Northern Ireland Assembly, 14 May 2013

347 contributions from 63 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Before we begin today's business, I wish to advise the House that I have been notified by Mr Newton that he is not in a position to introduce the topic for the Adjournment debate today.

Ministerial Statements

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am very pleased to be able to make this statement today on Together: Building a United Community, our agreed agenda for bringing about reconciliation and sharing across Northern Ireland.

Since the deputy First Minister and I made our announcement last week, we have received a great deal of positive feedback from the general public. People from all backgrounds recognise that we are determined to make every effort to bring our community together and to promote a new, more tolerant and inclusive society.

Over the past number of decades, much has been achieved on the ground. There are those who say that nothing has been done to build a shared future, but nothing could be further from the truth. No other generation of politicians has done more to move Northern Ireland from violence and division to peace and stability. We have taken risks for peace, and those actions have paid off. The institutions are stable, and violent crime and crime motivated by hate and prejudice are significantly decreased.

The annual publication of the good relations indicators demonstrates that progress has been made across the vast majority of the areas defined. Things are improving, and we are moving forward together. Since devolution, approximately £500 million has been spent on supporting valuable good relations work across Northern Ireland. The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM), Peace funding, International Fund for Ireland, Atlantic Philanthropies and Big Lottery are just some of the funders. We have come a long way, but we recognise that there is much work yet to do. We are determined to address issues of division and build a truly shared future.

It would be idealistic to think that any initiative, no matter how significant, can heal all of society’s divisions and problems, but I believe that it is a significant step forward that demonstrates our confidence that the people of Northern Ireland are determined to live, work and socialise together as a single united community. Our announcement marks the beginning of a new agenda for change.

Together: Building a United Community is about actions rather than just plans and strategy. Actions will not only improve community relations but deliver real improvements and outcomes. Perhaps that is best demonstrated by shared education, which is a subject on which I have spoken before. Shared education is the right thing to do in terms of healing divisions. It is fundamentally wrong that we segregate our young people on the basis of religion at such a young age. I believe that sharing in education, development and work will provide all of us with improved opportunities to become a society that is open to ideas and innovation, open to all points of view and all perspectives. It will break down divisions and build a united community bond.

That is why I believe that our announcement of 10 shared education campuses to be commenced within five years is one of the most significant practical proposals to change society here. Building on the experiences of developing the Lisanelly site in Omagh will create a tremendous impetus to improve the sharing of education. This opportunity will bring together a range of schools and a mix of ethos on a single site. There will be enhanced mixing, not only in shared classrooms but also in sport, play and extra-curricular activities. Our aim is that that will create a lifelong bond and help tackle division and segregation.

However, shared education is only one aspect of children and young people’s development. Across Europe, youth unemployment is at an unprecedented level. Some commentators have described it as a lost generation. In Northern Ireland, we estimate that approximately 46,000 young people are not in education, training or employment. We believe that it is essential that those young people do not become a lost generation. Very often, it is that age group that feels disengaged from society. This poses significant challenges, not least in relation to community relations. That is why we have developed a proposal for a larger volunteer youth programme, providing support and opportunities that those young people do not currently have.

The creation of 10,000 one-year placements in our new United Youth programme will offer young people aged between 16 and 24 who are not in education, employment or training (NEET) structured employment, work experience, volunteering and leisure opportunities, along with a dedicated programme designed to foster good relations and a shared future. There will be three elements to the programme: first, employment and work experience; secondly, an opportunity to spend part of the week in a community or charity setting through volunteering; and, thirdly, a structured programme for leisure, sport and learning, all within an environment designed to foster friendships across traditional community divides.

Through United Youth, we see the opportunity to provide real hope for a generation of young people who are in danger of losing their way and losing faith in the future. Building a United Community recognises that social exclusion, dissatisfaction and social division go hand in hand. This programme is a real opportunity to tackle all those most harmful problems at source.

In relation to building bonds and friendships for school-age children, it is our intention to create 100 shared summer schools, or one- or two-week summer camps, to be held across Northern Ireland by 2015 for post-primary young people. Experiences will include a range of sport and leisure activities designed to stimulate and challenge the young people involved while bringing them out of their comfort zones. Through those experiences, we will provide children and young people with greater opportunities to meet in new environments, sharing new experiences and challenges, and forming bonds through shared friendships rather than shared enmity. The bonds forged during the summer will be supported throughout the year by a range of activities.

This will be complemented by a significant cross-community sports programme to bring people of all ages together on a consistent basis. The London Olympics demonstrated how sport can unite, motivate and inspire communities. We must use that experience in Northern Ireland and allow sport to be the source of real change. That is why we will focus on urban and rural interface areas.

All these initiatives are vital. They will bring people of all ages together and ensure that they have a common stake in our society. However, we can and must go further. It is not enough to learn and play together. If we are to achieve a transformation in our minds, neighbourhoods and society it will happen only through meaningful, positive contact day to day, week to week and year to year. Again, this cannot be addressed in isolation from problems of multigenerational poverty. The four urban village regeneration projects will allow us to deal with the full range of problems that determine and are associated with multigenerational poverty. These include educational attainment, access to employment, access to services and a safe, healthy environment.

Through this programme, we will put the heart back into communities that have, through poverty and social division, been fractured and torn. We will demonstrate the real, tangible benefits of working together across boundaries.

The aim is that each urban village will be designated a development zone, and a local board will be created. The board will be tasked with co-ordinating and overseeing the planning and design of the urban village. It will be given the powers to enable large-scale urban village development in a co-ordinated and needs-based way. Each urban village will have a community focus, and each design will be based on creating community space and improving the area and its aesthetics. Each will provide a new community focus.

This will deliver real evidence of commitment and of the peace dividend working in our most deprived communities. This holistic approach will also enable us to seek to reduce and remove all interface barriers over a 10-year period. I know that some people are sceptical about that, believing that we may be moving too fast, but I make no apologies for ambition in trying to ensure that no one has to live in the shadow of those walls or division. I do not doubt that there is real fear, but we cannot allow fear to rule us. We need to confront the fear as a community, ensure community safety and, by working with the consent and support of the local community, open up and take down interface barriers.

The ultimate aim is to live together so that neighbourhoods are not defined by religion, political opinion, ethnicity or class. To begin the process of achieving that vision, we asked the Minister for Social Development to bring forward proposals for 10 new shared neighbourhood developments. Through these proposals, it is my firm belief that we will show that the whole community can live together. In fact, I believe that not only can we live together but, in the final analysis, people want to live together.

We intend to publish the Together: Building a United Community strategy, which will set out our thinking and the principles on which we will operate. It cannot and does not claim to be the answer to every question. There are still, of course, issues on which the deputy First Minister and I differ, but there is one area on which there is no difference at all: our determination to resolve all our problems, even the most challenging ones associated with flags and emblems, parades and protests, and learning from and dealing with the past.

That is why we are in the process of establishing an all-party group to deal with identified outstanding issues. Although we can make no promise that every question will be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, and nobody will be expected to compromise on their fundamental principles and beliefs, I have no doubt that, with some new thinking and generosity of spirit, we will be able to go a long way to finding solutions.

I realise that this is a lot to communicate in a single statement. As each component is designed and developed, we will make further statements providing greater detail and information. My aim today is to give the House a flavour of the magnitude of the plans and programmes, and the genuine progress that they represent. This is a clear statement of commitment to building a truly shared and reconciled community. Only through building a united community can we ensure a better, brighter future for everyone.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

As Chairperson of the Committee, I can record only that the Committee is yet to form a view, because we are yet to discuss or be briefed on the strategy. Perhaps I can encourage the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to encourage the junior Ministers to accept an invitation to brief the Committee next week — an invitation that will be sent out shortly.

The initiative is clearly a serious cross-cutting strategy, which Mr Bell told the BBC last Thursday is to cost the taxpayer around half a billion pounds between now and 2015. I have the quotation here if Members are interested. I ask the First Minister whether he agrees with his colleague John O'Dowd that the lack of pre-briefing of Executive Ministers was a matter to be dismissed with, "So what?"

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

First, we will, of course, be pleased to hear what the Committee's views are on the paper. I know that the junior Ministers will be happy to answer questions, unlike the Member's ministerial colleague, who went along to the Committee for Regional Development and refused to answer questions. The junior Ministers will, of course, answer questions. Indeed, the deputy First Minister and I would be happy if we can arrange a date to go along and speak to the Committee about the issue, about which we feel passionately.

I note that the Member is not alone in raising publicly the issue of the statement being made to the press before various Ministers and, indeed, party leaders were informed. Let me say three things to him about that. First, we have departmental responsibility for these matters. It is our ministerial responsibility. His Minister and others from all parties in the Chamber make their statements without coming to the deputy First Minister and me to let us see the statements that they are about to make.

Secondly, I have to say that, sadly, there is an inevitability — we say this from experience — that anything that we say in confidence in Executive meetings and other places ends up being leaked to the press. Indeed, on the issue of a shared future —

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

By you.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Yes, I know that the SDLP is among those who are most responsible. I recall how the BBC was able to wave a draft copy of the shared future document.

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

What about the cohesion, sharing and integration (CSI) document? You gave it to them.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member should not debate across the Chamber. Order. The First Minister must be heard. Order.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It seems that some people are particularly stung by that comment. One might wonder why, indeed.

Thirdly, it is worth pointing out that there have been years of consultation. We have already had agreement from various party leaders on the setting-up of an all-party group. In truth, I have to say that I am fed up to the back teeth with the foot-dragging; the whingeing; the stalling; sometimes, one might even say the attempt to posture politically on critical issues such as this; the begrudging; the bellyaching that one hears; and the conditioning before statements can go out from colleagues. I am depressed listening to the tribe of Jeremiahs that infests the political process and whose first thought is to attack any genuine attempt that is made to bring forward positive proposals. Of course, those people have nothing to contribute themselves.

I have to say that I also get glum at the whited sepulchres who pontificate about a shared society and talk to us about harmony and consensus politics, yet, unless they are taking the lead themselves and get everything that they want, they strain and stretch every sinew to obstruct what is going on. Quite honestly, I think that we have reached the stage at which if we were to wait for the last person to get on board, frankly the train would never the leave the station. Of course, we want everybody to come with us. We encourage people to come with us on this journey. God bless them if they do. However, if they do not, they should step aside, because we are coming through. We are doing what the community wants. The community wants Northern Ireland to move forward.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the First Minister for bringing the statement to the House this morning. This is, indeed, good news for Northern Ireland at this time. Will the First Minister expand on how the project announced last week will be taken forward?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The deputy First Minister and I announced the concept and principles that we wanted to take forward. The next stage is already under way in that officials have formed a working group, but not just within OFMDFM. As there are cross-cutting issues, it will involve officials from other Departments too. As we move forward, they will not only design and develop the schemes that we announced but will cost them, as best one can. The working group will then report to the deputy First Minister and me. As I indicated in the statement, we will give Assembly colleagues further detail and information on the schemes as they are developed and designed.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCéad-Aire as a ráiteas. I welcome the fact that the First Minister named educational attainment, because I believe that it is very significant and important. Does he agree that equality should be the cornerstone of any programme, whether it is for sport, education, health, housing, children or young people?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Member to come to her question.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

My question is this: does the First Minister agree that equality should be the cornerstone?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I strongly agree with the principle of equality of opportunity. That, of course, should be at the heart of all we do as an Executive and as an Assembly. Of course, good relations are at the very heart of this. We want to see our communities unite and move forward as one. I recognise all the difficulties out there in dealing with this and the long legacy of the past, but I believe that we have a generation that is keen to see change and, indeed, that is urging politicians to make that change.

I believe that there is support in the community. I would have been totally depressed if all I had relied on were the depressing comments, mostly about process, from some colleagues in the House. When I went out to the community, I actually got a very different reception. People are geared up to see this move forward, and they want us to make progress in this area. It has to be said that some people are still sceptical, so it is up to all of us to confound the sceptics among us. If we had faltered because we listened to the people who said that it was difficult or that it might not or could not be done, we would not be here in the first place. We have achieved so much, and I believe that we have the potential to achieve so much more.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the First Minister for his statement. He said that this is a lot to communicate in one statement and that there will be more detailed statements coming to the House. Will the detailed proposals on all of this go out for public consultation?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I think that this comes as a result of some years of public consultation. We have had consultation over the whole, what is referred to as, CSI strategy. It is the strategy that was agreed even before some people walked away that is the foundation of the proposals that we have brought forward.

I think that we need to say that this is the first tranche of proposals. We do not believe that this gets us to the goal that we want to achieve. It starts and takes us on the route, and it gathers momentum along the way. There will be further proposals in good time. Of course, we will consult with the Committee, and of course we are happy to hear what others have to say about it. As soon as there is development of the schemes that we announced, we will be happy to share that with colleagues in the House and listen to what they and anybody else have to say.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his statement this morning. It is very difficult to know at this stage whether we should welcome the initiative, as very little detail has been announced so far, but we certainly look forward to hearing more detail and to working together.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Member to ask a question.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

How does the proposed working group differ from the Alliance Party's proposal that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister rubbished when we put it to them three months ago?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

First, it is not at all difficult to welcome the proposals. It might be difficult for some people to believe that we can achieve the goals that we have set, but no one should find difficulty in welcoming proposals that try to bring our community together. Loose wording has been used in that question, just as very loose wording was used to say that the deputy First Minister and I rubbished the Alliance proposals.

