Northern Ireland Assembly, 27 January 2014

433 contributions from 58 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Before we begin today's business, I want to put on record my concerns about an exchange that took place between a Member and a Deputy Speaker during Question Time last Tuesday. I have to say that the Hansard report of the exchange is not good reading. Not long ago, I reminded the House that the authority of the Chair is always the same regardless of who presides over business in the Chamber. Members who think that, because I am not in the Chair, they can be discourteous to Deputy Speakers and challenge their rulings need to think again. Members know that, if they stray from the normal rules, they can expect whoever is in the Chair to intervene. When the Chair gives a direction, it should be respected and not be challenged at any time. I will certainly keep a very close eye on the issue and hope that I will not have to return to it.

I know that some latitude is given to Members when they are coming to their question, especially at Question Time. From time to time, Members want to give a brief explanation before they come to their question and deliberate on what they want to say in developing their question. However, that is where it ends. On three occasions, the Member was asked by the Deputy Speaker to come to his question. It did not happen. Regardless of whether it is I or a Deputy Speaker in the Chair, if Members are asked to come to their question, they must do so. That is where it ends. It is not a matter of having statements from Members before they come to their question.

It is also unfair on Ministers when Members give a long preamble before coming to a question. On occasion, Ministers have to ask whether there is a question in the Member's statement at all. I warn the House that the authority of the Chair, irrespective of who is in the Chair, is final.

I ask Members to call Members by their proper name, please. That is vital and has been a ruling in the House for some time — it is a clear convention. Therefore, let us call Members and parties by their proper name.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

As with similar motions, this will be treated as a business motion. Therefore, there will be no debate.

Resolved:

That Mrs Judith Cochrane replace Mr Trevor Lunn as a member of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. — [Mr Dickson.]

Ministerial Statement

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. With your permission, I wish to make a statement on the outcome of the negotiations that the Fisheries Council held in Brussels on 16 and 17 December, which determined fishing opportunities for 2014. In the annex to my statement, Members will find a map of fishing areas; a summary of the main total allowable catches (TACs) and quotas of interest to the local fleet; and a provisional summary of the landings made into County Down ports by the fleet in 2013.

Other fisheries Ministers — George Eustice, Richard Lochhead and Alun Davies — and I agreed our first order negotiating priorities ahead of Council. They were minimising the cut to the nephrops TAC for area VII; ensuring that the freeze on fishing effort — the number of days at sea that can be fished — secured for 2013 was carried forward into 2014; easing restrictions on fully documented fisheries and extending possibilities to include haddock, whiting, saithe and plaice in such schemes in North Sea mixed fisheries; reducing the proposed cuts in the TACs for cod and haddock in the Celtic Sea; and ensuring that decisions on TACs for data-limited stocks were taken on a case-by-case basis and informed by all available evidence and stock trends. In setting those priorities, our aim was to secure a fair and balanced package that set limits to ensure the long-term sustainability of fisheries and to be consistent with the reformed common fisheries policy that came into force on 1 January 2014. Our priorities were guided by three key principles: the need to follow the best science available; achieving maximum sustainable yield in fisheries by 2015 wherever possible; and the need to reduce the discarding of fish.

The Council followed a familiar pattern. Commissioner Damanaki introduced the Commission’s proposals at a plenary meeting on the Monday morning. Member states responded, and that was followed by a round of trilateral negotiations between some member states, the presidency and the Commission. There were several meetings with others to explore areas of common interest. My officials and I had meetings with our counterparts from the South about Irish Sea interests and, in particular, the proposals for the nephrops TAC. A compromise proposal from the presidency was put forward on the Tuesday morning, and there were further trilateral negotiations before a final package of proposals was presented late on Tuesday afternoon.

What was unusual about this meeting of the Council was that agreement on the TAC and the quota package was reached shortly after 6.00 pm on the second day. Members will be aware that Fisheries Councils are notorious for late finishes in the early hours of the morning. I think that the reason for an early finish this year was that there were fewer big issues for many member states: for example, North Sea TACs and quotas could not be agreed until negotiations with Norway were concluded in January. The first compromise also went further than many countries had anticipated. That put considerable pressure on countries still engaged in negotiations on the second day to reach an early deal.

Ministers from Britain and I had been concerned that effort control would again dominate the agenda and allow less time for negotiation on other key issues. In the event, the Commission gave an early indication at trilateral discussions that it would be flexible and not resist calls to maintain the fishing effort at 2013 levels for 2014, and that was very welcome. Effort control has a significant impact on vessels fishing for white fish species.

The Assembly may recall that, prior to the 2011 Council meeeting, I made a commitment, with the support of the local industry, that our prawn fleet would fish with highly selective gears so that they could be exempt from the effort restrictions imposed by the cod recovery plan. In 2012, the fleet trialled a number of gear options, but the Commission’s scientific advisers could not conclude whether the low cod catches exhibited by the nets were the result of their technical properties or because of a low abundance of cod in the fishing grounds when the trials took place. Further trials under scientific observation took place from February to April 2013. The results, which were written up by the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), were presented to the Commission. In November, the Commission's scientific advisers concluded that three types of gear had selectivity properties that would allow exemption from effort controls.

That was a significant achievement, and I pay tribute to the scientists in AFBI and the local industry for the work done to achieve that outcome. Indeed, it was gratifying to hear Commissioner Damanaki acknowledge those achievements in her opening plenary address at Council. We have delivered as promised. Although the acknowledgement is welcome, the Commission needs to reflect this by taking a more positive and flexible approach in its proposals for future Irish Sea TACs.

The gear developments are extremely important in the context of the new CFP, which will seek to do away with the wasteful practice of discarding fish. Of course, the best way to reduce discards is to avoid catching what is not wanted in the first place, and that is where highly selective gears come in. Although our prawn fleet has made huge progress in reducing cod catches through improvements to fishing gears, there are still challenges ahead to further reduce catches of small haddock, whiting and plaice. That will be a key focus during 2014, as we work with industry on a continuous improvement programme for gear technology.

This year, my top priority was again to secure a good deal on the TAC for nephrops, or prawns, which is the single most important species in the Irish Sea. That was also a top priority for my Southern colleague, Simon Coveney TD. Again, it was frustrating that the Commission proposed a high cut to the TAC. That has been the Commission’s practice, year on year. It proposes a cut to reduce the TAC to equate with scientific advice, ignoring the fact that the fishing patterns of member states with an interest in that stock have changed over time. France, in particular, takes up around half its 24% share of the TAC. Prior to Council, we, along with the South, put forward a joint paper arguing against that approach. As pointed out in the paper and by me at the trilateral negotiations, the proposed cut by the Commission was totally unjustified. The TAC has historically been set at a level above that of the scientific advice, but fishing patterns demonstrate that the landings by fleets exploiting the stock are and have been in line with the scientific advice for some years. Although the scientific catch advice will fluctuate up and down each year, all stock indicators suggest that exploitation of the stock is sustainable.

The Commission’s initial proposal for a 24% cut was reduced to 14% in its first compromise. That was still unacceptable, and the Commission was pressed to move further. In subsequent discussions, the Commission indicated that it could move to 12%, but it was not until the final plenary discussions that further movement was secured. The final package that was agreed saw the TAC cut by 9%. I think that was a reasonable outcome. Last year, we were able to secure an increase of 6% because of a comparable improvement in the scientific catch advice. This year, the scientific advice was to reduce catches by some 8·4%, which is broadly in line with the final outcome.

Members will appreciate that I cannot go with the science one year and ignore it the next. The prawn fishery in the Irish Sea is crucial to the well-being of the local industry, our fish processors and the communities that depend on fishing. We must bear that in mind and ensure that the fishery is not over-exploited. However, we also must take an approach that ensures that the fishery is sustainably fished but not under-exploited. The latter would have happened, to the detriment of our industry, had the Commission’s initial proposal prevailed.

The annex to my statement details the TAC movements to other fish stocks landed by the local fleet, but those are of much less importance than nephrops. Despite our arguments that cuts to the cod quota would make no difference to conservation measures, the Commission followed the cod plan, which provides for a 20% reduction. There were further cuts of minus 25% to plaice and minus 18% to sole, which are a reflection of the concerns expressed in the scientific advice. There were welcome increases of plus 15% in monkfish, plus 18% in hake and plus 5% in herring, again reflecting the scientific advice.

I am grateful for this opportunity to inform Members about the outcome of the 2013 fisheries negotiations as far as they affect our fleet. It was a tough Council, and I am relieved that the outcome was a reduction in the prawn TAC, which is broadly in line with the scientific advice, but it could have been very different. With fewer unresolved big issues, there were enough member states prepared to accept the overall fishing opportunities package to allow the presidency to conclude a deal. Thankfully we got the Commission to move further before that happened. I put on record my thanks to my colleagues George Eustice in DEFRA, Richard Lochhead in the Scottish Government, Alun Davies in the Welsh Assembly and Simon Coveney in the South for their strong support throughout the negotiations.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her statement on this very important issue. Given that we have had a prawn quota cut of up to 9%, how can the Minister say that this is a reasonable outcome? Given that the scientific evidence was sitting at 8·4%, would it not have been better to get a deal at 8% or less, given the scientific evidence and the proof to back that up?

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

Has the Minister met the local industry to discuss that cut and how to manage it? I understand that although she must go with the scientific evidence, there is a gap between the scientific evidence and the local knowledge of the fishing industry that needs to be bridged. What efforts are the Minister and the Department making to bridge those gaps and to try to get clear evidence and the local knowledge of the fishing fleet into her negotiated plans?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Member for his question. I will pick up on the first point around the cut. Obviously, we would have preferred to have come back having seen no cut to the industry. You will be aware that, in last year's negotiations, we went out, we had strong science and we were able to get to a 6% increase, based on the science. So, I suppose it is unreasonable to expect that we would be able to argue against the argument we deployed the year before. That said, we made the case very strongly, and it was useful to have a joint argument with the South of Ireland, because we were able to deploy the same arguments. The general principle of the argument is this: there are other member states that do not use their full quota. If you look at it in that bigger picture, we argue that we do not believe that we justify a cut. That said, we made the argument, and, initially, we took it from minus 24%, so it was a very tough starting point. To go out with a minus 24% on the table, and the scientific evidence not backing it up, it was a tough start to the negotiations. That said, we got it down to 9%. Did we want more? Yes, absolutely, of course, but that was the outcome of the long negotiation.

