity prices in Northern Ireland has been avoided.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for his answers. How will those in a final salary pension scheme be compensated in the move to a career average scheme?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

There are transitional protections for people who are in final salary pension schemes. People have jumped up and down about pension reform, but thought has been given to how people who have made contributions and expect certain final salary pensions will be protected. One provision concerns members who are within 10 years of the existing normal pension age on 1 April 2012. Those groups will remain in the existing schemes, and those within a further three or four years of normal pension age will have the option to delay transition to the new scheme. So there is protection for people who have made substantial contributions over their working lives and expect a final salary pension arrangement. As I said, that protection will be there for those within 14 years of retiring at normal pension age.

Prompt Payment

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

5. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what measures are being put in place to ensure prompt payment to subcontractors and suppliers by the main contractor working on public and private sector contracts. (AQO 3126/11-15)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

For public sector contracts, CPD guidance includes a number of measures aimed at ensuring prompt payment to subcontractors. Those include payments by main contractors to be made within 30 days; monthly reporting by main contractors on payment progress where the subcontract value exceeds 1% of the total contract or £10,000; payment issues to be a standing agenda item for project meetings; random checking by project managers to ensure that subcontractors have been paid the money due them; and, ultimately, exclusion of contractors from tender opportunities for up to a year if they do not comply with contract conditions relating to prompt payment.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his answer. What steps are being taken to prevent acceptance of subeconomic or abnormally low tenders?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The 2006 public procurement regulations allow contracting authorities to set aside a tender if they believe it is abnormally low and could not be delivered at the price at which it is offered. CPD is developing guidance for COPEs for contracts below the EU thresholds and will employ a formula to identify and exclude such bids. There is no point in our appointing a contractor knowing full well that the price is so risky that the contractor will go bust during the contract, and we will be left trying to get someone to finish the contract, or, because of the low contract price, the contractor tries to squeeze subcontractors to make sure that he can work within the contract price. For those reasons, subeconomic contracts need to be, and will be, looked at very closely.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his work in this regard. Will he outline the measures that he is proposing? What methodology will be used to monitor those to make sure that they are delivering? As chair of the all-party group on construction, I suggest that they are very welcome. Many representative bodies have advocated the very measures that the Minister proposes.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

First, I will talk about the existing measures. I will also talk about one measure that I did not mention because I thought that there may have been a supplementary question on it. With regard to existing measures, it is up to project managers. A project manager plays an important part in looking at the bills, examining whether they have been paid and, if not, asking the main contractor why not. If the main contractor is breaching the terms of a contract, a project manager ensures that those breaches are reported so that sanctions can be imposed. Ultimately, the sanction will be that the main contractor can be excluded from public sector projects.

The measure that the Member is asking about is one that he has advocated — I thank him for some of the suggestions that he has made on this — namely the introduction of project bank accounts, which will start for CPD-awarded contracts worth over £1 million to the construction industry from January onwards. We are working with the banks to devise the mechanism that is required. Staff are being trained in the application of the project bank accounts. It is my hope that, as a result, we will find a way of stopping main contractors using subcontractors as a bank. The idea is that, once the money has been paid into a project bank account, subcontractors with a legitimate claim should be paid within five days. I think that a number of subcontractors who currently find themselves in great difficulty will welcome that.

As far as the private sector is concerned, we changed the Contracts Act to make arbitration much easier and much less costly. For those involved in the private sector who do not have the kind of protection that I mentioned, we have hopefully eased the path for them to ensure that they get paid on time too.

Question for Urgent Oral Answer

Northern Ireland Housing Executive: Written Ministerial Statement

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Mr Mark Durkan has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister for Social Development. I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should do so by continually rising in their place, as they do normally at Question Time. I know that I continually remind Members of the convention and procedure, but I believe that I will have to continue to do so until they learn the lesson. The Member who tabled the question will be called automatically to ask a supplementary. I will then call other Members who are on their feet to ask a supplementary, taking account of the same issues as I do at Question Time.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

asked the Minister for Social Development why he chose to make a written statement on an issue as important as the outcome of the review of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive rather than making an oral statement in the House.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The statement was about advising Members of the start of a process. Having given careful consideration to the type of statement to use, I elected on this occasion to use the written ministerial statement route to advise Members of the start of a process of discussion and deliberation.

I have set the high-level vision for the new structures to underpin social housing delivery as we move forward. However, these proposals need to be explored further to provide detail on those structures and to reach agreement and consensus. I believe that it was critical to move a debate about future housing structures forward so that we can move on from considering what we need to achieve to work together on designing the structures that will reach the goal of a sustainable housing model that delivers for tenants and the taxpayer and can support both the improvement and delivery of new social housing.

A detailed programme of work will now begin that will involve engagement with key stakeholders. Principal among those are the Housing Executive — I plan to meet the Housing Executive board on Wednesday — the Committee for Social Development, which I have offered to meet on Thursday, and, of course, tenants, staff and their representatives. As I said, the engagement process will commence with a meeting with the board on Wednesday and with the arrangements to meet the Committee for Social Development on Thursday, and it will proceed from there.

It has always been my intention to come to the Chamber to give oral statements once the process is advanced and there is something more substantive to discuss. Because of the nature of the initial statement, I deemed the written statement to be the most appropriate approach on this occasion.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for his answer. The SDLP is not the only party to have expressed concern at the manner in which the original statement was made. Indeed, you, Mr Speaker, advised that on a matter of such public importance as the future of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive an oral statement to the House might have been more appropriate.

I welcome the Minister's intention to present proposals to the Social Development Committee and have further engagement on his proposals, but in the absence of him taking questions to date speculation has been rife among tenants, other taxpayers and not least among staff about what those proposals will mean for them.