I have a copy of the report of the debate when the issue was raised in the Assembly, and I noted the comments made by the leader of the Alliance Party. What I find difficult, indeed, what may explain an indication of scepticism on the part of the deputy First Minister and I, is that the Alliance Party proposed to set up an all-party group to look at shared future issues after the Alliance Party walked away from an all-party group dealing with shared future issues. I cannot say "hypocrisy" in this House, but I am sure the House will know what I would like to say about somebody asking for something that they themselves turned down previously.

I am glad that the Alliance Party now recognises that there is value in having an all-party group. I hope that it will take a full and constructive part in the work of that all-party group. The issues that we have to deal with are not easy ones, and they will require us to compromise, which is something that the Alliance Party talks about a lot but has been very unwilling to do in the past.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the First Minister for his statement. What will shared summer schools achieve?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It must be said that some of the things that we have referred to in our statement have been attempted before and are part of the annual calendar, although on a much smaller scale. What we are doing is a step change because of the quantum of what we are planning, but it may surprise some people to know that, even now, there are people who live in Northern Ireland who barely ever see anyone from a different religious or political background. They live, go to school in and, in some cases, go to work in communities that are mono-ethnical. If you can bring people together so that there is a greater understanding of the commonality of humanity, so you can agree with someone who you have looked over the fence at for so long and been brought up to despise or hate, then I think that changes the way society looks at issues.

This goes back to an event that I looked at over the course of the December/January period. I saw two crowds of young people, and the hatred there was palpable. They were shouting abuse at each other, and I sat back and wondered how on earth we could ever bring forward programmes or projects that could start to change that atmosphere. It will be a long process, but it has to start, and that is why the idea of hanging around until we get everybody on board no longer holds any attraction for me. That is why we have decided that leadership is about stepping out, even if other people are not ready to come or if they have their own nuanced ideas of what they should go forward with. That is why we have provided the leadership to move forward to try to change the atmosphere in our society, and I hope that there will be support from other Members in this Assembly.

Megan Fearon (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I think we can all agree that sport is a fantastic way of breaking down those barriers between young people and that it is particularly important for that to happen at a very early age. Will the First Minister provide us with more detail about the cross-community sport programmes and what they will entail?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

As I indicated earlier, the design and detail is being worked out by officials, and that will come forward. What informed the thinking of the deputy First Minister and I is the fact that sport has been a unifier in Northern Ireland. When we see people from all sections of our community cheering on Rory McIlroy or Graeme McDowell, or when we see people — the deputy First Minister and I have been there — cheering on the Ulster team, we see that there is massive support for and enjoyment in sports activities in Northern Ireland. That is a way to engage people from both sides of our community. It can be a catalyst for change.

At the weekend, when I was at the Ulster Rugby game, I talked to Ulster Rugby officials about the kinds of programmes that they have that reach out to young people from all sections of our community. It has a significant role to play as we move forward. I look forward to seeing the detail of the proposals, and I will be happy to bring them to the Assembly when they are available.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank the First Minister for his statement. Will he compare the record of this Administration with that of the previous Ulster Unionist/SDLP Administration?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The problem is that I have nothing to compare it to. Of course, we have a lot of people telling us that we have not done enough, that we have not done it fast enough and that we should be doing more, and asking why we have not done this, that or the other thing. Those same people led the previous Administration. They could not even produce a strategy or plan, never mind projects and programmes of any significance. We have shown that we are prepared to take the steps forward. We encourage people to come with us.

I say this in a non-party-political sense: there are people genuinely in every party in the Assembly who want to see progress being made on these issues. Let us try to keep the party politicking out of it. That is all that we —

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

Hear, hear.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

That is good coming from the SDLP, because — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The deputy First Minister and I were still on our feet making the announcement when the tweets were coming from the SDLP attacking what we had not yet said about the project. Please step back from the party politicking, look at the issues involved, look at how important it is for the future of Northern Ireland and make that your primary interest and aim as we move forward, rather than trying to score some cheap points along the way.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Minister, thank you. I am delighted with the comments that you made about shared education and the Lisanelly campus. We learned in recent times that five schools are signed up to that and that planning permission has been granted. In light of your comments, will you reconfirm your commitment to working with the Education Minister to deliver that project?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It is an ambitious project at Lisanelly. We are pleased that there is support from five of the schools. I think that we are looking for support from a sixth school as well. As far as I can recall, it has taken out a legal challenge on the issue. However, I have every confidence that, although that scheme will cost well over £100 million — it is a significant scheme — we can work with the Department of Education and the Finance Minister to find the funds to make sure that it goes ahead. Another scheme in Moy has been announced, which shows a willingness to move forward. That is also a first-class proposition.

I put this to those who talk about shared education: if you can bring, in the Moy case, two schools from different backgrounds together into the one school building, I cannot think that it is going to be too long before the principals, headmasters or headmistresses of those schools say, "Is there not good common sense in our various classes doing physical education or geography together? Look at the savings and efficiencies that could be gained as a result of that." It will be a gradual, step-by-step process towards a fully shared future in education. There are other areas of the Province in which proposals for shared campuses are coming forward. I am greatly encouraged by that.

Of course, the pace at which we can roll all that out depends largely on the funding that is available. We are seeking to identify the 10 areas, look at the available projects and the extent to which schools will buy into them, and, therefore, the cost of the newbuild.

We will obviously look at the potential of selling off existing schools, if it means moving to a new campus. We will look at what comes by way of Barnett consequentials in the new CSR period. We will clearly be bidding in that, and the deputy First Minister and I will no doubt want to twist an arm or two when we meet the Prime Minister and look at the present package. Of course, I have to say — he is not here, so I will maybe get off with it — that there is a package that will not be used up on the A5 over the next number of months. Funds will clearly have to be reallocated from that.

A wide range of opportunities is available, but the Member can take it from me that there is absolute resolve and determination from the deputy First Minister and me to work with the Education Minister to bring about and realise these proposals.

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

The junior Minister Mr Jonathan Bell, who is absent from the Chamber today, told the BBC on Thursday night that half a billion pounds had been set aside to spend on this initiative between now and the end of 2015. Is that true, First Minister? Yes or no?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I would never attempt to frame the Member's question or to tell him how he might ask it. He should not attempt to tell me the narrow range of choices that I have in answering it.

First, the junior Minister is not here today because he is on departmental business and doing his duty elsewhere. I am sure that he would have been delighted to be in the House.

Any amount of money that is referred to at the present time is the gauge and expectation of those of us who have looked at the programme and what it will cost to deliver it. It depends very much on what period one is looking at and at what pace one wants to implement the changes. If you look, for instance, at the issue of the capital costs, if you are talking — [Interruption.] I do not know why he is giving me two fingers in the air. I hope that it is not what I think it is.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member should not debate across the Chamber.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

You can look at the capital build programme and pull a figure from the air. We are spending £130 million on one proposal at Lisanelly, over whatever period it takes to complete — one will note that the campuses were to be commenced during that period.

It should be pointed out that we are already spending tens of millions of pounds on a shared future. Many of the things that are contained in this can be done from existing budgets and a reprioritisation of what goes forward.

Again, all that we seem to get are complaints about process. Why not look at the positive projects and programmes that are available? Try to dredge into your heart to find something positive and constructive to say about trying to give a future to young people in Northern Ireland.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I also welcome the First Minister's statement and look forward to the detail. On the cost, First Minister, do you have any indication at this stage of how much new money will be required? You mentioned existing projects and existing spend. Do you have a handle on that at this time?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

When the deputy First Minister and I set out the proposals, of course we looked at the potential cost of each of the elements. However, we have gone to a design stage, because it is in that that the detail will come forward. It is only when you have the detail that you can really give the cost.

Let us take, for instance, the massive 10,000 placements that we are talking about. The cost of that will depend largely on the stipend that is given to each person who takes part. We need to have a stipend to encourage young people to get out into a meaningful role in society. That role will take them into business for the first time in their life and give them some work experience. It will also be a good citizenship role, in which they will have the opportunity to work with voluntary and charitable organisations, and a good relations role, in which they will work across the community and meet and play with other people. We want people to take part in that. We want to encourage people out of the "no hope for the future" environment that some feel they live in. That costs money and not just in terms of the stipend. If you were to give £1,000 as a stipend, you would be talking about £10 million of cost as soon as the scheme is fully rolled out. Were he not talking on the Back Benches, I would say to the Member for South Belfast that it depends largely on how fast a lot of the schemes roll out. I do not expect to have 10,000 people employed in businesses or involved in charitable and voluntary organisations on the first day; we will build up to that overall figure of 10,000. However, for every stipend of £1,000, there will be a £10 million cost. You can do the multiplication yourselves, depending on what you feel is an appropriate stipend. You will then need to put in place all the necessary organisational support. As each of those schemes is determined in detail, you will get to the final figure.

Of course, we are then into the business of how fast you roll out some of the capital bill; how much of it you can put into existing capital budgets; how much there will be for reallocation because of schemes that do not go ahead at a certain time, from which funding can be redeployed; how much we will be able to get by way of Barnett consequentials; and how much we will be able to encourage the Government to give us when we look at the next CSR period, because this flows into that. We had a commitment from the Government on the £18 billion that was promised in capital spend, which we believed had been severely reduced. They have indicated that they will realise that figure during the period of the promise for that £18 billion. Therefore, more money has to be coming in capital bill projects. For all those reasons, let us see the design and detail, and let us look at the figures and at a projected way forward that is based on the money that is available and might become available to us.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

I welcome the statement from the First Minister and express my disappointment at the playground-level pathological negativity that is coming from parts of the Assembly. Will the Minister explain the time frame for the publication of the new community relations strategy?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

We propose to publish it at the end of next week. That time is believed to be necessary for the printing process. A considerable portion of the document was completed in its existing form by the time the first boycotters left the all-party working group. Most of it — indeed, almost all of it — was completed before the second set of boycotters left the all-party group. Some tweaks have been necessary because of the passage of time. We regard it very much as a living strategy. It is not set in stone like the law of the Medes and Persians — it can change, be updated and grow. For instance, as the all-party group deals with the three outstanding matters and, I hope, reaches agreement on some if not all of those, that can be incorporated into the strategy. As relationships in Northern Ireland develop further, I hope that we can make progress.

There are things in the document that I would have liked to see go further. There are things that the deputy First Minister would have liked to see go further but that were too fast for some of the rest of us. There are many areas of that document that some part of the House would want to see further enhanced. That is what happens if you are trying to get the highest level of cohesion and support in an Assembly on a document of this kind. It is necessary for people to recognise that none of us gets all that we want in a document, but it is a very good point from which we start.

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

I thank the First Minister for his statement. I, too, welcome the announcement of the 10 shared campuses, but, considering the segregated nature of the area planning process, how will shared education be advanced in that framework?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

There we go again. Can we not have a question without a "but" in it? We have a positive proposal to move forward. We have schools that are willing to take part in the project. There is a willingness on the part of parents and young people to see people educated together. Let us start from that positive beginning, without trying to drag out every obstacle and problem that might come along the way. Of course there will be difficulties. Of course there will be obstacles that we have to get around, but surely the wit of human beings is sufficient to overcome some problems about area planning in order to make our proposals work.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

Obviously, I welcome the First Minister's statement to the House. The creation of 10,000 one-year placements for NEETs in the United Youth programme is an exciting and ambitious project. Although he has already referred to it, will the First Minister perhaps give some more detail on how that project will be achieved?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

First of all, many of us have grown up and looked at similar schemes around the world. For instance, in the United States they have the Peace Corps and so forth. There are similar programmes in literally dozens of countries around the globe. We have attempted to design ours to take account of what we see as the real needs in our community. Because we have so many young people who are not in education, employment or training, there needs to be the opportunity for those young people to get some real work experience. That work experience and, indeed, the other elements of the programme are such that, when an employer knows that someone has gone through the programme, they will know that they are talking to a more rounded human being who has some experience of life and has been prepared to put themselves through a process to widen their horizons.

The second element, of course, is the volunteering one. Being involved in charitable or community organisations is something that, we hope, will start within the programme but will continue after people leave the programme, because they will make friendships and will see the benefit of the work that they do within it. There is also, of course, the good relations and cross-community element of it — the ability to meet people from a different background and to enjoy play or to have shared experiences with them. All of that is a valuable way forward for a significant portion of people in our community, many of whom have given up hope for the future.