Obviously, I engage with the industry before I go to Brussels, so we agree the industry priorities. Obviously, nephrops are the mainstay of the local industry, so that is the area that we focus on. We engaged with them before we went out. One of the areas that we discussed was how we, as the Department, would work with the industry more closely in the future. One of the things that I believe worked in the past, before my time, was a fisheries forum. I am not saying that we need to have an exact replica of that in the future, but now is a good time. I had said to the industry that we would engage again at the early part of this year. On the back of the outcome of the December Council, I think it is an ample time to discuss how we work together, looking at the challenges that are there, obviously, and the opportunities brought about by the common fisheries policy changes, as well as the fact that we are going to have the new European and maritime fisheries fund (EMFF) funding streams. There are a lot of areas that we need to be discussing, and I am happy to do that with the industry.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I remind Members that Committee Chairs are given some latitude when asking questions to the Minister on a statement. I ask for your cooperation so that all Members who wish to do so will get to ask a question.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement. What progress is being made on the highly selective gears?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As I said in my statement, the commitment that I made two years ago, with the cooperation of the industry, has helped to save the industry from having technical measures imposed on it — things that were not necessarily suitable for our fleet. As I said in the statement, we now have more acceptable gear types that are capable of reducing cod catches to below the 1·5% that the Commission expects us to be able to deliver on. It also allows vessels to become completely exempt from the days-at-sea restrictions. Our commitment remains the same. Even without exemption, all our prawn vessels must use highly selective gears within the cod recovery zone.

As I said in the statement, I was delighted that the scientific advisers in Europe approved three highly selective gears for our industry. They approved those last November, and, over the next wee while, we are expecting to possibly have another method that will also be acceptable to the Commission. So, we have made a lot of progress. It is also important to point out that we still have funding available under the European fisheries fund (EFF) to be used to help to finance the scientific work to improve the selective gear that we use, to contribute to the adoption of those types of gears, and to get it approved by the European scientists.

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

I welcome the statement from the Minister. Obviously, the fact that the prawns have been cut by 9% is concerning. Will the Minister outline how Scotland and the Republic fared, given that, last year, Scotland got a 24% increase and we got only a 6% increase?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I do not have the breakdown of the other areas and how they fared. However, suffice it to say that they all have different priorities. In a lot of ways, we are fighting one general argument on the need for more flexibility. That is what we hope to have as a result of the common fisheries policy. For example, monkfish is of big importance to Scotland. However, that is not our priority: our priority is nephrops. So, we work together where we can, and we also deploy our own arguments where necessary.

I do not have the figures with me, but I am happy to provide them in writing, because they are in the public domain.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

I also thank the Minister for her statement. I know that a lot of pressure was brought to bear on the EU in support of our local industry, not least by my party colleague Jim Nicholson MEP, who secured a visit by Bernhard Friess to Northern Ireland. However, the outcome will herald financial losses —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Can we have a question, please?

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

— and job losses. Minister, what are you doing to give our fishermen confidence following this slap in the face from Brussels?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member will be aware that, every year, we go out to Brussels in December and go round the merry dance of how we engage with the Commission. Unfortunately, this year, the science was not in our favour, but we made the case strongly. We took it from -24% to -9%, so that was positive.

As I said in answer to the Chair of the Committee, I have set out my plans for engaging with the industry. Now is the opportune time to do that, given that we have CFP reform and are looking at the new EMFF. So, now is the time to engage with industry on our next steps and on where we go from here. I think that I already outlined that clearly in the answer to the Chair of the Committee.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Two or three years ago, as a member of the Agriculture Committee, I went to Brussels, where we met the commissioner. At that time, we talked about the discarding of fish. I see that you are still talking about the discarding of fish. When will we see that problem sorted for the fishermen's benefit?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Dealing with fish discards is a major European issue. It is an issue that we are all trying to deal with. Our industry has been very progressive. When I talk about highly selective gears, we are talking about making sure that we do not fish the fish that we are not trying to catch. Our industry has been very progressive, and I think that it has been to the forefront. Commissioner Damanaki, in her opening address to the plenary in Europe, commended the fishermen from the North of Ireland fleet on the work that they have done on highly selective gears. We are to the fore in tackling the discard issue, so our industry should be commended for that. We have a way to go, surely, but we will continue to work with the industry. As I said, there are opportunities financially to support the selective gears for people to allow adaptions to their boats. As I said, we are in a good position. Other areas from right across Europe will look to our industry to see how progressive we have been.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

The Minister referred to the importance of nephrops. She said that she regarded it as her top priority, which I welcome. Moving forward, DEFRA's round 2 marine conservation zone proposals will include two important areas in the Irish Sea for our prawn fishermen. What is the Minister's position on those proposals, and what are her thoughts on DOE's consultation on inshore marine protected areas around Northern Ireland?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

That is not an issue that is relevant to the statement. We will talk to the Committee about those issues. I have spoken about this with the Environment Minister. I have also spoken to the new DEFRA Minister, George Eustice, in the run-up to the December Council on these issues.

To me, it is important that we get a balance. We do not want something in place that will damage the local fishermen's livelihoods. That is something that we need to deal with. I have always made it clear that, going forward, any of these proposals need to be done in conjunction and with proper full consultation with the local fishing industry. Unless that is done, I will obviously not support anything that will cause harm to an industry that is very important for people who live in coastal areas.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I understand that discussions are being held between the fishing industry and fisheries administrations in other parts of the United Kingdom about the EU's control regulation. What is happening here in Northern Ireland?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Again, that is not a question that is relevant to the statement, but I am happy to provide the Member with a very detailed response in writing on the breakdown of where that is at. As I said in a couple of other answers, engaging with the industry is key for all these things. In moving forward and in looking at any sort of developments, we need to engage with the industry. The group that I want to establish will be a key forum for all those things to be discussed.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I encourage Members to connect their question to the statement.

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

I thank the Minister for her statement. Prawn fleets, particularly those operating out of ports such as Kilkeel, are likely to see an increased effort from displaced vessels, with major cuts in white fish quotas. Added to that, we are talking about a drop in prawns of around 600,000 tons. What are you doing to give more support to our prawn fishermen?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have answered that in responding to earlier questions. The outcome of December Council is a position that we come to every January, but now that we have the CFP reform, which came into effect from 1 January, and, from 2015, the new EMFF — the funding for fishing communities — we need to look at opportunities and the barriers to growth. That comes back to the wider Going for Growth strategy and how we support local industries in being able to grow.

As I said, I want to establish a forum where fishermen can come together with the Department to have a frank discussion about the future and look at all the issues. There are plenty of issues that we need to look at, particularly given the cuts that we see from Europe. We do not just leave the issues at the December Council and park them there but continue to press them with Europe right throughout the year. Obviously, the December Council is what leads to the quota allocations, but there are many other issues that we engage with Europe on all year around, and I will continue to do that. However, I believe that the forum, whatever title it takes, will be a really big help in looking at the needs of the industry and at how we can work more collectively and effectively.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

Minister, given the concern that fishermen have had for some time around the sustainability of the industry, do you believe that the key priorities in your statement go far enough to ensure its long-term sustainability?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I assure the Member that those priorities are identified with the industry. They are not my priorities but industry priorities. In the run-up to December Council, I engaged with quite a number of people in the industry. They were all here in November. We agreed the priorities, and the industry was content with them. It is not a case of me imposing these priorities; rather, they are industry priorities.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Sustainable fishing is very important, but it is also important that we have the right gear to reduce the waste of fish that we do not want. How much investment or research and development funding is the Department focusing on to help our fishing industry?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I do not have the exact breakdown of figures, but I am happy to provide them to the Member. Funding is key, because, as I said, our industry has been so progressive. Through the European Fisheries Fund, we have been able to fund a lot of the work around the science involved. Our scientists in the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute have been very proactive with the fishing industry. AFBI is focusing on that and is working with the industry to gather the science. When we go to Europe, we want to make sure that our science is something that we can stand over. There has been significant investment.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Minister thinks that a 9% cut in our nephrops quota is a reasonable outcome. It follows, then, that she must think that the £2 million cut in income is reasonable, whereas it patently is not, particularly for an industry that for the past two years has jumped through every hoop that Brussels has set —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Can we have a question, please?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The industry has jumped through every hoop concerning gear changes, only to get this slap in the face. If the Minister thinks that a 9% cut is a reasonable outcome, did she really fight for the industry at all, or did she roll over like Mr Coveney did by indicating that a cut would be acceptable?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I think that I have made it very clear that I agreed my priorities with the industry, that the priorities were set with the industry and that I went out to Europe and made it very clear that those were my priorities.

It is a reasonable outcome when you put it in context. You can pick out wee words to use, but, to put this in context, we were going out there with a 24% cut. The science did not back up the argument. Last year, when we were happy to take the 6% increase, we did so because we had the science to back us up. Surely you cannot turn your argument year on year.

Is there a bigger picture, particularly around the fact that other member states do not use their entire quota? Absolutely. Is that something that Brussels needs to look at? Absolutely. France, for example, did not take 25% of its allocated quota. Our industry would be happy to take that on board if that were the case. As I said in answer to a previous question, I continue to argue the case not just in December but all year round.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Does the Minister accept that her relationship with the Irish Minister was far too cosy? It was easy for him to accept a 9% cut, given that he had a 34% increase last year while we had only a 6% increase. Why was she not batting for the fishermen of this part of the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland rather than snuggling up to the Minister from the Irish Republic?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As I said, I went to Europe with priorities that were identified by the industry. The industry here wants me to discuss the issue with Simon Coveney, and the industry here talks to its industry counterparts in the Twenty-six Counties. [Interruption.] The industry here wants me to engage with Simon Coveney — [Interruption.]