Of course, it will be taken forward by a working group that comprises the Departments — there are probably at least three, maybe four — that have some locus in the subject. I have heard some people ask who the lead Minister will be on the matter. The deputy First Minister and I have not yet decided which Department should be the lead Department. When we do, we will make a proposal to the Executive, because, on any cross-cutting issue, we make a proposal to the Executive on what the lead Department should be on that matter. A lot of that will depend on the passion and enthusiasm of various Ministers to take it forward, because there is no point putting that kind of significant proposal into the hands of a Minister who will be half-hearted about it.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the First Minister for the statement, which I think will bring positive benefits to the community as a whole in Northern Ireland. Although indications have been given that the overall exact cost of the financial package required to fund this cannot be completely quantified at this stage, what does the First Minister think the impact will be on discussions around the next comprehensive spending review and any implications in terms of reprioritisation within that Budget?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I should say to my colleague first of all that I am always reluctant to respond to questions — we have had a number today — looking for us to put figures on the proposals. It is not because there is some great interest in seeing how much money will be spent on a shared future in Northern Ireland; it is to have something that they can hang the Minister on in the future if, in some way, the figure varies from that which has been stated. In terms of the CSR period, I listened to the Secretary of State — as I suspect everyone in the House did — when she referred to the package. She said that the level of our ambition would be matched by their response to it. Our proposals are ambitious, and, therefore, we are looking to see what kind of support the Government are prepared to give us. The CSR period is one of the times — not the only time — when the Government can show that support. If they believe that what we are attempting to do — to change the outlook of our society in Northern Ireland — is worth their support, I hope that they will recognise that when we are having the discussions with them, if not negotiations, about the comprehensive spending review.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Will the First Minister explain how the United Youth programme will dovetail with and support the Department for Employment and Learning's Programme for Government target by reducing the number of people who are economically inactive? Does he agree that by asking people to volunteer for only part of a week, we are losing a big opportunity to get them involved in the voluntary and community sector?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

In truth, this proposal will blow the Programme for Government targets out of the water because it is significantly more ambitious. Of course, there are slight differences between our proposals and those of the Minister for Employment and Learning.

One of the reasons why we have the detailed design stage of the process is that it is vital that nothing that we promote undermines projects already being taken forward by DEL. We will want to work with the Minister and his officials to ensure that what we do supplements the overall aim of his proposals.

There is a shared future element to the 10,000 placements, which is the responsibility of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. The training element is the responsibility of the Minister for Employment and Learning. There is an education element and a sports element. One could go on and on adding Ministers to the list. There is, clearly, a social development element as well. It is very much a cross-departmental issue, and, therefore, it is important that the working group will bring forward detailed proposals. Nothing will dent our determination to see it go forward.

This is a major scheme that will require a sizeable infrastructure. It will require the work being undertaken in Departments and the support of voluntary and charitable organisations in finding placements for young people. It will require a partnership with the business community. It will require us to ensure that the design of the scheme is such that no one in the business community will use the placements as a replacement for people who are already working in a business. All those issues have to be worked through, and regulations and details have to be set down.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I commend the First Minister for this statement. Having achieved political stability and accountable institutions, he continues to lead the Province in ensuring that our community moves forward. Will he assure the House that, although the Ulster Unionists and Alliance Party walked away and boycotted — albeit that it was John McCallister who led the Ulster Unionists out — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I encourage the Member to come to his question.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Maybe Mr McCallister's leader will, at some point, be in charge of this — one never knows. Now that the First Minister has shown such leadership, will he assure us that no Executive Ministers will try to frustrate this? Previously, parties sought to frustrate it because they got precious about their imprimatur not being on it. They should buy into this process.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member for South Down may well have led the Ulster Unionist Party out of the process, but he has now led himself out of the Ulster Unionist Party. Quite where he is going now none of us is sure .

I regret that I can give my friend no undertaking that people from other political parties will not try to undermine what we are doing, but I can give him an undertaking that none of them will succeed.

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

I welcome the First Minister's statement — at the risk of being spurned. [Laughter.] I welcome the content relating to young people and the employment placements for them. However, given the winter of discontent and community tensions, when will he and the deputy First Minister show unilateral leadership in tackling the two thorniest issues: flags and the ghettoisation of housing, which are more important in relation to civil unrest than the schools have been?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I have always thought that the Member had a great future in politics. I wish him well in that, and I hope that some of the rumours that we are hearing are true. [Laughter.] We will no doubt come to that at some future stage.

On my and the deputy First Minister's determination to take forward issues that are still unresolved, when people make such references, there is almost an implication that they are somehow holy, that they stand outside the process, that they hover over it with no responsibility for what is going on, that they are not part of our society and that they are not part of the disagreements that have led to these being intractable problems. We are all in this together. We all have to resolve these problems. Having spent the past couple of years —

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

[Interruption.]

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member makes gestures with his hands and arms. If I knew what those meant, I would respond to them. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am not a lip-reader, so I cannot respond to whatever it is that the Member is trying, and failing, to communicate.

There are outstanding issues, because they are sensitive issues in our community. Those issues need the support of all of us. Over the past couple of months, the deputy First Minister and I have sought to get an all-party group. We had difficulty getting support from the Member's party and others for an agreed statement on those issues. It is the failure to get that agreed statement on the way forward that has led us, having torn our hair out — there is more evidence of that in the deputy First Minister's case than in mine — to decide that we must give leadership and go forward ourselves. Now that we have given leadership and shown the way forward, I hope that the Member will fall in behind and give us full support in trying to deal with these difficult and intractable issues.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for his statement. While others seek to deny, delay or redefine their position on shared education, I thank the First Minister for the leadership that he has given in commencing the debate on the issue. Can he and the deputy First Minister give the House an assurance that those who are half-hearted — he referred to those people earlier, and there may even be some in the education system — will be engaged with fully and will not be allowed solely to protect their own interests?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

There are vested interests in education, as there are in any other sector in our community. If things are going swimmingly for various groups, organisations and bodies in the present circumstances, they will be reluctant to see change. I want them to look into the future to see what can be gained for our society as a whole by the kind of substantial step forward that is being proposed. We are doing it in a way that, I think, will leave no one with anything to fear. How could anyone fear the prospect of young people being educated together and working and living together in communities? That is what I want to see, and I hope that I will be able to see it in my lifetime.

All that I can say to the Member is that I have heard the comments of the johnny-come-latelies to shared education. I remember moving a motion on integrated education at the first ever DUP conference back in the late 1970s, and it was supported. I have supported shared education in Northern Ireland for generations. Some were silent and had nothing to say on the issue when I put it to the centre of the political stage. Those who had something to say on the issue made derisory comments but now pose as champions of it. I am delighted to see it. Welcome on board, late though you may be. We want your support and encouragement. Let us all try to move the issue forward in a way that can make a real difference to the people of Northern Ireland.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. How appropriate. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Allow the Member to ask his question.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I welcome the statement, and the friendly and inspiring way in which it was given.

In October 2010, the First Minister called for an end to our children being educated separately. Today, we just have shared education. Will the First Minister support the 17 recommendations in the 'Advancing Shared Education' document and actually push for a single shared education system?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am conscious of the fact that I answer questions here as First Minister. There are a lot of things that I would like to say in response to that question. As leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, I was disappointed at the report that was received. I believe that there was a poverty of ambition and a lack of reforming zeal in the proposals. Those proposals were largely about process. Many of them, I think, can be given support, and many of them should be acted upon, but they in no way go far enough in pointing the way forward.

What we require is a very clear vision of what the end position should look like and a very clear plan as to how our route map will be shaped in getting us there. A long time ago, I suggested setting up a commission. I had hoped that the working group that was looking at the issue might have given us the kind of outcome that would have made that a redundant proposal. Having seen the report, I am convinced that it does not.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I welcome the document. I think that there will be a general welcome throughout the community for the very positive tone contained in the document. Will the First Minister repeat the assurance on the issue of peace walls and interfaces, which he gave when he made the announcement? They are there not just for reassurance but to prevent physical attack. Will he repeat the assurance that they will come down when the confidence is there in the community, and that we need to —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Member to come to his question.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Does he agree that we need to build that confidence to ensure that we deconstruct the walls?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Those walls and barriers exist across Northern Ireland not because people did not like the aesthetics of the other side of the wall. They are there for very real reasons. They are there not just because there are fears, but because, in many cases, there have been actual attacks that have put people's lives in danger.

People have a right to the safety and security of their home and district. That must be paramount. There is no difference between the deputy First Minister and me on this issue. We want to work with local communities in attempting to address the cause of the fear that caused the walls to go up in the first place to try to ensure that people can be safe in their community. Whether that is by design features in the area that reduce the potential for conflict, whether it is through having a phased reduction of the process such as moving from walls to gates or whatever, whether it is through putting new shared space and other facilities in an area, or whether it is groups from each section of the community working together to bring down the walls, we are prepared to work with them to see what we can do. We are not going to force anybody's hand on this issue; it is far too serious a matter.

There are always difficulties when a projected date is given as to when things might happen. It is something that is not within our control. It is in the control of the people in the local communities. However, it is right that we set ourselves a goal, no matter whether people think it is too ambitious a goal. I would rather see us stretching to try to achieve something than being limp and lame in our ambition to get there. So, I give him the absolute assurance that he seeks on the matter. We will want to talk to those local communities to see how we can help them get away from the shadow of the walls.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Given the "so what" attitude that has been underscored again here today, even to Executive colleagues and to the House, what sincerity attaches to these pontifications about a shared future, particularly since, within hours, the First Minister's deputy, Mr McGuinness, was tweeting a glorification of the notorious murderer Francis Hughes? Is that part of the First Minister's vision of a utopian shared future?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, order.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The very walls of this Chamber creak with irony at hearing the Member for North Antrim stand up as the defender of Ministers and of this Assembly. If he can get half a dozen people gathered together in a car park, he is out there trying to throw his bile upon this Assembly and everything that it stands for. He has no good wish for this Assembly or for its Ministers. All he seeks to do is reach for any stick he can get out of the bush to beat his political opponents. He has not got one positive bone in his body. It would be far better if he looked at the positive way forward for his constituents rather than trying to drag people back all the time.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I welcome the statement but reserve the right to judge the actions as they happen. One of the biggest criticisms of the process has been that it has been purely political. Could the work of the all-party group — and I wait to see whether it is "all-party" and includes my own party — look at genuinely participative models, such as the Citizens' Assembly in British Columbia and the Irish Convention on the Constitution, to see how we can bring people other than politicians into this process?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

We said in our statement that we wanted to set up an all-party group, which is different from the style in which we have done it in the past. We have indicated that we will ask each of the Executive parties to provide us with the names of two members who will sit on that group. We will provide two members each from our parties, and they will be accompanied by the junior Ministers. Importantly, we are seeking to find and agree on a suitable independent chairperson to take matters forward.

When the group is sitting in session, it will be for its members to decide what other stakeholders might have a place on it or might be suitable to give evidence. I do not set any strictures on what the chairperson and the committee might do in taking that evidence or reaching out to the wider community. However, we need to be mindful, having gone through an 18-month to two-year period of another all-party working group, that we have to have an outcome.

We do not want to wait forever for something positive to come from the committee. I do not mind if we get interim reports, if levels of agreement are reached on some of these issues so that we can put them into the overall strategy and take them forward, but Northern Ireland is in too precarious a position, with the divisions that exist and the divisions on the issues that will be before the all-party group, for us to take this as some academic exercise that can be done over a prolonged period. So, let us see some degree of desire on the part of the participants to expeditiously deal with those issues and to try to enter those discussions with a new and more positive spirit.

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

Mr Speaker, I will keep away from party politics in car parks if it suits you.

I give 10 out of 10 to the First Minister for the effort on this legacy statement and five out of 10 for detail and substance. What I have heard this morning seems as credible as David Cameron's pledge on the European referendum. Having heard the coalition parties' views —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I urge the Member to come to his question.

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

Having heard the coalition parties' views, is the First Minister confident of their support? If not, should they resign?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I give the Member one out of 10 for his question. [Laughter.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

We are in the business of trying to bring people together to try to resolve age-old problems. We have attempted, to our own frustration on many occasions, to try to get agreements from all the parties around this Chamber. It was not possible. Parties walked away in the huff and boycotted the meetings, and others could not even agree on a press statement to go out to take it to a further stage. That is why we have decided to give some leadership on the matter. Instead of attempting to score a political point here, there or yonder, let us roll up our sleeves and try to resolve the issues that our community is begging us to deal with. They elected us here to try to give them a new way forward in Northern Ireland. Let us not disappoint.

Basil McCrea (Independent, Lagan Valley)

Responding in the spirit of generosity that the First Minister calls for, I welcome the proposals and put on record that I have absolutely no doubt about the First Minister's personal commitment to a shared future. My concern is whether others in his party share those views. He mentioned in response to an earlier question that this requires action, that it will blow the Programme for Government targets out of the water and that he wants to see outcomes. What specific outcomes does the First Minister want to see as a result of his actions? How will we judge whether the programme has been successful by the next election?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am grateful for the Member's earlier remarks. I am sure that none of us particularly judge the election period as the period that we have to get things done by. We want them done as soon as possible.

We have set out our targets and have not hidden our ambition. We have indicated that we want 10,000 young people who are NEET to be placed with business and voluntary organisations and to have a role in good relations. That is a target. We will have to build it up over the years because no organisation will be capable of taking 10,000 on the first day. That will occur over a period of time.