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

— and make a joint case. The Member may have his personal political views, but the industry was very happy for me to work with Simon Coveney to argue the case for the Irish Sea and our quota in the prawn negotiations. The Member's views are political views and not those of the industry.

Executive Committee Business

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I call the Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mr Simon Hamilton, to move the Further Consideration Stage of the Bill.

Moved. — [Mr Hamilton (The Minister of Finance and Personnel).]

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are two groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn.

The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1, 2, 13 to 15 and 19, which deal with pension board representation, revaluation, local government schemes and police pensions. The second debate will be on amendment Nos 3 to 12, 16 to 18 and 20, which deal with the pension age of scheme members.

Once the debate on each group is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2, 13 to 15, and 19. Members should note that amendment No 14 is consequential to amendment No 13 and that amendment No 19 is consequential to amendment No 15.

I call Mr Alex Attwood to move amendment No 1 and address the other amendments in the group.

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

I beg to move amendment No 1:In page 3, line 43, at end insert

", and must include representation from any trade union recognised by the employer".

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: In clause 9, page 6, line 11, leave out "5" and insert "7".— [Mr Attwood.]

No 13: In clause 18, page 11, leave out lines 32 to 34 and insert "31 March 2015".— [Mr Attwood.]

No 14: In clause 28, page 16, line 19, leave out "2014" and insert "2015".— [Mr Attwood.]

No 15: After clause 29 insert

"Police pensions

29A.—(1) Regulations C9 and C9A of the Royal Ulster Constabulary Pension Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1988 (S.R. 1988 No. 374), as substituted by Schedule 1 to the Police Service of Northern Ireland Pensions (Amendment No. 2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006, (S.R. 2006 No. 152) (widow’s, etc. pension or gratuity to terminate on re-marriage or other event) shall cease to have effect as from the reinstatement date.

(2) Where any person’s entitlement to receive payment on account of a pension or a gratuity under the Regulations of 1988 was terminated by virtue of regulation C9 or C9A, the pension or gratuity shall be reinstated and become payable as from the reinstatement date.

(3) Nothing in this section authorises or requires any payment on account of a pension in respect of any period before the reinstatement date.

(4) For the purposes of this section the reinstatement date is 1 July 2014.".— [Mr Allister.]

No 19: In clause 36, page 21, line 13, at end insert

"( ) section 29A;".— [Mr Allister.]

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

I will speak to the other amendments in the group and touch on the amendments tabled by Mr Allister.

I acknowledge that the Speaker's Office accepted the amendments and, indeed, virtually all the amendments that were tabled at Further Consideration Stage. That is good practice. As has been said in the Chamber before, the Bill is arguably the most significant legislation to come before the Chamber thus far in this mandate. It is important, therefore, that, at the last stage at which amendments can be tabled, we try to reconfigure the Bill as best we can in the interests of the 230,000 people who will be affected by the Bill on the far side of Royal Assent.

I took some time to read through the Hansard report of the Bill's Consideration Stage. The Minister may be surprised to know that I am one of a small group of people who read Hansard; I think that it is very revealing. I was struck by many of the Finance Minister's comments, and I will rely on those as I go through the amendments. I was particularly struck by his comment that the Bill was:

"designed to last for a generation at least" — [Official Report, Vol 90, No 6, p19, col 2].

That reflects the scale and character of the pensions legislation and the scale and character of the amendments tabled by us and others at Further Consideration Stage.

I venture to say that the reason why the amendments are before the House today and why we argue for all of them to be accepted is reflected by today's coverage in the London newspapers of yet another pensions Bill that will shortly come before the House of Commons. As I understand it, that Bill — this is relevant to the amendments — will give people the opportunity to top up their state pension, if, of course, they have the savings to do so. It is curious that it will enable people with savings to top up only over an 18-month period. I do not know, but some would suggest that this is curiously timed, given the forthcoming Westminster election. It goes further. Although that might be the most public aspect of the new pensions legislation, it also begins, as we understand it, to outline a European model of pension scheme known as a collective defined contributions scheme.

All that reveals to me that the House needs to be very vigilant about this pensions legislation because the Treasury, George Osborne and his team are not finished with this yet. The fact that further legislation will be proposed indicates that they are not finished yet when it comes to the scale of their ambition to rework the pensions regime that has existed for so many years in the image of something different. Given that the Minister has said that this Bill was:

"designed to last for a generation at least"

what thoughtless folly it was that anyone could conceive of a legislative consent motion —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order.

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

Yes, I will come straight to the amendments, Mr Deputy Speaker.

What thoughtless folly it was that anybody could think that legislation:

"designed to last for a generation at least"

could somehow be addressed by way of an LCM. Let us never repeat that error at the Executive table with any future pensions legislation.

Amendment No 1 is an attempt, appropriate at Further Consideration Stage, to go back to the issue of trade union representation on pension boards. As we know, the Bill, as drafted, states that there will be representatives of the employees on the boards but is now silent on representation from a recognised trade union. The reason why we have decided to go back to the issue is that little was said by the Minister at Consideration Stage when this matter was interrogated. There was little in what he said that gave reassurance to us or, I suspect, to many people listening on trade union membership of pension structures. Frankly, given what is in Hansard, far from being reassured, we are alarmed. That is why we would like the Minister to accept the amendment, which does no violence to any particular interest, in order to build certainty, confidence and reassurance among those who are listening, especially the trade union movement, which, after all, represents 56% of the members of public sector pension schemes. The Hansard report of Consideration Stage records what the Minister said.

I see that we have been joined by the previous Minister of Finance, Mr Wilson. Maybe he is in a position to confirm whether the advice that he received from the then private ministerial secretary, Simon Hamilton, was consistent with his advice to the Executive that the pensions legislation should be dealt with by an LCM. There was silence on that matter at Consideration Stage. Maybe you will want to use your good authority and voice to confirm or deny what the advice may have been from your colleague at that stage. While you contemplate that matter, I will go back to what the current Minister said at Consideration Stage:

"As I have stated, the thrust of the Bill ... is to enhance good governance for public service pension schemes. That certainly does not mean promoting the role of the trade unions, which is what amendment Nos 3 and 4 would result in." — [Official Report, Vol 90, No 6, p47, col 2].

I repeat the quotation:

"certainly does not mean promoting the role of the trade unions".

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. Will the Member recognise that a pension fund is made up of contributions from employees and, therefore, the best people to look after the interests of employees are themselves? They will approach this with a view to ensuring that the highest possible return is achieved on the pension fund so that their pensions are safeguarded, whereas trade unions are likely to bring in not only those interests but other interests that trade unions may well have. For that reason, the emphasis ought to be on the role of employees in supervising and monitoring a pension fund.

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

I thank the Member for his intervention. First, 56% of people in the public sector choose voluntarily because of the nature of the legislation, which in my view is correct, to go into trade unions.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will give way in a second. Under current trade union and employer management arrangements, that gives a trade union the responsibility to negotiate for and represent its members. Therefore, if 56% of people make contributions to a trade union, join a trade union and rely on a trade union to make their case in respect of pensions and other matters, the most consistent and principled position is to recognise that, when it comes to involvement in pension structures, trade unions should have a particular place of recognition.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will give way in a second. I will give way to everybody, so you do not have to be anxious about that, Mr Wilson.

The second thing is that those comments from the former Minister of Finance betray a hint, if not more than that, of an anti-union approach, which is the concern of many of the comments that I will come to in respect of the Finance Minister's contribution at Consideration Stage. I give way.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Does the Minister recognise that nearly half the workforce choose not to be part of a trade union? Therefore, for him to say that trade unions can represent those who have invested money in a pension fund is incorrect. Does he also recognise that there will be occasions when there could be a conflict? People usually join trade unions for the representation they give in the workplace, but, when it comes to the investment of funds, there will be occasions when trade unions may well have a conflict of interest. For example, they may not wish to see money invested in certain funds because of political differences or views, even though those funds may give a better return to the pension contributors.

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

The Member is moving ground. He is now raising an issue of people on pension structures that may take, to borrow the phrase, an ethical approach to pension investment —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

It could be political.

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

Or a political approach, but let us take the narrow one of ethical investment. I would like to think that, when it comes to pension structures, there will be people, including unions, who will take an ethical approach to investment schemes when it comes to their pension funds, rather than saying, "Let's follow the money. Let's follow the place of maximum profit. Let's disregard any issue about ethics or values when it comes to members' contributions and investments in pension schemes".

I would like to think that people who come into pension schemes do not sit and occupy places in the pension structures simply to maximise the return. If the argument is that pension structures should maximise return, just hand it over to some private investment company to maximise return. I suggest that the point of members being involved, I suggest, is to ensure that all views are heard, that proper values inform pension schemes, and so on and so forth.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way on that point?

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

I will give way.

At Consideration Stage, our amendment that the employee representatives should be trade unions was defeated. To be fair, some good arguments were made in denying that amendment. However, if you go and speak to trade unions, as Mr Wilson will have done as Finance and Personnel Minister, they will confirm to you that it is part of their code and integrity that, when they speak and negotiate on behalf of union representatives, they are also mindful of their responsibilities not to do prejudice and, indeed, to best represent those who are not in the same place as them when it comes to union membership.

I will give way to the Member.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

First, the Member has not addressed the point that nearly half the workforce decides not to be represented by the trade unions. It is interesting to note that the whole thrust of his argument is that trade union representation in the pension scheme would enable decisions to be made other than decisions that seek to maximise the return for members. He has dealt with the ethical ones, but there are, of course, political reasons why trade unions may well decide that they do not want money invested in certain funds or whatever.

Most people listening to this debate who have put their money in a pension scheme will want that money to give the maximum return so that their pensions can be safeguarded. The Member argues against his own amendment when he indicates that the reason for trade union involvement might be to ensure that the decision to go for the lesser return should be taken, even though there is a better return to be made.

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

I have to say to the Member that —

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will in a second.

I have to say to the Member that it seems to me an incongruous and unhappy argument that, when it comes to pension funds, we should abandon any sense of value in informing how those funds are invested save one of profit and maximising return.

I remember how, at Queen's University — both he and I are graduates of that place — an argument was made through the senate 30 years ago to have a stream of ethical investments of university funds, including pension funds. Why? It was to recognise that there are obligations around pensions, given the scale of pension funds in the Consolidated Fund or in the private sector, where you can do no harm — you can do some good — through ethical-based investments, and you can do some harm by having investments in certain practices that, in our view and, I think, in the view of citizens generally, would do violence to core values that represent the society and state in which we live.

In any case, Mr Wilson, our amendment says that, when it comes to the employee representatives, given that over half of them are members of trade unions, that should be recognised in the law in order to respect the principle of industrial relations that trade unions have a particular responsibility and statutory role under trade union legislation to make representations on behalf of their scheme members. However, even if you put all that away, I suggest, as I said earlier, that when a Minister came to the House and says that this legislation:

"certainly does not mean promoting the role of the trade unions". — [Official Report, Vol 90, No 6, Part 1, p47, col 2].

— it is reasonable to ask whether there is something going on here that is not about promoting the role of the trade union but actually about diminishing the role of the trade union.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. This comes back to Mr Wilson's point that unions are not empowered because they represent only 56% of the workers. However, given that he is in the minority party in the Assembly that is represented by significantly less than 56% of the voters, what empowers him and his party to bring forward this pensions Bill? Surely the trade unions are the best supported body of workers that can represent workers, given that no one exceeds 56% endorsement.

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

I will take an intervention from Mr Wilson if he wants to reply to that point from the Green Party, which I agree with.

Let me develop the point for the benefit of Mr Wilson and others. As can be seen from the Hansard report and from other comments from the Finance Minister, our concern is confirmed that the trade union movement is not being properly and fully recognised in the Bill when it comes to its membership being represented in pension structures. During Consideration Stage, the Finance Minister, referring to the amendments being tabled by Mr Rogers and Mr Bradley from the SDLP, said that those amendments were:

"short-sighted and restrictive approach, which some Members have allowed themselves to become lobbyists for".— [Official Report, Vol 90, No 6, p19, cols 1-2].

I ask the Minister to confirm that, in making those comments, he is not suggesting in any shape or form that the trade unions that made representations to various Members, including, no doubt, the Finance Minister, did not take a "short-sighted and restrictive approach" and that he is not suggesting that any of those amendments or that those who argued for them, including the trade union movement, were somehow "short-sighted and restrictive" in their approach. If he does not confirm that, you can understand why an amendment that the SDLP tabled explicitly says that there should be:

"representation from any trade union recognised by the employer".

There is a sense, from some of the comments made in Consideration Stage and even in Further Consideration Stage this afternoon, that the unions are somehow being restrictive and short-sighted in their approach, given that they lobbied for amendments to the pension scheme.

I will go further and confirm the anxiety that some of us have about the Bill. At another point during Consideration Stage, the Finance Minister said:

"Trade unions are not employees." — [Official Report, Vol 90, No 6, p19, col 1].

That is true, but he should have then said that trade unions are organisations of employees. That is also true, and it gives the proper legal and wider recognition to trade unions' role and function.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will give way.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

What makes trade unions, which are organisations representing employees, better custodians of the employees' pension fund than the employees themselves, who are the people who make the contributions? This is not excluding those who have paid in from having some say in what happens to their funding. The Member seems to be suggesting that having that representation through a third party is superior to having the representation from the employees themselves.

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

The amendment does not take away from the area of employee input in the Bill. It aims to add to that to ensure that it includes representation from any trade union. Why do we make that argument? Mr Wilson reminds me of that scene in 'Life of Brian' when the rebellion is gathered in some house in Jerusalem or some part of the Holy Land, and they ask the question:

"what have the Romans ever done for us?"

Let me tell Mr Wilson what the trade unions have done for us over the past 30 or 40 years. I choose that time frame deliberately so that it will be within the life of every single Member of the Assembly. What have the trade unions done? They were responsible for legislation on employment rights in 1996; on health and safety at work in 1974; on working-time regulations and the minimum wage in 1998; legislation on employment agency law in 1973; and on transfer of undertakings in 2006. That is the body of legislation of which the trade union movement was the architect and for which it was the lobbyist — to use the phrase that was used in a rather dismissive way — over the past 30 or 40 years.

When Mr Wilson asks why the trade unions should be recognised by the employer explicitly in the Bill and as part of the pensions structures, it is because every employee in this Building, whether MLA or staff member, and every other employee outside this Building, and because of the contribution of the union membership, a situation has been brought about whereby pay and conditions of work are different from what they were even 30 or 40 years ago. Given the particular role and contribution of the trade unions in defending workers and ensuring that the workplace is one that is better than one that is worse, is it too much to say to the Minister that, when it comes to the management of pension funds, their contribution should be explicitly recognised in the Bill through what is quite a moderate amendment?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Before the Member gets carried away with his historical rhetoric, let us come closer to home and look at the record of NIPSA in representing employees in pensions negotiations. Does he agree that there are many members of NIPSA who are still mad at the way in which the union, when it came to whether equal pay should be extended right across the Civil Service, handled the matter?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member should return to the amendments being debated.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

All that I am saying is this: there are plenty of occasions when employees know that trade unions, for political reasons, do not get the best deal for their members, because they take short-term political considerations into account. When it comes to pensions, the best people to look after them are those who made the contributions and not those who may have a political agenda.

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

I will make one point about NIPSA. When I was Minister for Social Development, in the run-down to the 2011 election, I turned up at my office on the Andersonstown Road to be greeted by a small number of people waving NIPSA flags, not in celebration of my turning up at the office but to protest against what I, as a member of the Executive, had decided. I think that I might even have dissented from what had been decided, but, nonetheless, they were protesting, in the eye of an election, about what the Executive — the Government in Northern Ireland — were doing.

I could have been unhappy at that circumstance, but I invited them in for a cup of tea. Although they were protesting against what the Executive had done, their right to protest had to be defended. The contribution of NIPSA, as one of the main employee unions in Northern Ireland, and its right to organise, protest and make representations is something that, even when I do not agree with it — there have been occasions when I have not agreed with it — I am precious about. NIPSA, like many others, has made enormous contributions to the improvement of worker conditions and pay in this part of the world.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member should return to the amendments.

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

To emphasise the point, if it were not for the unions and their work on the situation facing the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) in Coleraine — I cannot recall whether NIPSA is involved in that, but I think that it is — that office's doors would have been closed two or three years ago. However, the unions, along with other people at Executive level — Mr Wilson knows full well about this — fought that fight, and perhaps in the next number of days that battle will also prevail.

I will come back to the amendments now. The purpose of amendment No 1 is not to create prescriptive requirements about trade union input into the pension structures. It is to give the trade unions their proper place, which, under industrial relations frameworks, they should have and are entitled to, given the scale of their membership and the maturity and wisdom of their input, not in every case but in many cases.

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

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that the trade unions have built up quite a large degree of expertise on pensions? They have the resources to provide their members with very sound advice on pensions, so it is important that those resources and that advice are available. One way to help to ensure that is by naming the trade unions in the Bill.

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

I very much agree with that. As the Member was speaking, confirmation of that point came into my head. I speak from the little authority that I had as a previous Minister, when I had to appoint people to the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committe (NILGOSC) scheme from a trade union background. As I recall it, under the law, unions are guaranteed a place on the NILGOSC scheme, representing 48,000 people, which is 20% of all those in public sector employment in the North. I am subject to correction on that, and I know that the Finance Minister will check with officials whether I am right or wrong. Given that the DOE and NILGOSC have that requirement, it seems to us that that requirement should also be honoured with wider pension structures.

In conclusion on amendment No 1, the amendment is to create certainty and avoid doubt, to ensure that the current industrial relations framework prevails and to reduce the risk that dogma — there has been a bit of that today —

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

You are too hard on yourself.

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

Yes, I await your replies with interest because some of your comments from the Consideration Stage debate require further comment. For those reasons, I urge the House to support amendment No 1.

I turn to amendment No 2. At the Consideration Stage debate, there was a proposal to move the five-year threshold to 10 years. That proposal was denied by the House, so we are going back to the issue today to move the five-year threshold to seven years for people who may want to take time out of work. During the Consideration Stage debate, the Minister said that he was not inclined — I think that he said that he was absolutely opposed — to move to 10 years because the five-year threshold was:

"reasonable, adequate and generous" [Official Report, Vol 90, No 6, p20, col 2].

On the face of it, I think that there is a tension between something that is reasonable and adequate, and generous. If it is generous, it suggests that people are going a bit too far. In any case, the argument that we make for seven years is simply that the nature of the workplace is changing and employees' lives are changing.

A number of years ago, very few people took a five-year career break. That is still the case, but, given the changing nature of the workplace and, hopefully, greater recognition of the requirements of family life and the work/life balance, particularly the requirements of parents, male or female, who want to rear children, and so on, it does not seem to us to be ungenerous to now move from five years to seven years. That is a moderate adjustment for a very small number of people who may wish to take a career break and come back to work afterwards. That is small recognition of the small number of people who may so be inclined — there will be very few. Given the nature of the economy that will exist after the recession and that the option of taking five years out of work will not be attractive to that many people, we think that a moderate amendment of that nature should earn the support of the House.

The third amendment concerns the current NILGOSC scheme. I declare a bit of an interest because, as Mr Wilson might be inclined to tell me, I made arguments around the Executive table about it. The local government scheme is fully funded, unlike any of the other schemes captured by this legislation, which are funded out of the Consolidated Fund. So I declare an interest because I was involved in an earlier stage of the NILGOSC scheme process. As I said earlier, the scheme involves about 50,000 people, extending beyond local government employees to include library board employees and others. That is a significant number: it is 20% of all those who might be affected by the Bill. Therefore, it is a significant sector, and, in practice, and, in any case, on a point of principle, we need to work through very carefully what the consequences will be for the proposed cut-off date in the Bill of March 2014.

I made the argument at the Executive table that, given that the NILGOSC scheme was fully funded and, therefore, different in character from all the other pension schemes that will be affected by the proposed changes in the Bill, it should be treated differently. Local government employers, employees and management, not just here in Northern Ireland but in England and Wales, were all trying to deal with the issues around the local government scheme in a way that would see changes, including those related to Hutton, being in place by 1 April 2014. I thought that it showed great authority by the trade union side, the employees and employers that, given the different character of that pension scheme, to try to gather in one place, by the end of March 2014, all that was required to be done for the scheme's management and the implementation of the relevant Hutton recommendations. However, that will not be the case.