We have indicated our targets for the shared campuses and shared housing, what we hope to do with the combination of sport and community relations, and what we intend to do with the schemes that we have set out in the seven programmes, as well as, of course, the overarching strategy that will be published at the end of next week. Our targets, hopes and expectations are all there.

Let me say this to him: it should not be a cause of gratification for anybody in this Chamber if we do not meet all the targets. It should be a matter of disappointment for everybody in this Chamber because it is in the interests of future generations that we meet the targets, take Northern Ireland forward and encourage young people to be schooled together, to play together and eventually to work together. That is the interests of our whole community. Do not set targets that can be used as a mechanism so that, at the next election, people can put a leaflet out and say, "They said that they would have 10,000 but they only had 9,000." That is not the way forward. Let us do as much as we can as fast as we can and as beneficially as we can.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I am grateful to the First Minister for his concern in his earlier remarks about my future career prospects. He has talked a lot this morning about actions, and I agree that actions speak louder than words. Will a detailed action plan be published alongside the strategy? If not, when we can we expect an action plan?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I indicated earlier, though perhaps not in the detail that the Member now asks for, that the process in which we are now involved is that officials in OFMDFM, along with officials in all the relevant Departments for each of the projects involved, are sitting down to design and detail the way forward for each of those projects. When we have that available to us, we will make sure that the Committee and the House are acquainted with all the details. If issues arise or, indeed, Members have views and ideas on how best it might be rolled out, we are happy to listen to them.

We want to encourage people to get on board and to be supportive of this way forward. It will be fully visible and transparent, and I hope that there will be a desire and interest on the part of the OFMDFM Committee and its Chairman — when he stops talking to his neighbour — in trying to play a full role in taking forward the project from OFMDFM.

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

With your permission, Mr Speaker, in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make the following statement on the seventeenth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in environment sectoral format, which was held in Dublin on Tuesday 23 April 2013. The statement has been agreed with Minister Kennedy. Danny Kennedy MLA, Minister for Regional Development, and I represented the Northern Ireland Executive at the meeting, which I chaired. The Irish Government were represented by Phil Hogan TD, Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government.

Ministers discussed the informal meeting of the council of EU environment, which was held over the previous two days and, in particular, the issue of air quality, which was one of the main themes of the meeting. I have said before to the House that the Irish Government have a reputation from their time of holding presidency of the European Union on a rolling basis as being one of the more dynamic presidencies. That was very much the case in respect of the environmental council, which was an informal gathering of all the environmental Ministers from across the EU and from Turkey. I have to acknowledge and applaud the Irish Government for the relevance and the importance of that event.

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

The Council noted that the all-island bulky waste reuse best practice management feasibility study will be published shortly and that the Department of the Environment (DOE) will publish a revised waste management strategy later this summer.

Ministers noted that, following the recent introduction of the carrier bag levy here, charging for carrier bags is now in place across the island. It is more extensive in Northern Ireland than it is in the rest of Ireland, given that the charging regime in the rest of Ireland is for single-use plastic carrier bags only. I confirm to the House that the second piece of legislation in respect of the carrier bag levy is currently in circulation around the Executive among ministerial colleagues, with the ambition that, before the summer, we will have First Reading and Second Reading of that new legislation to extend the scope of the carrier bag levy.

The Council noted the publication of the all-island used tyre survey report, which indicated a significant level of used tyre recycling. The report will be further considered by officials in both jurisdictions. The evidence from the all-island used tyre survey report suggests that, compared with 10 years ago, there are certainly more used tyres but that the tracking of where those tyres end up and the use of those tyres, especially for recycling purposes, is better than it was. There are still clear challenges that need to be taken forward, both in this jurisdiction and in the rest of Ireland.

I note that the Environment Committee today published its report on used tyres in the North. No doubt, we will debate that further.

Ministers also noted that the consultants appointed by the Department of the Environment's community and local government division to conduct a review of the producer responsibility initiative (PRI) model in Ireland are in the final stages of their examination.

The Council noted that a meeting of the North/South market development steering group, which was established to promote market opportunities for recycled products, was held on 7 March 2013. The incoming chairperson, David Surplus, will be invited to provide Ministers with an update on progress at a future NSMC environment meeting.

I met David Surplus in the past number of weeks. It was a challenging conversation, in that he very much challenged me about opportunities for recycling in the North, never mind on the island of Ireland. As a consequence of that, we will convene a further gathering with David Surplus, representatives of Invest Northern Ireland and the Department to scope out what David Surplus refers to as the "low-hanging fruit" opportunities for recycling in the short term. We will take that forward very quickly.

On cross-border movements of waste, Ministers also noted that work on the two sites, Seskinore and Eskragh, at Clogher, County Tyrone, which were planned for the 2012-13 programme, is complete. In total, more than 15,000 tons of waste was removed from both sites — I visited one of them — and a programme of work for 2013-14 has been agreed. Since 2010, six sites have been addressed and the waste repatriated. Over 63,000 cubic metres of waste has been repatriated. The sites completed in 2012-13 had a total of just over 10,000 cubic metres, and there remain 11 sites to be repatriated. The Council noted that joint enforcement action to deal with illegal operators is a priority for both Environment Ministers, and Departments continue to target resources at that.

On environmental protection, Ministers noted that officials have further considered opportunities for mutually beneficial joint working to facilitate effective and efficient policy approaches in the context of EU directives on air quality. The Council agreed that, to improve air quality on an all-island basis, officials should prepare terms of reference for a study and have them approved as soon as is practical at a future NSMC meeting. The study will examine airborne pollution from residential smoky coal combustion, as well as the social and economic implications of potential policy options.

It would be premature to say that there will be movement towards a ban on the use of smoky coal on the island of Ireland, but it raises big issues of air quality, and that is of concern to all the people of Ireland. Some initial work in Strabane, where there is, on occasion, a particularly acute problem with air quality, suggests that the differential in price between smoky and smokeless fuel is not very much, but the calorific value of smokeless as opposed to smoky fuel is very significant. Consequently, there may be an argument, as we take this study forward, for a potential all-Ireland ban on smoky coal.

On water quality, Ministers noted the co-ordination between jurisdictions on the preparations for the second cycle of river basin management plans in Ireland and Northern Ireland under the EU water framework directive. The Council also welcomed continued co-ordination on the Clean Coast and Coast Care schemes and the symposium held in November 2012 involving representatives from both jurisdictions.

The announcement of blue flag awards for beaches in the North will be made very shortly. Members should be mindful that last year was the best year ever for blue flag awards, with 11 beaches designated under that international standard. It might not be so good this year, partly because of the weather last year and partly because the assessment criteria are being adjusted in advance of the incoming water framework directive in 2016.

On environmental reporting and research, Ministers welcomed the success of the QUESTOR research partnership, the Queen's University-based company, in securing funding for an INTERREG north-west Europe project to develop a research and innovation network for the recovery of valuable materials from waste. A useful conference, at which I hope to speak, is being held at Dublin City University tomorrow, convened by QUESTOR and Queen's University to take forward potential research projects on water resource management. That is another example of QUESTOR competing on an all-island, interjurisdictional basis to try to scope out research projects, to draw down funding and to make this a cutting-edge part of the world for research on water, environmental and waste issues.

The Council also noted that following preliminary research by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the South into the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing — fracking, as it is known — a more comprehensive research study is planned. The terms of reference for the study were subject to a public consultation process that ended on 8 March. It may come as no surprise to Members to learn that there were 2,000 responses to the consultation on the terms of reference for a research programme. That is an indication of the profile of the issue. It suggests the scale of interest, concern, and so on, that will have to be taken on board properly in any further research and what will happen afterwards with planning applications for potential fracking projects.

The meeting also noted that the Northern Ireland Environment Agency's second state of the environment report is due for publication by the end of 2013.

Ministers noted the review of the EPA's research programme, STRIVE — science, technology, research and innovation for the environment — and the intention to develop a new research programme for 2014-15.

The Council noted that legislation currently before the Oireachtas will enable Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) to provide research funding on an all-Ireland basis, which is a significant development. SFI in the South is funded under the national development plan and has not previously extended to the North. It will now extend to the North, and that will create new research funding opportunities, especially in biotechnology, ICT and sustainable energy and energy-efficient technologies. It is a pathway to the way in which we should shape potential research, innovation and development opportunities on the island of Ireland. I acknowledge what the Irish Government are doing with this new legislation that is before the relevant House of the Oireachtas.

The Council agreed to hold the next environment meeting on 30 October 2013.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his statement and the additional details. I was also in Dublin yesterday, attending a useful meeting of all the Chairpersons from the EU environment and energy Committees.

There are so many questions that I want to ask the Minister, but I will stick with the one with the highest priority. The Minister mentioned that the Committee today published its inquiry into used tyre disposal. He also mentioned the all-island used tyre survey report and the review of the producer responsibility initiative in the Republic of Ireland. The Committee's report has one recommendation that we should look at this issue on a long-term basis. Will the Minister comment on that? Will the Department work with the Republic on the producer responsibility initiative on an all-island basis?

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

I thank the Member for her comments and her questions. It is noteworthy that the Irish Government's EU presidency is shaping the future of Europe not only for these six months but for much longer. The fact that they have gathered together informally all the European environment Ministers and the Chairs of the environment Committees in various European legislatures shows great authority.

You also learn an awful lot at those meetings. When I attended the EU informal environmental sector meeting in Dublin, I spoke to the current chair — a German MEP — of the European Parliament's environment committee, which has 71 members. He told me that he comes from a part of northern Germany where 85% of their electricity comes from wind farms. He commented with envy on the quality of wind on the island of Ireland where the quality of our wind, as we know, is the best in the world and is at least 50% better than the quality of the wind speed in northern Germany, where 85% of electricity comes from wind farms. The environment committee chair in the European Parliament looks with envy at our renewal opportunities in Ireland. Does that not tell a tale?

The figures from the all-island used tyre survey taken forward by the South suggest that 72% of used tyres are recycled, 0·2% are retreaded, 6% are used for landfill engineering, 5% are used for agricultural purposes, 7·3% are sold as part worn, and 9·5% are sent to unknown destinations. That is very different from what we had in 2000, when 32% were sent for retreading, 22% were sent for recycling, 16% were used for agricultural purposes and 30% went to unknown destinations.

Clearly, the direction of travel in tracking used tyres is better, but there is still further work to be done to tie those statistics down in order to get the full intelligence picture.

The Member is quite right: the Irish Government are looking at a producer-responsibility approach, and their views on that will come out by the end of the year. However, that issue has to be taken forward on an all-Ireland basis. The truth of the matter is this: given the nature of where we live, the matter is best taken forward on an all-island basis. That is clearly the desired approach. As I understand it, London may have set its face against that, which would not be helpful. There are other examples on this island where we take things forward with the Irish Government when London or Britain chooses to opt out. Producer responsibility may yet be one of those opportunities.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his statement. When reporting back on NSMC environment meetings, he always updates us on progress on cross-border waste management issues. Given his revelation in the House a number of weeks ago about the fact that half of the hauliers use illegal fuel, and given the obvious cross-border element of the issue, does he expect that that subject will appear as a future agenda item for those meetings and that he will report back to the House on progress that has been made?

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

We touched on the issue of all-Ireland waste, and fuel laundering in particular, at the environment meeting. Given that it was touched on at the environment sectoral meeting and the previous meeting on transport, the expectation now is that there will be a gathering of that conversation, hopefully at the next British-Irish Council meeting to be held somewhere in the north-west in June, I think.

It is clear that there needs to be an escalation of the strategy for dealing with fuel laundering. While the respective Governments and the other Departments work that out, numerous diverse acts can help to begin to address the issue. What is my Department trying to do to deal with the growing threat of fuel laundering, the waste that is produced and the damage that has been caused to business, especially hauliers, never mind the damage that has been caused to the environment? The Department of the Environment (DOE) now has a transport regulation unit (TRU), and there was some publicity during the past two weeks of one haulier who had his licence withdrawn.

Currently, the TRU is processing 19 other cases of non-compliance by hauliers. For a number of those hauliers, part of their non-compliance is the use of illegal fuel. I am not getting ahead of myself, but, subject to good evidence and proper process, and given the scale of haulage business in the North, I want to see the TRU impose maximum penalties not just in those 19 cases but in all cases where there is that level of non-compliance, including in respect of fuel laundering.

Given what the haulage industry is saying, and given the failure to have many prosecutions, never mind custodial sentences, it seems to me that we need to step forward and put more resources into tackling environmental crime, including fuel laundering. We need to release money to do that. In the June monitoring round, I will present to the Executive a bid for additional money for DOE to tackle waste-management and environmental crime, so that, even this year, we can escalate the response of the environmental crime unit (ECU) to deal with the threat of organised crime, fuel launderers and criminal gangs on the island of Ireland.

However, the scale of the response will have to be much more significant than that. That is why, at last week's road transport inter-ministerial meeting involving the Minister for Regional Development and the Justice Minister, we discussed the issue of fuel laundering. We took the opportunity, in a meeting about something else, to step out of the meeting to discuss the issue of fuel laundering. We need to move very quickly. That is why I intend to meet the hauliers again on 29 May to see where the DOE, perhaps to the benefit of the environment of the whole island, will take the issue.

Bronwyn McGahan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for his statement. Given that his Department has lead responsibility for road safety, and taking into consideration the enhanced safety of dual carriageways compared to single carriageways, as well as recent PSNI evidence, which shows how dangerous the A4 was before it was dualled, was the stalled A5 dual carriageway project discussed in the context of road safety?

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

Not specifically. Road safety is relevant to all roads on the island of Ireland, whether they are dual carriageway, single carriageway, rural roads or motorways. Therefore, when we discussed road safety issues, which was more at the transport sectoral meeting rather than the environment sectoral meeting, they applied equally to all roads, whatever their designation.

To date, four pedestrians have been killed on our roads this year, compared with zero last year. Therefore, there is an issue about pedestrian road deaths, especially later in the day. Two of the people who died two weekends ago were killed between 11 pm and midnight.

On the island of Ireland, we are trying more and more to co-ordinate our road strategies, our road law and our road enforcement. That is why we are bringing forward a law that will see common alcohol limits across the island of Ireland, following from the example of the Republic two years ago. That is why, last week, which was UN road safety week, we had a joint campaign with the Road Safety Authority (RSA), leaflets and campaigns online and on the radio to co-ordinate our actions on all-Ireland road safety. That is why we are taking forward mutual recognition of penalty points with Leo Varadkar, the Transport Minister in the South, and we hope to have that in law by 2014 and operational by 2015. All that will work itself through.

The Member may well be making a good point. Part of the narrative around better road safety and reducing deaths and serious injuries on the island of Ireland is improvement of the roads. If there is improvement of the roads, part of the consequence is less risk. If that is the point that the Member was making, that is relevant for all the roads in the North, including the A5.

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

I welcome the Minister's statement. In relation to the revised waste management strategy, does the Minister accept that the cross-border illegal operators, who have done so much damage to places such as Seskinore and Eskragh, need to be tackled? Legitimate operators are being hounded and pressurised by illegal operators. Is he sure that joint action will be effective in taking on those guys even if it includes tackling the proceeds of crime.

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

I thank the Member for his question. The 13 or 14 illegal waste sites, including those at Seskinore, Eskragh, Ballymartin, and so on, are acute examples with a big cost to the Exchequer North and South, particularly to the South. If we think that those sites are the be-all and end-all of waste illegality, we are deluding ourselves. In my view, that illegality is in multiples of what we have seen in respect of repatriation.

How do we deal with that? The penalties have to be maximised. There is evidence that, when waste repatriation penalties were severe at those sites, it helped to stop the problem. Therefore, I am looking to my environmental crime unit, the PSNI and others to have maximum penalties around criminal prosecution and the proceeds of crime.

In my view, the threat of organised crime on this island is no less today than in the days of terror. It may have changed its shape and reconfigured itself, but the threat of organised crime on this island is of a scale that has not diminished over the past 10 or 20 years, and my sense is that it is not diminishing. That is as true on the waste side as on other matters. Governments have to escalate their response in a way that I indicated in a previous answer.

If it is the case that one third of operators in the North use illegal fuel, and, as some claim, that the scale in the South is even greater, and if, as a consequence, as Mr Byrne indicated, be it on the waste side or haulage side, that is driving the good businesses out of business, especially small firms that had a role in waste or haulage for generations and served this part of the world well, that requires an escalation in response.

Just as the flags issue demonstrated the failure of good political authority over the past number of years, and there are many other examples of that, fuel laundering demonstrates a failure of good legal authority. That will become more and more the sense of the community.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for that. I was interested in his assertion about the quality of the wind in Northern Ireland. Maybe we will have a debate and discussion another day about the quality of the wind in Northern Ireland.

The Minister mentioned in his statement the cross-border waste at Clogher that has been removed. Has he any detail about the cost of that, in particular the cost of that removal for his Department or the Northern Ireland Executive?

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

Just to confirm, it is not the quality of just the wind but of the wind, wave and tide in this part of the world, which is the best in the world. When you stop and think about it, as I keep saying, that is pretty self-evident, given that we face into the Atlantic. Around that, however, there are opportunities that have yet to be fully grasped around renewables, self-sufficiency in electricity, R&D, innovation, service hub jobs, and so on.

I anticipated that somebody would ask me about the cost of repatriation, and I have not got the figures, so I will come back to the Member. Nearly 16,000 tons of waste were removed from Clogher and Seskinore. Under the framework agreement between the Northern and Dublin Administrations, costs are split 80:20, subject to memory. Maybe it is 90:10, but it is certainly, I think, 80:20. The 80% falls to Dublin, given that the framework agreement acknowledged that the problem came from the Republic into the North. Therefore, the burden of repatriation costs should fall on the Dublin Administration through a contract with Dublin City Council.

I will write to the Member with the full cost of the Clogher and Seskinore operations and in respect of the six sites where there has been repatriation.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I appreciate that, as stated in paragraph 14, a symposium on the Clean Coast and Coastcare schemes was held in November. Will he outline what outcomes and practical benefits have arisen from that symposium? Obviously, the state of our beaches and coast is dear to us all.

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

Indeed. In today's papers, the Marine Conservation Society has stated, with regard to its recent campaign about litter on beaches in the North, that the North has the worst litter problem on beaches of any part of Britain and Northern Ireland. That is what the society has said. It was the Marine Conservation Society that, two years ago, challenged me on good beach issues, which led to the good beach summit. Robert Keirle, who is one of the society's senior staff, comes to all those meetings. Given what the society now says on litter as opposed to wider good beach issues, DOE has an obligation to respond, and that is what we are doing.

For the first time ever, we are preparing a beach litter strategy. We have never had one in the North. That work is being taken forward. It is pretty well advanced. It will be more advanced because the people who are dealing with the issue have, heretofore, been dealing with the Marine Bill, which received further consideration at the Assembly yesterday. Freeing up a little bit more resource and time will accelerate that. Within a number of months, the good beach litter strategy to deal with that issue will be out for consultation.

The reason why we are talking about beach issues is that water, be it the water around the island of Ireland or within the island of Ireland, is clearly a shared resource. That is why, for example, work on future river basin management strategies is increasingly being co-ordinated on an all-Ireland basis. Indeed, some of the contractual work in doing assessments will, probably, be tendered on an all-Ireland basis, which will save money and get the best results. The reason why we try to co-ordinate on good beach issues, such as blue flags and other awards — I intend to go down to Dublin for their ceremony in June — is that beaches are an asset for the island of Ireland, not just for the character of the lives that we lead but for tourism and jobs. Given that Tourism Ireland promotes opportunities on the island of Ireland, it is important that we have co-ordination on good beaches.

At the end of the day, blue flags are an international award in 46 countries and, I think, on 3,500 beaches. Quite a number of those beaches are on the island of Ireland. If we were able to have a common awards process, that would create common opportunities, not least for tourism and jobs.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

In relation to the waste that was cleared up at Clogher and Seskinore, what new initiatives have been discussed to ensure that such dumping does not happen again? Furthermore, what steps are being taken to bring to justice those who carried out that crime?

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

To the best of our knowledge in the South or the North, it is not happening again. That is no certainty. I think that that is why Lord Morrow might have reacted in such a way. There is no absolute certainty that there is no illegal movement of waste on a North/South basis. Clearly, there is movement of petroleum, oil and other products on an all-Ireland basis. That is why we have the diesel problem that we have. Given the scale of it — as I indicated, it is a crucial issue facing the island of Ireland on a lot of levels — there is a need to escalate a response to that threat on a whole lot of levels. There is no certainty that there is no illegal movement of other waste on a North/South basis, but the intelligence picture that we have does not suggest that the problem is on the same scale as before.

As I said in an earlier answer, the issue of illegal waste in the North, which might have some cross-border element to it, and the management of that waste in the North is a serious, growing issue. There may even be multiple cases of the illegal waste that we discovered had come from the South to the North and is now being repatriated. However, the fact that we keep this on the radar by discussing and processing it every time that we meet on an North/South basis means that there is a higher level of vigilance, be it on the environmental side or the enforcement and policing side, than has been the case heretofore.

The waste business is growing, and recycling is a growing opportunity for business and, therefore, unfortunately, for illegal business. So, if Lord Morrow or anybody else has any information about illegal movements of waste from the South to the North or from the North to the South, they should bring it to the authorities, North and South. Be it at a political level or at a police enforcement and organised crime level, I would welcome hearing that.

If the point behind the question is whether there is a threat on the island of Ireland from illegal operations involving waste of whatever character, the answer is that there is, and it is a serious and growing one. Might that include North/South movements? Yes, but we do not have much of an intelligence picture to suggest that that is the case.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his statement today. Minister, in your statement, you refer to legislation in the Republic of Ireland's Parliament that will enable Science Foundation Ireland to fund all-island research. Will you provide further details, especially on the impact that it might have on Northern Ireland as a whole?

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

As I have said in the Chamber and other places, the indicative figure for FP8 alone — the European funding programme for research and investment that will commence in 2016 for six years or Horizon 2020, as it is otherwise known — is €80 billion. That is the primary dedicated fund for R&D and innovation in the European Union. As I have also indicated, the Republic of Ireland's drawdown of the existing FP7 programme was to be €600 million, but it is now beyond that. As the Finance Minister will confirm, our pro rata drawdown of FP7 is much less than that of Dublin. That creates a challenge and an opportunity for us.

The more that we build our capacity to draw down funds, be they European or other R&D funds, the better we will be. In my view, part of that will be what Science Foundation Ireland is taking forward. It will be a new funding source for science and research in biotechnology, ICT and energy matters. What does SFI do? It invests in the academic researchers and research teams who are most likely to generate new knowledge, leading-edge technologies and competitive enterprises in science and engineering. What does that mean? It means that, if the higher education institutes and FE institutes in the North build up projects and apply for funding or build up shared projects with institutions in the Republic of Ireland, they can, on the one hand, draw down from SFI and, on the other hand, potentially draw down from European funding mechanisms.

What is the message being sent out from Dublin? It is that, in a time of recession and restricted moneys, they still see opportunities in creating a scale of opportunity for research and development on the island of Ireland by changing their primary legislation to capture opportunities for the Six Counties through a funding stream in the Twenty-six Counties. That sends out a big message about where the future should be.

Private Members' Business

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

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. One amendment has been selected and published on the Marshalled List. The proposer will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I beg to move

That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Finance and Personnel to carry out an assessment of how a single all-island agreed rate of duty on vehicle fuel could increase revenue, combat fuel fraud and save the taxpayer money by mitigating environmental crime; and further calls on the Minister to discuss with the Treasury the possibility of using such savings towards a reduction in the rate of duty on vehicle fuel.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. You caught me on the hop. I did not think that the debate would start before the lunchtime break.

This is an important issue that we have discussed in the Assembly before. Since it was last debated, it has remained an issue for many households, hauliers and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). It affects us most seriously because of the context of all-island economics. It is interesting that the Finance Committee recently received a presentation on air passenger duty from PricewaterhouseCoopers. One graph that I picked up on showed the extra GDP that results from each £1 of a tax cut: for corporation tax, that is projected to be 55p; air passenger duty would be 59p; and, to the surprise of some Committee members, fuel duty came out on top at 63p. A change in fuel duty can have a significant economic effect. How you do it is another question entirely, but it was important to outline that first.

The Assembly and the Executive need to concentrate on issues of taxation. The three areas that are the most obvious are air passenger duty, corporation tax and fuel duty because of all-island economics and the fact that they are at different rates throughout the rest of this island. Those rates are hurting the economy in these six counties. The latest Revenue and Customs annual report, for 2010-11, published estimated figures for uncollected revenue owing to cross-border fuel shopping and illicit activity. The upper estimate is £260 million, the lower estimate is £150 million and the mid-point — the average — is around £210 million. That is a significant amount of money. Much of that is being lost because consumers in the North simply cross the border to purchase fuel, so revenue that could be accrued in the North for the Treasury is being lost at the moment. Of course, those figures do not include the damage done to cars as a result of fuel crime; the costs to the public purse of environmental clean-up, mainly in border areas; damage to watercourses; and policing and enforcement costs.

A report from the Consumer Council published in 2011 showed that consumers in the North faced the highest cost for petrol when compared with Britain and the South every month in the year 2011. Fuel costs are a challenge to individuals, families and businesses in the North, and the high rates that we endure here need to end. The motion lets us explore whether a single agreed fuel duty could allow us to increase revenues, which could allow us the negotiating room to reduce our rate and address the fact that we are subject to some of the highest fuel prices in Europe. Businesses, families and everyday people bear the brunt of the volatile fuel prices in the North.