I will give five quick reasons why we should now remove from the Bill the cut-off date of the end of March 2014. As with the other schemes under the legislation, the effective date for the new pension arrangements should be the end of March 2015. First, if you speak to NILGOSC and all its membership, they will confirm that, given the scale and complexity of what is being proposed and the number of people who will be impacted, it was likely that they would have a parallel process and learn heavily from the English and Welsh local government scheme and the negotiations around all of that. The intention was that we would be able to learn in significant ways from England and Wales, but they did not move as quickly as they might have, and I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that. Even in June 2013, when they went out to consult on various regulations regarding what the local government scheme might look like post-Hutton, it was devoid of much detail, and, therefore, there was a lack of certainty. The delay in making progress on the local government scheme in England and Wales meant that there was a parallel lack of certainty in making progress on the Northern Ireland scheme. If we rush in now, we will regret that at our leisure.

Secondly, even in England, some of the transitional arrangements for the local government scheme have not yet been reduced to regulation. Therefore, for reasons beyond the control of the Government in London, even the relevant transitional arrangements are in a place of some uncertainty. Therefore, there is a particular reason, given the time frames that we are talking about, for an absence of regulations in Britain that would outline the issue in respect of transitional arrangements. We should take some time out to get it right here.

Thirdly, as the Environment Minister will have confirmed, draft legislation on the local government scheme's design, administration and transitional arrangements went out to consultation here only in December last year. Even then, at some risk, which is the nature of consultations, the period for consultation was shortened. The consequence is that the consultation, short though it is, closes on 7 February. So, the consultation on the legislation for the scheme design and related matters has not even closed and will not close for another week. That is despite there being a requirement in the Bill to have regulations in place by the end of March. Therefore, it seems to us that, if we are going to honour the principle of consultation — even a shorter consultation than might have been desirable — that needs to be reflected now by taking some time out so that the date of March 2014 does not apply.

In any case, even if, on the far side of the consultation, we went down the road of the Minister tabling regulations and so on and so forth, it would create a very short window of two or three weeks for NILGOSC to make adjustments to payroll and computer systems. A commonsensical approach would be to not visit that upon NILGOSC in such a short time frame.

Why should we do all that? For the fifth reason. There are 48,000 members, and, if I remember correctly, compared with other schemes, a disproportionate number are women and are on lower-paid incomes. If we do all this in a rush, 48,000 people will be living with the consequences. Those consequences may impact most on women and part-time workers. If you do this in a hurry, you will be correcting it retrospectively. You will have a situation in which some will not get all the pension that they are entitled to and others will have to pay back pensions that have been overpaid. That will create confusion, and it will result in the interests of the employees, unionised or not, being compromised.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will in a second. I make the argument that there are administrative, individual, legal and financial reasons for adjusting the date of the end of March so that it is consistent with all other schemes. I give way.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I will not go into all the detail behind the reason why the date of 2014 was allowed in the first place. However, the Member will be aware that certain concessions were made to allow 2014 to be the date. Does he not accept that, given the history of what has happened here, if the date were moved to 2015, exactly the same problems could arise again? People might say, "There is plenty of time. We have time to make the adjustments, and we have bought ourselves another year." There would be no pressure to get the changes made. 2015 would come and go — maybe that is what he is after — and the changes would still not have been made.

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

First, I dispute the use of the word "concessions" because I was seeking, at Executive level, concessions in respect of this. The Member, who was then the Minister of Finance and Personnel, was one of the people who resisted that. If it is his understanding that the Executive eventually agreed that there should be concessions in respect of the local government scheme, I welcome that, because I made that argument time out of number, and, time out of number, the Executive said no. If they were actually saying yes, I welcome that.

If you speak to NILGOSC, which I had the good fortune to do when I was Minister — the employers, the employees and the trade union side — the one thing that you will conclude is that they were not seeking to buy time.

They were actually seeking to speed up, because, given the different character of the fund, they thought that they could do that work and do it well in a shorter time frame than in respect of the other pension categories named under clause 1l. It was not to delay and create doubt; it was actually to do it quicker and create certainty.

Despite their best intentions — I am utterly convinced of NILGOSC's best intentions for employer, employee and trade union — for the four or five reasons that I have outlined, they are not in a place for this to be mature enough for all of it to get done by the end of March. Given that the law will require that various processes need to be completed in respect of all of the other categories of pension named in clause 1 by the end of March 2015, why not say that it should be done in respect of the local government scheme as well? As I understand it, that should be satisfactory to Treasury, because the NILGOSC scheme will still be captured by the intention of the legislation to have the end of March 2015 as the final deadline in respect of relevant matters for the pension schemes under clause 1.

In case the argument is presented, as it may be, that penalties would be attracted if the NILGOSC scheme was deferred in that way for a year, it is my understanding that penalties apply to the unfunded pay-as-you-go schemes rather than the fully funded local government scheme, which is one of the essential differences of character. For those reasons, I urge people to accept amendment Nos 13 and 14. I look forward to hearing the Minister's view in that regard.

I turn, finally, to the last amendment in the group, which was tabled by Mr Allister, in respect of the RUC widows' pensions. It is a very well drafted amendment. I recognise that this is such a big piece of legislation that, if it was not for the work of the staff in the Bill Office, it might not be beyond Mr Allister but it would certainly be beyond the competence of other Members, including me. The Bill Office worked to get the best drafting possible to frame the best outcomes possible, even in very tight time frames in the middle of last week. I acknowledge the staff in the Bill Office for all of that work.

The amendment tabled by Jim Allister is well drafted —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

— but, more important than that, the intention is well made. I will give way.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Does the Member share my disappointment that, of course, that could have been done by regulation, had the Justice Minister decided to do so? For some reason or other he has proved intransigent on the issue, and it therefore had to come in the discussion on the main Bill.

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

That is a matter that you will have to take up with the Minister of Justice. I am not that familiar with the details of that particular row, but I would be interested to hear the Justice Minister reply to it in due course.

Is the point of the amendment tabled by Mr Allister not that we should ensure that, in primary legislation, we legislate for as many categories of employee or pension member as we can? Whether it has come in in the way that Mr Wilson suggests or not, we should seek in the Bill to maximise flexibilities, but not in a reckless way in terms of financial consequences. I trust that, if some of the amendments that we have proposed are accepted or Mr Allister's amendment is accepted, in group 1, the same principle of flexibility will be accepted when it comes to amendments in group 2.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

I have come to speak on the first group of amendments. In doing so, I appreciate that it seems to be something of a regurgitation of the debate we had a couple of weeks ago in relation to amendment No 1 and the necessity to try to force in the unions as the people who represent everyone, even though it appears that only 56% of the employees are represented by unions, so, therefore, 44% are left outside the door.

When the unions came forward at Committee Stage to give evidence, I witnessed some of the good work that they do. I also experienced some of the worst evidence presented, in that there seemed to be some intransigence, as I mentioned previously, in their way of working with people. We have to achieve a balancing of the books some way, but they seem to have their own ideas about how those books should or should not be balanced. They also placed great emphasis on how taxation is the way to deal with everything and that those who are possibly trying to use legal approaches to avoid tax should be pursued and made to pay. That is one way.

It is clear that amendment No 1 is just another attempt to put the unions at the top of the tree in negotiations. I think that the members' representatives on those bodies and the pension boards are the people who should make the case on behalf of their members, who are ultimately the people who contribute.

Amendment No 2 deals with breaks in the scheme. Mr Attwood alluded to the fact that it is a generous scheme. The way that private firms deal with this is an issue that is always raised. I do not know too many private firms that would offer the same conditions as are offered in the public sector, where a career break of up to five years will not affect pension entitlement. As a consequence of that, I feel that we have set a fair balance — I will use that term — for the way forward. I appreciate that 10 years sets the bar somewhat high. We will debate other amendments in which the SDLP will attempt to cover all the bases, but that is further on in the debate.

As far as breaks in service are concerned, I deem the seven-year scheme, which the public purse would have to fund for the time that no contributions are received from said scheme member, to be pushing the boat too far. The balance has been set fairly at five years.

I appreciate that we were to look at other amendments. Where amendment Nos 13 and 14 are concerned, my colleague has probably shot my bolt. However, I am not going to die in a ditch over the matter. It is important that those who control the likes of the NILGOSC scheme, which I am referring to, are aware and put measures in place. That is because there is a real fear that, by giving them another year's grace, they will take that year and then come back to renegotiate. I think that that is part of the scheme. Is it renegotiation or is it agreement? Whatever way they want to put it, it is consultation. It is not always about renegotiation; it is about consultation. That is what the point is.

That moves us on to an amendment that, by and large, every Member around the Chamber should see a bit of common sense in. Amendment No 15 calls for a new clause and makes reference to widows of police officers who have lost their life. It would mean that those who fell outside the scope of the 2008 change could avail themselves of that. The way in which the 2008 changes do not allow the widow of someone killed in the line of duty before that to remarry without losing her pension entitlement could be deemed unfair. In the light of that, the amendment makes total sense.

There is also the fear that those who remarried in the late 1980s and the 1990s will have lost the pension that they would otherwise have received. I do not know exactly how that would work under the amendment or whether it could be looked at retrospectively. I appreciate that not all legislation seems to work retrospectively. That is one area that the new clause could open up. The numbers involved are very small. It is important that we do not have one piece of legislation that discriminates against another. The 2008 changes to the scheme made provision for a widow to remarry and not lose her pension entitlement. It is vital that others can do the same.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

Yes.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I draw the Member's attention to a particular point. The reference is to former RUC members who were killed in action. I am certain that the Member is not approaching this from the point of view of excluding anybody. I think that, without that reference, it is clear that the amendment, in fact, incorporates all widows of former RUC officers.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

I would not wish to exclude widows of former RUC officers. I am glad to be assured that that is included. I speak in favour of amendment No 15.

Amendment No 19 is consequential to amendment No 15. It follows on from it and includes it in the Bill.

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

I thank the Member for giving way. In his reference to amendment No 1, the Member's actual words were, I think, that it was an attempt to put trade unions at the "top of the tree". Having read the amendment several times, I see nothing in it that creates a hierarchy of representation. It merely ensures that trade unions are named as representatives of their members in the Bill.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

I am happy to enter into debate on the matter. Inclusion of the word "must" means that nothing can be negotiated or discussed unless the unions are there. That is the point. I do not have an issue with working with unions in many other areas, but saying that representation from trade unions "must" be included says to me that nothing can be discussed unless they are present.

I support amendment Nos 15 and 19, reserve judgement on amendment Nos 13 and 14 and am against amendment Nos 1 and 2.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I speak in favour of the majority of the amendments. Amendments in both groups demonstrate the benefits of having a Further Consideration Stage. Some of them clearly reflect the debate and, indeed, division at Consideration Stage.

Amendment No 1 is a case in point. I feel that it fits in better than the amendment from the previous stage. It reflects a common-sense approach. It states that, if an employer recognises a trade union, there should be representation from that union. That should address some of the concerns that other parties had previously about "member representatives" referring to trade union representatives exclusively. It is a common-sense approach that we will support.

We shall also support amendment No 2. The gap in pensionable service was raised at Committee Stage, and it is important to recognise the potentially greater impact that that will have on female employees who have been out of the workplace for a longer period because they have been involved in raising their children. In that context, therefore, seven years is a reasonable period.

I am also happy to support amendment Nos 13 and 14 and the change from "2014" to "2015". As Members have said, it affects a large number of employees, and we need to ensure that that work is carried out correctly. It is not a big ask to support both amendments.

Amendment Nos 15 and 19 from the TUV affect only a small number of people. From what I have heard since I read the notification of the amendments, some people who want to remarry are not remarrying solely because of this, so it seems rather punitive.

I will keep my comments short. As Mr Attwood said, we should express our gratitude to the Bill Office, given the considerable demand that has been put on its services during the past week.

We will support the majority of the amendments in group 1.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I am pleased to speak at Further Consideration Stage. As one Member has said, we seem to have covered most of the ground at the previous stage.

Amendment No 1 insists on mandatory trade union representation. I cannot support that view. I believe that it is covered very well in clause 5(7). It is up to representatives to choose people to represent them, and I do not see anything to prevent them choosing trade union members, should they so decide. However, I am certainly opposed to mandatory representation by someone who is not a member of the pension scheme. Similarly, amendment No 2 would extend the gap in a person's pensionable service from five years to seven years. That is also unreasonable. A lot of money would have to be found to cover that during the intervening period. Most of the private sector does not have anything like that gap in pensionable service.

Amendment No 13 attempts to extend the closing date for existing schemes to 2015, and amendment No 14 follows on from that. On behalf of the Ulster Unionists, I support those amendments as they are reasonable.

A new issue has been brought in by amendment No 15, which seeks to correct an unfair situation in police pension regulations. Again, people have referred to that fairly accurately. Under the 1988 rules, a widow would lose her pension should she remarry. It is hard to believe that that sort of thing still exists. That was changed by the 2009 regulations but not retrospectively. It is right that it should be addressed. I have sympathy with the amendment, which the Ulster Unionist Party will support. Amendment No 19 follows on, and I will support both amendments on behalf of my party.

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

At the outset, I declare an interest as a member of the Civil Service pension scheme.

At the earlier stages of the Bill, I spoke on the policy intent behind the legislation and stated that perhaps we would not enact it if it were entirely up to us. However, today's debate is obviously not about the merits of the Bill as a whole but instead is focused on specific amendments and their outworkings should they be accepted by the House today. It is important that we assess the consequences of each amendment and reach our decisions after taking into account the full facts surrounding each one.

I turn first to the proposed amendment to clause 5, which relates to pension board representation. It is very similar to an amendment debated at Consideration Stage, which attempted to restrict employee representation to trade unions. The clause already allows those who are appointed to the board for the purpose of representing members of the scheme to be members of trade unions but does not state that they must be. Although I am sure that it is likely that many members would like to have representation from a trade union on the pension board, there are also members who are not members of any trade union and would not necessarily wish that to be the case. Therefore, I will not support that amendment.

Amendment No 2, which relates to clause 9, again seeks to increase the maximum gap in a person's —

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

Will the Member give way?

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

No, not at the moment.

Amendment No 2, which relates to clause 9, again seeks to increase the maximum gap in a person's pensionable service that can be disregarded for pension revaluations. Again, we will not support the amendment because the Bill as drafted already allows for five years, which is in line with the typical maximum career break and is a fair provision for those who have had a break in pensionable service.

I will move on to the amendments that apply to the local government scheme. Amendment Nos 13 and 14, which apply to clauses 18 and 28 respectively, would delay implementation of the reform of the local government scheme by one year. It is somewhat disappointing that a reform that should generate necessary savings is being delayed. However, I have sought an assurance from the current Environment Minister that the delay will not have financial implications for the Executive, nor will it result in an added burden to ratepayers. If that is confirmed, we will support the amendments.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

Go ahead.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Does she accept that, although it will not have any cost for the Executive, it will have a cost for the scheme, which has been described as fully funded but is actually underfunded at present? Indeed, there is quite a lot of catch-up to be done. The danger of an attempt to fill the gap created by another delay in increased pension contributions is that ratepayers will pay for the delay.

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I sought an assurance from the current Environment Minister about the cost that it may put on to ratepayers. At this precise moment, the information that I have is that it will not have implications. Hopefully, that can be thrashed out further on in the debate.

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

Will the Member give way?

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

Go ahead.

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

Does the Member accept that, currently, the NILGOSC scheme is, as far as I can recall, fully funded to 89% of its anticipated requirements? That is much better than many other pension schemes in the private sector, which, as we all know, are underfunded by significant sums. NILGOSC is one of the best performing pension schemes in its investments, to the point that nearly 90% of its anticipated costs are funded. In any case, NILGOSC has developed a moderate recovery plan to ensure that it gets to 100% or surpasses 100% of anticipated demand.

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

Again, I thank the Member for his intervention. It is positive that NILGOSC has looked at a recovery plan, provided that that does not simply put an additional burden on ratepayers.

Finally, then —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way again, just so that this is on the record?

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

Go ahead.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I am glad that it has at least been admitted that, although the scheme was described as fully funded, it is not fully funded and could not pay out fully at the moment. Does the Member accept that part of the recovery plan was that increased contributions would start from 2014-15 and that now, of course, there will be a year's delay in those increased contributions?

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

Again, I take the Member's point. That is why I went to the current Minister of the Environment specifically to ask for an assurance that there would not be a cost. Hopefully, the Finance Minister will have some more information on that.

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

Will the Member give way?

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

I will move on at this point. Thank you.

Finally in this group of amendments, I want to refer to new clause 29A. I understand that Mr Allister will be aware that the Justice Minister has been pursuing this issue for some years. He has repeatedly pressed the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to recognise the particular circumstances that a small number of police widows find themselves in. We are talking about a small number of widows and very particular circumstances. Yet, the objections from both Whitehall Departments have been that amending the regulations would breach principles such as retrospectivity and parity. At this stage, the Justice Minister has not accepted those arguments but has not yet found a resolution. Mr Allister proposes that the Bill offers an opportunity to address the issue. The Alliance Party has very real sympathy with the circumstances in which these widows find themselves. We will listen carefully to what the Finance Minister has to say on the matter. In particular, we await his informed opinion on whether an amendment such as that proposed by Mr Allister can bring about a resolution of the issue.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way on that point?

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

Yes. Go ahead.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I have noticed that, in the absence of the Justice Minister, the Member has tried to make some defence of him, but does she agree that, if the Minister had been sympathetic and not hard-hearted, he could, at a very early stage, have agreed to change by regulation the terms of the pension scheme to enable those who were forced to live in sin because, if they had got married, they would have lost their pension —

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think the Member needs to be careful with his language. To refer to people who choose a certain way to live as living "in sin" visits upon those people an unfortunate reference.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member's points have been noted, and I am sure that Mr Wilson will take that on board.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I was merely using the colloquial term.

The point I am making is this: had her Minister agreed to change this by regulation, the folks who were forced to choose between not getting married and keeping their pension and getting married and losing their pension could have had the issue resolved.

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for his intervention. Having dealt with one of my constituents who is in that situation, it is my understanding that the Minister of Justice has, on numerous occasions, tried to address the issue and has gone back and forward. I have seen the correspondence around that. Yes, there may be ways in which it could be properly resolved through legislation, and we continue to press the Minister on that as well.

I want to know whether the amendment that is before us today can bring about a resolution. Is it possible to use a DFP Bill to amend police pension regulations? If the Bill before us can, in fact, be used to resolve the issue, we should take the opportunity. If it cannot, we will wish to hear from the Finance Minister whether it might be addressed through secondary legislation. If it can, we will support such a solution.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I speak in support of amendment No 15. My colleagues have dealt with the other amendments in the group. I will curtail my remarks solely to the amendment in respect of RUC widows who seek to remarry. I have met one of the widows in that circumstance. She lost her husband, who was killed because of the job that he was doing, and she had very young children. She is now in a position where she would seek to remarry but the financial consequences of doing so are very severe. She has been stuck in that position for quite a number of years. She wants to do the right thing, according to her faith. The individual who I have been dealing with is a Christian, and she wants to honour the principles that she lives by. However, if she did so, the regulations would bring a great deal of financial hardship.

I know that my colleagues have campaigned on the issue, including the Member of Parliament for my constituency, Mr Donaldson, and, as this constituent resides in Strangford, Jim Shannon, the Member of Parliament there. They have collectively campaigned on this with the Home Secretary, Theresa May, and the Prime Minister, David Cameron, who has been engaged on the issue. My European Parliament colleague, Diane Dodds, has been campaigning on the issue from January 2011. The issue has been ongoing for a considerable time.