Three quarters of people here travel by car at least three times a week. We are, of course, more dependent on the car than many others throughout these islands, and a reduced rate of fuel duty would help families and small businesses. That is a result of the cross-border differential — the two different rates that we have on the island — and we need to have a harmonised rate. That is the most obvious solution to all the problems that I have outlined with regard to fuel. We need to look at that £150 million to £260 million figure. If we could reduce it, we could then discuss the present political context with Treasury in London, and we could use the work in this area to argue that the saving should be used to offset the cost of reducing the rate.

Some of the more recent figures — if I can get my hands on them — show that, from 2009-2010 to 2010-11, there was a difference of £50 million in the mid-range estimate. That was due to a fluctuation in fuel prices. It shows that, when the differential between North and South reduces, the loss in revenues reduces as well. If we were to use £17·5 million to reduce fuel by 1p, that would have an impact on cross-border shopping and the amount of revenues that are going to the London Treasury. There is clearly room for discussion on these issues, and we should be going to the British Treasury.

In the longer term, we need the transfer of these powers so that we can react swiftly to changes in the market. In the shorter term, we should seek a reduction in the rate of fuel duty so that it is parallel with that in the South. That would do away with many of the problems, some of which have been discussed today, such as fuel smuggling and cross-border fuel shopping.

I note that in answer to a recent Assembly question the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment indicated that she had written to the Finance Minister about the introduction of an essential users' fuel rebate. That has been introduced in the rest of Ireland. She asked the Finance Minister whether it would be feasible here. Of course, there would be a cost for that as well, but the issue needs to be explored. She is right to do that, and we are right to argue that the rate is having an economic impact. Of course, it is not only small businesses that are being affected; many hauliers, some of whom reside in my constituency of North Antrim, have been crippled by the rise in fuel prices. They are in an unfair position when competing with similar businesses throughout these islands.

Fuel duty raises approximately £1 billion a year in the North, which goes directly to the British Treasury. Transferring fuel duty powers to the Executive would bring the ability to vary the levy rather than having it imposed on us from Whitehall. Some estimates, as I said, put the initial cost of this at £17·5 million. That makes it clear that, if the Executive had powers to set fuel levies, we could set the level at a competitive rate with that in the South and thereby eliminate the differential along the border and increase revenue. It would tackle fuel smuggling and laundering; it would lower transport costs, which would also have a knock-on effect on retail prices for goods and services, and it would help thousands of commuters and their families across the North.

We cannot afford to do nothing about fuel duty rates. We cannot leave them unchanged. It is a huge problem, and we need a local solution to that problem. The Mayor of London, during his visit in recent days, said to the BBC that you have to demonstrate to the British Treasury that you will save it money. I am not interested in saving the British Treasury money, but, in this case, it is clear that, if you change the rate to bring it more in line with the South, you will have less cross-border fuel shopping and less fuel crime across the border. You can then start to tackle that loss in revenue, which ranges up to £210 million. Given that changing the rate in the North by 1p would cost only £17·5 million, this is clearly worth exploring. It would reduce costs for policing, for Revenue and Customs and for environmental clean-ups. Very importantly, it would also reduce costs for businesses and increase economic activity.

In the context of our local economy, at the moment we have the wrong rate of corporation tax, the wrong rate of air passenger duty and the wrong rate of fuel duty. We cannot afford to be dogmatic when it comes to taxation policy. I ask for Members' support on the motion.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.35 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Questions 3, 13 and 15 have been withdrawn and require written answers.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

1. asked the Minister of the Environment what action he is taking to address the issue of uncompleted developments. (AQO 4027/11-15)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

5. asked the Minister of the Environment how many incomplete developments are under consideration for demolition orders. (AQO 4031/11-15)

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

10. asked the Minister of the Environment whether he will extend the serving of completion notices, as tested recently in Portstewart. (AQO 4036/11-15)

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

I thank the Member for his question. With permission, Mr Speaker, I will take questions 1, 5 and 10 together, because they are of a theme.

There are multiple measures that the Department of the Environment (DOE) and local councils can take. I will give one example that has attracted some publicity recently, namely the site of the former Strand Hotel at Strand Road in Portstewart, overlooking the wonderful beach there. It has been lying there for the past 10 years. A planning power known as a completion notice, which had never been used before, was served on the owner last October. The owner appealed to the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC), as was his entitlement, but, before the PAC hearing, a third party came in and did what I asked it to do, which was to demolish the building, remove the rubble and landscape the site. The landscaping is to be completed by 17 May. As a consequence, I withdrew the completion order because the issues had been dealt with satisfactorily. However, banks, the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA), developers and administrators need to understand the message: we have identified a new list of properties and those in control of them, and we will do the same with them as we did in Portstewart.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

I have no doubt that the Minister is aware of the number of developments right across Northern Ireland that are not completed or are partially completed, some of which have people living in them. I ask the Minister how he intends to move forward on developments that are partially completed and have people living in them where the road network around them is not completed. There are quite a number of other issues. How does he intend to move forward on those issues?

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

First, we are identifying the unfinished or partially developed sites in the North. Secondly, we will deploy the mechanism of completion notices, which allows us to take action when a site has been partially developed and then abandoned. I trust that other sites will follow in Portstewart's wake. Thirdly, road bonds exist in respect of many unfinished sites, and they should be deployed in order to complete the site to a satisfactory level. Fourthly, action was taken in respect of a humanitarian issue in Newtownabbey, where a bridge collapsed. There is an argument that there are humanitarian issues in respect of other undeveloped or unfinished sites in the North, where people live in a situation that, by any stretch of the imagination, cannot be called humane and where there is a health and safety risk. It may be that there is a model that could be deployed, in very selective cases such as Newtownabbey, to find government funding to help in humanitarian circumstances.

Finally, councils have a lot of powers. Last Friday afternoon, I sat down with all the councils in the North and we held a blight summit in Belfast. Belfast City Council outlined to the councils of the North — those who do what they should, and those who do not — the powers that they have under improvement legislation and pollution control orders whereby they can take action against many developers and property owners in a way that has brought about significant results in Belfast. Through a family of measures like that, we can begin to address the issue more fully.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I commend the Minister on the work that was carried out through the completion notice in Portstewart. That was welcomed by the local community, and it sets a precedent that other developers must take notice of. They should know that such action can be taken. In engaging with the councils, can the Minister elaborate further on the powers that councils have to take action against developers who are responsible for derelict sites?

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

I should point out in respect of the Portstewart property that, unfortunately, it was not the developer who took action; it was a third party who wanted to protect the planning permission on the site and intervened. I welcomed that because the developer did not live up to his public duty, the public interest or the needs of the public in that area over the past 10 or 12 years. I regret that, but the problem there has been mitigated. We will, therefore, use that mechanism not just against developers but against banks, NAMA and administrators, where we think it appropriate, to encourage them to deal with unfinished sites. We will work with them as we do so. That is why, in the next days, we will have a conversation with a further nine third parties who are in control of sites in the North where we think there are unfinished development issues, and on the far side of that we will take legal action if necessary.

This is what I want the councils to do. I do not have the legal competence to impose it, but the political leadership in councils might want to think about it. They should do what Belfast did: an audit of all derelict and dangerous sites in their council area, including those where there are health and safety issues. On the far side of conducting that audit — Belfast did this as part of the daily work of building control inspectors — they should consider whether, under pollution control orders or improvement legislation, they can take legal action. Belfast has its dedicated legislation, and other councils have their improvement legislation. The experience in Belfast is that legal action has been taken in 60 cases. Most of the time, the owner of the site or those in control of it step in and do what they have to do to mitigate the problem. Very few cases go to court. Every time it has gone to court, the court has found in the council's favour. That model can be applied by every council in the North. Use your pollution control legislation and your improvement legislation, and, on the far side of that, you will get results for local people.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Dominic Bradley is not in his place. His question has been grouped with question 1.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister, particularly for his work on the bridge in Newtownabbey, and I welcome all the other initiatives that come with this. Does he plan to bring in legislation that would put pressure on the administrators to make sure that developments are finished off to a human living standard?

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

I acknowledge Mr Kinahan and many other representatives in that area who kept that government to step in and deal with that issue. Unfortunately, it took a catastrophic situation to arise before government stepped in. There is probably a bit of learning there for me and all other Ministers who have an interest in that matter.

I am not planning new legislation at the moment. Why? Because the body of legislation, including completion orders, pollution control legislation and improvement action legislation, needs to be exhausted. On the far side of that, many of these instances will be dealt with. There are specific legislative gaps — in particular, processes for finding out who is actually in control of a site. There are gaps in law and not necessarily a failure of law in dealing with the issue of decay, dereliction or uncompleted sites. So it is not necessarily a new law that we need, but a new attitude in councils and government to deploy the law that we have to its maximum.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

2. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the extent of North/South co-operation in the area of road safety. (AQO 4028/11-15)

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

I thank the Member for his question. Across a wide range of areas, there is co-ordination on this island. The pity is that the scale of co-ordination and co-operation that we have on the island should be between these islands. For example, we have the mutual recognition of driver disqualification between all jurisdiction on these islands. London has chosen not to opt in to the work that Leo Varadkar and I are doing to have all-Ireland recognition of penalty points. There is an argument for more integration and co-ordination between these islands and not just between the North and the South.

When it comes to the North and South, we will have not only a common alcohol standard for drink-driving, through new legislation that, I hope, will come before the House before recess, but all-Ireland mutual recognition of penalty points and driver disqualification. We co-ordinate road safety strategies. Just last week, the Road Safety Authority (RSA) in the South and my Department had a joint campaign in respect of road safety issues, given that it was UN Road Safety Week.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Given the increase in road deaths across the island compared with last year, what new or proposed changes will the Minister introduce to try to stem the increase in road fatalities?

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

The Member is right to identify that, in the year to date, there have been 21 deaths. In the same period last year, there were 12. In 2011, the figure was also 21. That is a spike, both in the North and the South, that we need to deal with. What are we doing? I refer to the previous question and to many other questions I have answered on the Floor of the Chamber: new legislation that reduces the amount of alcohol that people can have in their blood if they are to avoid a criminal conviction will mitigate the risk when people go out driving, because there will be penalties for those who might be tempted to drink and drive.

We will have a new driver training regime, whereby, subject to the will of the Assembly, you will be able to get a licence at 16 and a half but will not be able to do a test until you are 17 and a half, and you will be able to learn in a controlled environment on the motorway and to drive at the national speed limit. There will also be restrictions on whom you can carry for six months after you qualify up to the age of 24. All those measures will work to protect those on the road, whether they are in a vehicle or pedestrians. It is the multiple measures — new law, harsher law, better enforcement, better education, better road safety campaigns, better roads and safer cars — that will lead to a reduction in those figures.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

In a previous statement, the Minister mentioned that he hoped to put legislation in place by 31 December 2014 about joint penalty points between North and South. Will he give an update on what progress he has made?

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

There has been a lot of progress made in the past two years, but, clearly, we will be challenged to make all the progress that we have to in the next two years. Minister Varadkar and I fully recognise that.

It is not easy law, and it is not easy to implement even if we have the law, because there are different regimes between North and South. For example, in one jurisdiction, penalty points may be dealt with by way of court fine or court procedure and, in others, by way of administrative remedy. You have to co-ordinate all that, develop the IT and have a mutual standard for the relevant penalty points. It is not easy work. Technically, legally, operationally and administratively it is very challenging, but Leo Varadkar and I have given a very strong green light to our officials to take it forward. They are working hard at it.

We will get it over the line. Why do I say that? Because there is a very high political commitment to it. In working through the proposals for the new road traffic legislation that is about to come to the Floor of the Chamber around graduated driver licensing, alcohol in people's blood and the wearing of helmets on public roads for those who are driving quad bikes, officials have demonstrated that it is challenging, difficult law. However, they have worked with the political side in order to get it very close to being over the line. I think they will do the same, working with the political side, to get it over the line by Christmas next year.

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

Minister, you indicated measures that will hopefully reduce fatalities on our roads, particular of our young drivers. Have you had any discussions with the insurance companies? Do you think they would maybe reduce their premiums?

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

There has also been a challenging conversation going on with the Association of British Insurers, which can be — I want to put this very gently — quite slippery at times in its responses. There have been three meetings with the ABI. The next meeting is at the end of this month or the first week in June. The purpose of that conversation has been to get a full picture, as best we can, of the insurance industry in the North, including the level of premiums and why the premiums are at the height they are. My argument with it — it is an argument that it no longer resists — is that, if we put in law the new graduated driver licensing system, if we have the restrictions that are necessary and proportionate for novice drivers in particular and if we have the lower alcohol limits and so on and so forth, what will the consequences be for insurance premiums? It said at a conference in London six weeks ago that, if Britain and Northern Ireland were to have that regime and have a ban on night-time driving for novice drivers — I am not supportive of that — the consequence would be a reduction in novice insurance premiums of 15% to 19%. If that is what it is telling me publicly, I think there is more to be got, even if Northern Ireland goes it alone and even if we do not have a ban on night-time driving.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Question 3 has been withdrawn.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

4. asked the Minister of the Environment whether he will give consideration to decentralising planning services or other departmental functions to West Tyrone. (AQO 4030/11-15)

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

I thank the Member for his question. The first thing to point out is that DOE has a very dispersed employment profile. Fifty four per cent of DOE staff are located outside Belfast and 46% are located in Belfast. Compared with a lot of other Departments, that might not be the worst case of decentralisation of staff. However, that is not good enough. That is why, small though it may be — at least it has been done, unlike some other things that have yet to be done — we created new jobs in Derry in the carrier bag levy team and in the vehicle enforcement regime. It was only 13 jobs, but it was a declaration of intent.