I know that the Member for North Antrim, who tabled the amendment, will be aware of the case that I mentioned, because I have been reading through correspondence that that Member has been engaged in. We have sought to deal with this. There have been exchanges of correspondence with the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, David Ford, the Human Rights Commission here in Northern Ireland and the Victims' Commission, and all of them have been unsuccessful. I have been particularly disappointed by the Minister of Justice's approach to this. It has not been helpful in trying to find a resolution.

Diane Dodds, a Member of the European Parliament, recently engaged the Justice Committee on the issue. I thank Members from all parties who sit on that Committee because, when the matter was raised, we all felt that it was a case worth pursuing. We then sought a legal opinion on the issue from the Attorney General. In response to the Committee, the Attorney General made a number of points that would be worth the Assembly bearing in mind in deciding whether it has the competence to deal with the issue.

He made the point:

" the Royal Ulster Constabulary Pension Regulations 1988 are the bedrock of pension provision in relation to the police."

He went on to state how the relevant different sections — I will not go through them — of different legislation empower the Department of Justice as the authoritative body to deal with the issue. He said to the Committee:

"although the Department is primarily responsible for making regulations there is a complex consultative process that must be adhered to".

That includes the Department of Justice having to engage with the Policing Board, the Police Association for Northern Ireland, the Department of Finance and the UK Police Negotiating Board, for those regulations to be consulted on and, therefore, to be lawful. I am not aware of the Minister of Justice having even commenced any of those processes to bring forward his own regulation.

The Attorney General went on to say:

"it is clear to me that the Department has taken over entirely the Secretary of State's role in relation to police pensions irrespective of whether such pensions are payable to RUC officers and their dependents or PSNI officers and their dependents. Accordingly, it is the responsibility of the Department to make similar provision for RUC widows as is provided for in the Police Pension (NI) Regulations 2009 in respect of the PSNI if it wishes to do so."

Members will be familiar with the current law, whereby widows of serving officers who were killed can remarry, should they choose to do so, without any financial consequences to the pension that they have been in receipt of. This is a matter of equality: there is a current group of employees who have this provision, and there are those who have been impacted in the past who do not. It is right that we now move to address this issue by bringing forward this amendment. We have seen from the engagement over the past number of years that the Department of Justice has not wanted to bring forward regulations. Although the Member for East Belfast indicated that the Minister has engaged with Whitehall and that Whitehall has concerns about the issue, it is clear from the legal opinion of the Attorney General that it is for this Assembly; it is a wholly devolved matter, and it is for the Minister of Justice to bring forward regulations.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Yes.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I waited until Mrs Cochrane came back into the Chamber before saying this, because clearly all that she was doing was parroting words given to her by the Justice Minister. She was told, "In my absence, please tell the Assembly my concerns about this". Does the Member accept that the Minister has form in this regard? If he does not like something or is uneasy with it, he has a quite annoying habit of not telling the Committee or the Assembly; he puts it into the bushes by asking for a working party or more research, or saying that he is valiantly trying to get it through.

The reality is that the Minister has been in position now for over three years. If he had wanted to do something about this, there would be clear evidence indicating that there was movement. Mrs Cochrane made it very clear that there has been absolutely no movement, which means that it is probably never going to happen. Therefore, I entirely agree with what Mr Allister is trying to do. I hope that other Members, rather than causing further suffering and distress to those ladies, will back the amendment.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his intervention.

The point that I want to continue making is that, having sought to put pressure on the Minister of Justice to bring forward his own regulations in compliance with the processes that currently exist, and having got evidence that that is not going to happen, what are Members to do? I recognise that it is somewhat unusual to use this Bill to address something that the Department of Justice should have addressed by way of regulation. However, it is entirely reasonable for that approach to be taken. Therefore, the Bill should be used to facilitate the changes that we have sought.

I have engaged with the Finance Minister, Mr Hamilton, on this particular issue. I have sought to get the reassurance from him that, despite advice that he may well be receiving, it is going to be competent and we are able to do this because of the particular issues at stake. Hopefully, the Minister, when responding later, will outline how he has been able to try to deal with this. I had a number of conversations with him and Diane Dodds over the weekend on this particular issue to try to make sure that the amendment can be facilitated and hopefully have the endorsement of the Minister, which can then reassure the House that it is the right thing to do. It will put right something that will affect a very small number of people.

I recognise that the Assembly will, by and large, deal with legislation that will impact on the vast majority of people. However, if we in the Assembly are to do something for the one or two in society, I think that it is right that we do so. That is why we support devolution. I have no doubt that, if this had been left to direct rule, we would not be able to make this particular change. However, because of devolution, we are able to look at particular circumstances, and, where we are able to make positive change, we can do so. That is why amendment No 15 should be commended, and I trust that the House will be able to give it its full support.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I will be brief in my contribution, given that most of what my party needed to say has been said. I thought that the proposers of amendment No 1 would have learned from the debate at Consideration Stage that, when they did not get their way for the unions, they were not going to get their way for this one either. The amendment includes the words:

"must include representation from any trade union".

However, it is blatantly obvious. I think that my colleague Paul Girvan referred to the fact that 56% of people in the public service pension scheme are members of trade unions, so it is highly likely — in fact, it is certainly over 50% likely — that any membership of the scheme would include members of a trade union. So, I do not accept that the amendment is necessary, and I will not be supporting it.

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

Will the Member give way?

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I will.

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

Could the Member explain to the House what exactly is wrong with this amendment? What is wrong with trade unions, which, as you said yourself, represent a good majority of members in the schemes, being named in the Bill as representatives of their members?

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I think that what we debated at Consideration Stage on the previous amendment on this matter applies to this. The fact is that naming them in the Bill will discriminate against those who are not members of trade unions. The Members can wax lyrical as often as they want about this issue, but the fact is that it discriminates. I heard them refer to equal rights, human rights and many different rights, but what about the rights of those people who are not members of a union?

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

Will the Member give way?

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Yes.

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

Would you provide to the House the legal advice that you have received that led you to say that that amendment would be discriminatory? Where is the legal advice? If you are relying on that word and on its precise legal consequences, you should provide that legal advice, otherwise you should withdraw the claim that it is discriminatory.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I think that the Member has gone a wee bit too far. If I have an opinion on whether it discriminates, I do not need to seek legal advice to provide me with that. I am entitled to that opinion.

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

Will the Member give way?

I think that, as other Members said, five years is a fair period to allow people to take a career break that will not impact their pensions. I said the previous time that it felt as though they were plucking a number out of the air. They had 10 years the previous time, so they are trying their luck with seven years. However, I do not think that that is going to happen either.

As other Members said, we are not going to divide the House on amendment Nos 13 and 14. It is disappointing, as Judith Cochrane said, that this is continuing to 2015, but again, we will not divide the House. As my colleague Paul Givan said, one or two people are affected by the issue that amendment No 15 seeks to address. In this case, if it is the right thing to do, we should do it. I have no doubt that the Minister will detail whatever information he has about the amendment's competency and whether what it seeks to do can be done. Like other Members, I am disappointed that the Justice Minister has not brought that change in via regulation. Nonetheless, we are where we are, and hopefully we will deal with the matter through the amendment.

We will certainly not be supporting amendment Nos 1 and 2, but we will not divide the House on any of the other amendments in the group.

The debate stood suspended.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions

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

1. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on their decision regarding the reappointment of the current Attorney General. (AQO 5365/11-15)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Consideration of the options for filling the position of Attorney General after the current term ends in May 2014 is under way.

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

The deputy First Minister will recall that, in the autumn, the First Minister said that he and the deputy First Minister would be reaching a settled view about the appointment of the Attorney General and be making an announcement within a matter of weeks. It is now a matter of months. What further information can the deputy First Minister give to the House?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I can give no further information to the House other than to state the position that we recognise that, come May of this year, the position of Attorney General needs to be filled. We had a discussion about that during the past seven days, and we hope to be in a position to make an announcement very shortly.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht an fhreagra sin. Given the issues that the Attorney General has involved himself in, does the deputy First Minister think that he has strayed outside his remit?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is important that we understand the different roles and responsibilities of the Attorney General (AG). When he was appointed, we invited him to undertake the non-statutory role of chief legal adviser to the Executive. He also has a range of responsibilities derived from statute, convention and practice. Section 22(5) of the Justice Act 2002 requires the Attorney General to exercise his functions independently of any other person.

There may well be times when the AG, in his statutory role, acts in ways that others may consider unhelpful. There may be times when we as an Executive differ from his views, but it would be wrong of us to seek to curtail his actions when he is acting in his independent statutory role.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the reappointment process take into account the controversial and sometimes unhelpful or inappropriate comments and remarks that the Attorney General has made in the past few years?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am not sure what remarks the Member refers to, but I made it clear in my initial answer that there were times when people voiced objections to what they considered his involvement in areas that he should not have been involved in, whilst we as an Executive absolutely have to respect the independence of his office. We have to remember that the Attorney General is a statutory officer with a range of responsibilities derived in part from statute and in part from convention and practice. Section 22(5) of the Justice Act requires the Attorney General to exercise his functions independently of any other person.

On the Attorney General's appointment, we also invited him to undertake the non-statutory role of chief legal adviser to the Executive. Such a role is usually carried out by the senior law officer in comparable jurisdictions. One of the terms of reference of the Angiolini review was to examine and make recommendations on possible tensions between the Attorney General having to balance his role as chief legal adviser to the Executive with his statutory responsibilities.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Question 11 has been withdrawn.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

2. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether any analysis has been carried out regarding the cost of implementing the Haass proposals. (AQO 5366/11-15)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Haass talks concluded on New Year's Eve without agreement between the five Executive parties on the proposals that were put forward. In the absence of such agreement, there has been no assessment or analysis of the cost of implementation. The panel of parties was asked to bring forward recommendations that would provide long-term and sustainable solutions in the best interests of the community and make peace more resilient going forward. It will, therefore, now be for the parties to agree a way forward, and, at that stage, it would be appropriate to consider the funding and budgetary implications of the agreed measures.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Given that victims were at the heart of Haass, that it was the twenty-second anniversary of the Teebane atrocity last week and that no one has been brought to justice for that heinous multiple murder, will the deputy First Minister, by his own admission a member and leader of the IRA, give all the information that he has to the PSNI to assist the victims and the families of those murdered that day?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member takes a great liberty in attributing to me information that I have absolutely no knowledge of whatsoever. The reality is that, in the course of the Haass discussions, there was a huge responsibility on all the parties to come forward with an agreed approach to dealing with the issues of victims; parades; and flags, symbols and emblems. It does a grave disservice to victims if we find ourselves, as the Member has unfortunately found himself, in a position where he is tempted to score political points.