The big decentralisation opportunity is going to come in the next 700 days. However long other decentralisation initiatives may take, and I welcome them, in the next 700 days we will have the opportunity, through planning decentralisation and the transfer of functions on urban regeneration, local economic development, local tourism and all the other functions that will be transferred to councils, to do some further real-time and short-term decentralisation. Were that to happen on the planning side alone, 400 staff would move from central functions to local functions.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that the Department of the Environment is particularly well placed to decentralise further, given the number of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) and various agencies that are under its aegis?

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

I do not know where he gets that piece of information. Looking at the profile of all Departments, we probably have the least number of NDPBs and other organisations under our control. Were I to ask a question in return, would he name all those organisations? The truth of the matter is that they do not exist. Many other Departments have a lot of agencies.

Yes, I would like to decentralise whatever I have. That is why, although it was a bit of a battle, when I was in the Department for Social Development (DSD), we located the headquarters of the Charity Commission in Lurgan despite the resistance of one or two people in the commission. In my view, it was important to decentralise into an area of neighbourhood renewal. I think that I have shown some authority in doing what we can, and there is more that all Departments can do. However, the Member needs to go and check some facts about all these bodies that I control: I do not.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Will the Minister provide an update on the work of local councils and statutory transition committees (STCs) in preparing for the additional responsibilities that they will have? In particular, does he envisage them having a full complement of staff before the reorganisation and restructuring?

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

The next meeting of the regional transition committee is at the end of this month — I think it is on 22 May. I look forward to hearing from the voluntary transition committee representatives about where they are on showing good authority when it comes to local council reform.

It is a bit of a mixed bag. There are some who are well down the road, and there are others who have found reasons to resist. However, I do not think that they have reasons to resist now that the issue of finance has been sorted, inasmuch as it has been sorted from the Executive side.

I welcome what the Executive have done, given that the councillors' severance plan is out for consultation and the reorganisation Bill is now being circulated to Executive members. I hope that the Bill will come to the House if not in May, then in June. There is every reason for the councils to show their good authority to move things on.

We are giving them money to help move things on. There is an ongoing conversation about the money that was released by the Executive whereby a sum of money would be made available to every council cluster so that they could appoint a change manager to drive forward the change programme, working with other councils and staff. However, they need to get on with it in order to get everything over the line in 700 days.

When it comes to staffing issues, I am firmly of the view that senior appointments should be made through open and full competition. The process cannot be a closed shop; it needs to open opportunities, not just for existing senior council staff but for others to apply for those posts, in order to have the best leadership to take forward these opportunities on the far side of the review of public administration (RPA).

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

As question 5 has already been answered, I call Alban Maginness.

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

6. asked the Minister of the Environment to outline what action he and his Executive colleagues can take, including on a North/South basis, to tackle the problem of illegal fuel laundering and dumping. (AQO 4032/11-15)

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

I thank the Member for his question. The fact that this question has been asked here today, and that this issue was on the Floor this morning and has been part of the narrative of politics and media in the past 10 days, demonstrates that the problem is escalating. I hope that the next British-Irish Council meeting in June will include some conversation about it and that the next two meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council in transport and environmental sectoral format will also capture it.

Whatever about what others are doing, my Department has to show increased authority, as I said this morning. I am working towards a further meeting with the Northern Ireland haulage industry on 29 May, given that it, in particular, gets the blunt end of illegal fuel laundering and competitors who use illegal fuel to drive down their costs and drive good operators out of business.

What are we doing? In the DOE, we now have a transport regulation unit, the consequence of which is that non-compliant operators are subject to public inquiry and can lose their licence. One operator lost their licence last week, and 19 more are in the system, which is a small number given the number of non-compliant hauliers. Nonetheless, we will interrogate all of them through public inquiry. Many are non-compliant inter alia because of illegal fuel. I hope that they lose their licence because there can be no toleration of that sort of activity.

Having spoken to the Justice Minister and the roads Minister last week, I intend to meet others to discuss the matter, not least the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA). However, given its conduct over the past three or four years, it would be better known as the "silent organised crime agency". It has no profile or impact, and people do not know what is happening with the threat of organised crime on this island. As I said this morning, the threat of organised crime on this island, including the North, is no smaller than it was in the days of terror. That is not a very good statement to make about where things are on this island.

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

I thank the Minister for that thorough answer. Given the seriousness of fuel laundering and the corruption that it has created in the retail trade throughout this island, is it not time for a much greater co-ordinated effort between North and South to rid us of the problem?

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

There has been an escalation in co-ordination between the relevant agencies North and South, be they agencies of government, policing or assets recovery. There has been, in the round, an escalation in action through the Organised Crime Task Force. However, there does not seem to be much prosecution. If there is prosecution, there does not seem to be much imprisonment. If there is seizure of assets, there is not much publicity. That does not build confidence.

The map that I have now shared with the Minister for Regional Development, and which I looked at earlier, shows the scale of sludge dumping arising from fuel laundering in south Armagh, where there are sites on which there have been multiple dumps on 10, seven, nine, five or four occasions, so the Member makes a very serious point. It is a big issue, and we have to respond in an even bigger way to deal with it.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Has the Minister any idea how much his Department, particularly the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, has spent on clearing up the residue of fuel laundering?

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

The cost of clearing up the residue had been falling to one or two councils, and one in particular. So either 21 or 22 councils have entered into a two-year fly-tipping protocol with the DOE whereby, where there is fly-tipping, DOE will step in and take on the burden of the cost to clear it. We are only a year or so into that protocol, but, so far, the cost is, I think, over £467,000.

In the vast majority of fly-tipping cases in which we get involved, it is to deal with the sludge arising from fuel laundering. I am about to write to HMRC and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to ask them to contribute to fly-tipping costs, because that sort of figure is very difficult to sustain, given the DOE budget. I will be saying very clearly to HMRC that I expect it, having declared itself the lead agency in tackling organised crime, to step in and help with the clearance costs of fuel laundering. The figure that I gave demonstrates the scale of the problem.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I agree entirely with the Minister when he says that the problem is no smaller than it was during the reign of terror. That having been said, will he, as Minister at the Executive, change his party's position and support the National Crime Agency (NCA)? Criminals are getting away with it because the veto that the SDLP exercised means that their assets cannot be recovered. That is as a result of the SDLP's actions.

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

I saw the Member getting rather excited there, even to the point of going up to the Speaker to make sure that he was going to be called. I am glad that he was called.

Let me deal with the issue. Are you prepared to build into the life of the North the standards, structures and mechanisms of accountability that your party agreed, working with the Ulster Unionists, the SDLP and the nine civilian members of the first Policing Board, around how those sorts of issues might be dealt with in the North? If you are prepared to agree with me that the mechanisms of accountability that we have outlined to the British Government —

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Cop out.

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

No, it is not a cop out.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Allow the Minister to answer.

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

Are you prepared to agree that so that the buck stops with the Chief Constable; so that the NCA does not have powers of arrest in the North; so that no outside agency has powers of direction when it comes to organised crime in the North; so that, ultimately, because the Chief Constable has the lead responsibility, he has to account to the board and the democratic structures in the North, long struggled for and long worked at, to ensure that there is accountability when it comes to those mechanisms? Do you know what would happen if the Member moved to that ground, the ground that his party — you were there, Mr Speaker, on the first Policing Board — worked so hard to create to build confidence? More people would be more inclined to give more information to the relevant agencies to ensure that organised crime in all its expressions is dealt with. Do not — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Allow the Minister to answer.

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

Let me say this: the Serious Organised Crime Agency, or as I refer to it, the silent organised crime agency, has, in my view, ill served the North. In my view, the previous agency, the Assets Recovery Agency (ARA), better served the North. The more we move back to a model in the image of the ARA rather than that of SOCA, the more confident we will be in the rule of law and in dealing with organised crime. I am not going to take any lectures from anyone in this Chamber about —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Minister's time is up.

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

— organised crime.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Decidedly less exciting than the previous question.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

7. asked the Minister of the Environment whether his Department has considered developing a marine atlas. (AQO 4033/11-15)

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

I thank the Member for his question. I know where it is coming from. I presume that he has seen the Scottish marine atlas. It is a work of wonder and beauty. It is a pathway into understanding the marine environment, especially for the many of us who do not have a full understanding, never mind appreciation, of it. I have seen it. Stewart Stevenson, the former Environment Minister in the Scottish Government, sent me a copy. It is wonderful. We think that we have captured the information of the marine atlas in a number of other documents. However, I will not ignore the fact that, in getting the story out about the marine environment, and in the run-up to a marine plan, something like a marine atlas is very attractive.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Questions 7, 10 and 11 have all been withdrawn and require written answers.

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

1. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what impact the move from using the retail price index to the consumer price index has had locally. (AQO 4042/11-15)

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

5. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel how changes in index linking arrangements are impacting on pensioners' incomes. (AQO 4046/11-15)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 1 and 5 together if that is OK.

First, I remind Members that the setting of the level of benefits for pensions on an annual basis does not come under the remit of the Assembly. It is something that is done by the Department for Work and Pensions, and it decides what index is used for setting the levels.

As far as the different indices are concerned, the Government believe that the consumer price index (CPI) is a more suitable measure than the retail price index (RPI) when it comes to measuring inflation for pensions. The first reason given for that is, first, that CPI tends to be less volatile. Secondly, it better accounts for changes in the behaviour of pensioners when it comes to a response to price changes and therefore more accurately reflects how benefits should be set in relation to the payments to that group of people whose preferences and spending patterns are better reflected in the CPI.

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

I thank the Minister for his detailed answer. It appears to most people that this is cost saving exercise by Westminster in particular. Will there be millions taken out of pensions as a result? If so, how much and what does that mean to the people of Northern Ireland?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Again, it is difficult to make an assessment, because different years will produce different results. Let me give an example: in 2009, RPI showed a fall of 1·1%, whereas CPI showed an increase of 1·4%. However, in subsequent years, RPI has performed better than CPI. So, depending on which year you take, pensioners might have been disadvantaged if you had used CPI. Over the past four years, if you take the changes there have been, there would have been no loss to pensions. In three of those years, RPI performed better than CPI, and in one year CPI performed significantly better than RPI.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a chuid freagraí. I thank the Minister for his answers so far. Is he aware that the Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that RPI will run at twice the rate of CPI between now and 2016 and that, therefore, the switch in pension uprating from RPI to CPI can be seen as nothing more than a smash-and-grab raid on the pensions of many people in Northern Ireland, who have worked hard to build them up over the years?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

As I said, I am not trying to defend a decision that has not been made by the Assembly. It is the Department for Work and Pensions that sets the rate, but usually the rate is the inflation rate that was measured in September in a particular year. If you take 2009, CPI went up by 1·1%, but if you had measured pensions on the basis on RPI that year they would have fallen by 1·4%. In 2012, CPI was 2·2% and RPI was 2·6%. Most people would find it fairly difficult to predict inflation over the next three years with any clarity, because economic modelling can be pushed out by so many external factors that cannot be predicted at the time of the model being drawn up.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answers so far. Will he give consideration to introducing safeguarding measures to protect pensioners' incomes? Go raibh míle maith agat.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I emphasise again that the indices used are not the responsibility of this Assembly or the Department for Social Development: that is the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions. However, look at some of the things that we have done in this Assembly to try to safeguard the income and standard of living of pensioners, from free transport to rates relief to free TV licences and a range of other measures that we have undertaken. We have shown ourselves to be understanding of the problems that those on fixed incomes who are of pension age face when there are periods of inflation.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Other than index-linking arrangements, one of the biggest factors that affects pensioners' incomes is take-up of entitlements. What are the Minister and his colleagues doing collectively to ensure that pensioners are aware of their benefit entitlements and take them up?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I can only answer in detail for my own Department. We do extensive work on the lone pensioner allowance, and the uptake has been very good. We have a dedicated worker who goes around community groups, residents' groups, church groups and anywhere where he is invited to talk about how people claim the lone pensioner allowance. The Department for Social Development spends quite a large amount of money every year on advice-giving services that are designed to help those who are in receipt of benefit or should be in receipt of benefit to identify what benefits they are entitled to and how to go about claiming them.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

2. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what work is being carried out to promote the non-domestic rates initiatives. (AQO 4043/11-15)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Department and I continue to promote the non-domestic rates initiatives that we have in place. The good thing is that the major non-domestic rates initiative, namely the 20% discount from 1 April for businesses with a net asset value (NAV) of below £15,000, means that they do not have to do anything. It is automatic and simply comes off the rates, and that benefits half of the businesses in Northern Ireland now.

We have promoted the empty premises rates relief scheme in a number of ways. It is on the website, information about it is sent out with rate bills, and I go out and about around the various towns in Northern Ireland. One of the more recent visits was to Carrickfergus, where a business that the Member will know well, Retro Scooters, has benefited from the empty premises rate relief. In fact, as a result of that, the uptake has increased fairly dramatically. It is hard to estimate the number, but I reckon that hundreds of jobs have been created as a result of properties being taken up because of the 50% rate relief for the first year. Businesses have then started in them and employed people locally.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for the detail of his answer. In his opinion, at this stage, how successful has the scheme been?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

It has been successful in so far as 118 new businesses have been set up. They have benefited from over £600,000 of rate relief, which, of course, reduces their overheads in the most crucial year — the first year — of the business. If you want to measure its success or the success of anything, look and see whether people copy it. The good thing is that our scheme was shamelessly copied by the Scottish Administration, and that is a good illustration of how effective it is.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The House will agree that rates interventions and initiatives are necessary to help business survive the present economic downturn. However, does the Minister agree with me that if we are to grow and rebalance the economy, more fiscal powers are necessary in our toolbox?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I wondered at what stage Sinn Féin would mention that. We will have a debate about this afterwards anyway. I have always made it very clear that where a good, strong case is made, as in the case of air passenger duty or corporation tax, for devolving fiscal powers, I will be wholeheartedly behind it. However, I do not take the view that we should simply grab fiscal powers for this Assembly where there is no strong case for doing so.

Members of this Assembly very often raise questions about why we do not spend money on this, that or something else, and I will point out that the more fiscal powers that we have devolved and the more we use those to cut the tax burden to people, the less money we will have available for spending on all the other services that Members lobby for on a daily basis.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I recall that the Minister had concerns that the reduction in rates for properties that had been vacant for some time could be exploited by some businesses, which could move in for a short time before moving on to another vacant property. Has that happened?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Happily, we have found that that has not been the case. However, do not forget that this initiative has been in place for a little over a year, so the real test will be to see, in a year or two, how many of the businesses that were set up under the empty properties rates relief scheme are still in business. There is a failure rate among small and infant businesses, so some of them may fall by the wayside for other reasons, but we have no evidence to date that people are simply opening up, taking benefit of the rates reduction and then closing again.

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

3. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel how he will ensure through the rating system that the most vulnerable people will not suffer under welfare reform. (AQO 4044/11-15)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

As I have repeated on a number of occasions in the Assembly, last year the Executive gave a pledge that we would seek to safeguard the most vulnerable people when it came to rates support arrangements due to welfare reform, which is UK-wide. In April this year, the Government at Westminster devolved the rates rebate scheme to the Assembly. As the Member will well know, it was devolved with a 10% reduction in the amount of money that will be available. The Executive agreed last year that, for the next two years, we will keep the current scheme in place and will subsidise it. By the end of the two years, that will probably mean that we will have to put in £30 million of additional money to ensure that the most vulnerable people are safeguarded.

In the meantime, we have already had preliminary consultation at a high level about what should replace it, because we cannot keep going with the existing scheme, not only because of the cost but because, once universal credit comes in, we will not even have what is called the passport information to decide who would qualify and who would not. So we have to revise the scheme anyway and, with the Executive's permission, very shortly we will be going out to consultation on what to do to the existing schemes. That will consider how we will vary them or, indeed, whether we replace them entirely to ensure that we safeguard the most vulnerable.

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

I thank the Minister for his answer. I am sure that many people will be listening to what he is saying. To push the Minister a bit further, has he in mind a particular option that would give the maximum benefit to the most vulnerable people in society when the Executive finally decide to make a decision?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

First, the Member is a bit optimistic to believe that many people are listening to what I am saying at the moment. I do not even have a majority of Assembly Members listening to what I am saying, let alone the majority of the public.

It is an important issue. One thing that I want to say is that I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the consultation. We will be undertaking another 12 weeks of consultation. We already have the results from the consultation on the general principles. Two things have come through from the consultation to date. First, none of the people who responded to the consultation believed that we should be putting more money into the scheme. There is an air of reality out there now that there are very many demands on the expenditure that the Executive undertake, and, therefore, it is important that we do not make rash commitments. No one suggested that we throw more money at it.

The second thing that came through is that people do not want the easy way out to be taken by way of a general top-slicing so that everyone who benefits currently gets a 10% reduction in the amount of rates relief that they get.

It will be a case of targeting the most vulnerable groups, and I want to hear from Assembly Members and those who deal with vulnerable groups what they believe should go and what they believe should stay. I want to hear from them which reliefs should be enhanced and which ones would then be pushed to the side as a result.

So those are the kinds of principles or issues. I do not want to prejudge the outcome.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for the answers he has given. Notwithstanding the options that are being looked at, will the Minister give us his initial thoughts on the developing relationship between rate support and the ongoing debate on the implementation of welfare reform?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

There are two things. As I said, as the welfare reform debate goes on and given the way in which welfare payments are made, we will have to find new mechanisms to identify the people who should benefit — in other words, the vulnerable groups. A lot of the passports to benefits will be lost. The second thing is that, as a result of welfare reform, we have to accept that we will have less money because the Government have devolved this to us and have taken 10% of the cost — £13 million — off the available money. The third thing is that, once we have the range of people and the benefits or the amount of money that they will receive under universal credit, we will have to identify where the most vulnerable groups are — the people who are left in the gap — and design a rates relief scheme to help them.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answers. One of the most contentious areas of welfare reform is the so-called bedroom tax, and, at the weekend, we heard on the news about a lady in England who apparently took her own life as a result of the impact of that particular piece of legislation. Can the Minister give us any assurances that vulnerable people will be protected?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I have said that the Executive have made a commitment and will try to protect the most vulnerable. As for the underoccupation of homes and its impact on benefits, the Social Development Minister has already made it clear that he and I have had discussions with the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions in England and that we will devise our own schemes, albeit that there will be a cost attached. Those schemes will be designed to deal with those kinds of issues and to make sure that we do not find ourselves with huge capital commitments in a very short period in an attempt to provide a number of one-bedroom units of accommodation.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

4. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what distinctions exist between civil partnerships and the proposals contained in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill 2012-13 going through Westminster. (AQO 4045/11-15)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill is intended to give effect to the UK Government’s decision to introduce, first, a redefinition of marriage and, then, same-sex marriage in England and Wales. The Bill allows for marriage by way of either a civil ceremony — for example, in a register office or approved premises such as a hotel — or a religious ceremony, which will be carried out on religious premises, with the marriage being solemnised through a religious ceremony.

Civil partnerships were designed to provide equivalent rights and responsibilities to marriage. However, there are some differences. Civil partnerships and marriage are subject to entirely separate legal regimes with different terminologies. Civil partners cannot call themselves married for legal purposes, and married couples cannot call themselves civil partners for legal purposes either. Marriages can be conducted through a civil or religious ceremony, but civil partnerships can be conducted only through a civil ceremony. Married couples and civil partners will have similar rights and responsibilities, but there are some differences in eligibility for pensions, for example, and the laws that relate to adultery and non-consummation and courtesy titles.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for outlining that for us. Minister, given that you and, indeed, a lot of your party members talk about parity, do you agree that there is a possibility that, by not ensuring that gay couples have similar rights to what is being proposed in England, your Department — not you — could be open to legal challenge on this policy?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Absolutely not. During the debate last week or the week before, I read out a letter from the Minister that made it clear that this is not about and does not relate to an equality issue. Indeed, it is up to local Administrations to make their own decision. I find it very strange that, on this issue, there is now nobody more British than Sinn Féin, whose members preach to us all the time that the great thing about devolution is that we can do our own thing, we can reflect the views of the people of Northern Ireland and we can tailor legislation to suit our local situation. Suddenly, they have become Brits, and they want to have total equality with Westminster. The next step must be to have Sinn Féin MPs entering the doors of Westminster so that they can support the legislation that they so love.

Michael Copeland (UUP, Belfast East)

Does the Minister believe or understand whether those who are currently or may potentially be in civil partnerships will be in any way financially disadvantaged with regard to benefits compared with those who may enjoy enhanced benefits under the Westminster Bill?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

They will not. I cannot give the Member the exact detail, though, if he goes to the explanatory notes for the Westminster Bill, he will see it. There will be minor differences when it comes to pensions, but, on all other counts, a civil partner will have the same economic rights as someone who goes through a same-sex marriage in England and Wales.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Does the Minister agree that there is no parity between heterosexual marriage and same-sex marriage? There might be a parody, but there is no parity.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I agree totally. Indeed, I made my views clear during the debate that marriage — even long before the law ever defined marriage — was always regarded as an arrangement that was there for support, comfort and procreation. On that ground, of course, there is no parity.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Question 5 has been answered.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

6. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel how the Executive can retain the tax receipts from the single-use bag charge in what is a reserved matter. (AQO 4047/11-15)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The single-use carrier bag levy is not, in the Executive’s view, a tax; rather, it is a levy that raises funding for environmental schemes. There were indications from the Treasury that it would treat it as a tax and, therefore, keep any of the money that was raised here, which would have gone into the UK Consolidated Fund and not to the Executive. However, I raised the matter with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I am pleased to say that I have secured his agreement that whatever money is raised here in Northern Ireland will be paid to the Northern Ireland Budget to be used for environmental purposes.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his answer. If he had not secured the agreement from the CST, what would have happened to the receipts from the levy?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The impact would have been that the money that was collected here would have gone to the Treasury and would have stayed as part of the UK Consolidated Fund. In other words, we would have raised the money here with the specific purpose, as the Assembly decided, of doing good environmental things but the money would have been absorbed into the general UK Budget. I said this in the House of Commons, so I will say it here: I have found that, when effective cases have been put to the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he has been very helpful to Northern Ireland, and he was very helpful in this case.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. It is good to see that the Finance Minister is now a strong supporter of the operation of the carrier bag levy here. It clearly shows that the Executive can have tax powers — even on a small scale — and operate them successfully. However, on the same theme, does he agree that the Department of Finance and Personnel and DETI need to get a move on with the air connectivity report and feed that into the debate about the devolution of air passenger duty?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

How you get from plastic bags to planes I do not know, but the Member has done it. I repeat that we made the case to the Treasury on the basis that it was a levy and not a tax, and, on that basis, we were able to recoup some of the money. There is work to be done on the air connectivity report. However, I remind Members again that, if we want to devolve all air passenger duty to Northern Ireland and if the purpose of doing so is to do away with air passenger duty, the Assembly has to find between £60 million and £90 million a year. Sometimes, the money being used to encourage people to take short-term breaks outside Northern Ireland could be used to get them to add to the tourist industry and spend in Northern Ireland.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

8. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to outline the impact of Judge Babington's decision to dismiss the equal pay claim for civil servants who worked in the Northern Ireland Office and the PSNI. (AQO 4049/11-15)

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The issue of the payment to those who work as administrative assistants in the PSNI has been one that I have received a lot of correspondence on. I have some sympathy with the arguments that people have put forward, but let me present the case to the House, because a lot of disinformation from the police and from the trade unions, who are now running away from their responsibility on this issue, is being put around.

First, the County Court has confirmed that those who are employed by the PSNI in administrative and clerical jobs are not part of the Northern Ireland Civil Service scheme and, therefore, were not eligible for the payment that was made. Secondly, after the court judgement, NIPSA indicated that, when it took a tribunal case for 4,500 civil servants, it did not include PSNI staff because, first of all, there had been a break with NICS in 2008; secondly, there was a lack of a comparator to show that there was an equal pay case; and thirdly, pay had been delegated from DFP to the PSNI. Lastly, the PSNI is putting it around that this is a job for my Department. The PSNI has never made a formal business case to DFP to show that there is a legitimate claim. I do not think that anyone would expect that, where there is not a legitimate claim, we should pay money out. Indeed, I think that the Public Accounts Committee and the Northern Ireland Audit Office may have something to say about that.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I welcome the Minister's response. No doubt he, like many of the rest of us, has received numerous representations on the matter. Will the Minister detail who exactly is to blame for the error? Who should take responsibility for sorting out this issue once and for all?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

First of all, it is not a case of who is to blame. It is this: is there a legitimate claim or is there not? Responsibility for establishing that legitimate claim lies with the PSNI. The PSNI has to show that, within its organisation, there is a group of mostly female clerical staff who are paid and have been paid at different rates from another group of mostly males who are doing a job that is similarly measured. If there is such an instance, they present a business case, and, if that business case stands up, payment will be made because there is an equal pay claim. However, the responsibility lies with the employer, and the employer is the PSNI. Until it does that, no pay claim can be put out. Indeed, NIPSA has now publicly stated that, when it was negotiating on the issue and taking a tribunal, it did not include PSNI staff because it recognised that no such claim had been established.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Does the Minister agree that, while the current equal pay settlement dealt satisfactorily with many outstanding cases, there are many other members of the public service, some of whom have retired, who have been left feeling aggrieved and feeling that their voices have been ignored? Go raibh maith agat.