We have to recognise that we have a duty and a responsibility as politicians to find solutions to these problems. We all entered the discussions with a very clear understanding of the challenges before us. I, for one, am not prepared to shirk my responsibilities as a political leader to try to find outcomes that will be beneficial to victims. In the context of the Haass recommendations, a menu of options was put forward that quite clearly could, if implemented, deal with a lot of the concerns that victims have. We are all much better working positively and constructively together to find solutions as opposed to engaging in what I consider to be a very low attempt to score a political point.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí go dtí seo. What does the deputy First Minister think the implications will be if the parties do not agree on a way forward through the Haass talks?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have to say that I think that there will be implications for victims, for communities looking for a resolution to the issue of parades, for loyal orders who wish to parade and for people who, I think, are mature enough to engage in a debate on how we respect the British identity in the North and the Irish identity in the North. These issues represent huge challenges.

Remember that our parties were part of a process called cohesion, sharing and integration (CSI), in which a lot of good was work done. A lot of that good work is now in the Together: Building a United Community approach. Just a few days ago, the First Minister and I attended a very important event in the Waterfront Hall involving a lot of young people and organisations. Those young people hope that we can continue to move forward and deal with these situations. However, we failed to deal with the three issues during the CSI process. Some parties play-acted, and some parties stepped out of the process. That is why, with the agreement of the five party leaders, we had to bring in Richard Haass. It is our responsibility to find a solution to the three issues. Will we find a solution by repeating the CSI failures? I think not.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

Will the deputy First Minister give an assessment of the impact of introducing a whole raft of new quangos on the policy to reduce the number of arm's-length bodies?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

All parties in the Assembly accept that the three outstanding issues that we are trying to find resolutions to require imaginative and innovative approaches. The dialogue and discussions that took place over a six-month period, culminating in intensive talks prior to and after Christmas, left us in a position in which, for example, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party told the media that he was 80% to 90% in agreement with the approach adopted in the Haass discussions. Of course, if you are in agreement with 80% or 90%, that effectively means that you are in agreement with the architecture that was proposed by Richard Haass. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I see heads shaking, but I think that the public, having heard the Ulster Unionist Party say that it was 80% to 90% happy with what was being discussed in the final days of those talks, will have realised that much of the discussion centred around the establishment of the Historical Investigations Unit —

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Language.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

— and a recovery mechanism and other mechanisms to provide the solace and comfort that many victims' groups are seeking.

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

I thank the deputy First Minister for his answers. Does he agree that extra resources may be required from the British Government to implement the Haass proposals? Given that we want to be in a positive frame of mind, how confident is the deputy First Minister that legislation can be moved in the Dáil, the House of Commons and, indeed, here in due course to make sure that implementation happens?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

There is a huge responsibility on the British Government in particular to recognise that, in the event of agreement being reached, they should make a financial contribution towards the establishment of the important bodies to deal with what are very contentious issues in the process. I contend that, whatever price will be paid by the British Government, it will be minimal in the context of resolving issues that cause great aggravation in our community and have, by their existence, created all sorts of difficulties in these institutions. I met the British Secretary of State recently, and that issue was raised. I have also raised the issue with the Tánaiste, Eamon Gilmore, who I have contact with and met recently. From the interest taken by the White House and the State Department, there is a very clear recognition that, in the context of agreement being reached, the British Government should make a financial contribution towards the resolution of these issues.

The Member asked about legislation. The big focus at the minute is on whether or not the meetings that we are involved in at party leadership level in the Assembly can find a way forward. If we find a way forward, we will then face the issue of legislating.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

3. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on progress on the Delivering Social Change framework. (AQO 5367/11-15)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will ask junior Minister McCann to answer the question.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

As Members will be aware, the Delivering Social Change framework was set up to tackle poverty and social exclusion. It represents a new level of joined-up working across government to achieve tangible, long-lasting social benefits for those who need them most. Underpinning all that work is a recognition of how important it is that all our children and young people get the best possible start in life. That is why the early work of Delivering Social Change has focused on the identification of the needs of children and families to ensure that the most urgent and significant problems in our society are addressed.

The initial six signature programmes announced in October 2012 are focusing on early interventions to tackle issues before they develop into problems and to give children a good start in life. For example, it includes prenatal interventions, early years interventions and programmes for those who are not in education, training or employment. Significant progress has been made on those programmes, and they are beginning to make a real impact. However, those signature programmes alone will not eradicate the serious issues such as poor health, low educational attainment and chronic unemployment.

Reducing intergenerational poverty can be achieved only by all Ministers working together with a longer-term view to the next Programme for Government period and the years beyond. We have recognised that, and a policy project board has been established to look at how the Executive can improve the quality of life for our communities in the areas of health, education, employment, family and community life, and cohesion. Through a more joined-up approach, we believe that we can make changes in children's lives and, in doing so, help break the cycle of multigenerational poverty that blights so many of our communities.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

Further to that detailed response, what consideration is being given to future projects?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

A lot of consideration has been given to future projects. The board that I mentioned has been looking at, for instance, the Active Ageing strategy and issues concerning people with disabilities.

The Member will know that, recently, we also had the Delivering Social Change for Children and Young People strategy, which is now out for consultation. We are looking at a number of projects in those three areas in particular, but we are concentrating primarily on children and young people and on families.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. What consideration has been given to extending the consultation period for the Delivering Social Change for Children and Young People strategy?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

As I said in my reply to the previous question, the Delivering Social Change for Children and Young People strategy, which has been launched and is out for consultation, sets out proposed outcomes, indicators and actions that we hope will improve the outcomes for children and young people. Although we have said that the consultation was due to close on 21 February due to the statutory deadlines, we acknowledge that that time period is not in keeping with good practice as outlined, for instance, by the Equality Commission, so we hope to extend that period. I do not know whether the Member has had a chance to read it, but we are actively engaging with people in local communities who have a particular interest in those areas of work. We will be going out to get their ideas to influence any future policy.

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

I have listened to the junior Minister with some level of confusion. She will recall that these hubs were to be signed off by the end of January, which we are now in. Have leases been negotiated, and are we going ahead?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I am sorry; for clarification, is that the family support hubs or the social economy hubs? [Interruption.] I am happy enough to answer the Member's question.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I appreciate that, Minister.

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

The hubs that were promised by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister for Delivering Social Change.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I am not being facetious here; I just want to answer your question. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

There has been a bit of difficulty with the family support hubs. We had a meeting recently at which that was clarified; they were supposed to be in place much more quickly than they were. We are being told that they will be in place by April this year. All eight social economy hubs, and a ninth, extra one, will be in place soon, and the locations are there. I take the Member's point about the family health hubs, because we are very keen to get those in place as soon as possible.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the junior Minister for her answers. Is she content that the consultation on the Delivering Social Change for Children and Young People strategy will last only five weeks — she touched on that in her previous answer — and that the child-friendly version of the consultation document is not yet published?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

As I said, we were put under a bit of pressure because of the statutory deadlines by which we have to report to the Assembly under the Child Poverty Act 2010. We did acknowledge that it was not in keeping with the Equality Commission's recommendations for consultations. We do not want to consult just the stakeholders and the people who deliver the service; we are very keen to consult the children themselves, so I think that what we will see, hopefully, is that consultation with the children and young people. We started that off last Friday at an event in the Waterfront Hall, where hundreds of young people came together. I take on board what you are saying, because we are very keen to make sure that children and young people are actively involved in that.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

4. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister when they expect funding to be allocated to projects via the social investment fund (AQO 5368/11-15)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will ask junior Minister McCann to answer this question.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

We have agreed indicative financial allocations for each of the nine social investment fund zones. Officials have met the chairs of the nine steering groups, and then each steering group, to agree the projects in each of the area plans that can be funded from the available resources for each zone and to discuss the next steps to progress the delivery of the projects. We expect that the first tranche of projects will receive letters of offer in the coming weeks. Officials are focusing further efforts on securing approval for those projects that sit within the limits of affordability in each zone but have not yet been fully approved. We anticipate completing this exercise by the end of the current financial year.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank Minister McCann for her answer. Now that allocations have been decided, when will local groups and projects be informed about how they have fared in the application process and whether they are likely to receive funding?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I sympathise with the point about the length of time that it has been taking for some projects. We are hopeful that, by the end of next month, letters of offer will go out to some of the lead organisations that will be delivering them. We are very keen to get that money on the ground, because, having come from the community sector, I know how frustrating it is for community organisations that are constantly looking for funding for projects. We are really trying to get it out as soon as possible, and I will keep the Member informed about how that is going.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Will the junior Minister and the deputy First Minister ensure that, at the next round of funding under the social investment fund (SIF), when they are discussing interface areas in particular, account will be taken of communities of either side of that interface to ensure that there is a balance in funding applications, particularly in hard-to-reach communities on either side of it?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Certainly. We are taking where the most need is into consideration. We want to ensure that all communities have the money and the resources that they need to put the services, projects and programmes in place. It does not matter what side of the community they are from. We are looking at this specifically to help people who are disadvantaged and who are in most need.

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

I thank the junior Minister for her answer. What consideration has been given to rural impacts in the strategic area plans for SIF?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Member will know that the social investment fund was for right across the North, unlike neighbourhood renewal, which is mainly for urban areas. The social investment fund also included rural areas. We know that SIF will not cure all the ills that are out there, so we are very keen to work with other programmes that are already out in communities, such as neighbourhood renewal. You mentioned rural communities, and we are very keen to work within area plans.

This came from the bottom up, if you like. Steering groups are deciding what projects and programmes are prioritised for getting this funding. So, it is for the areas, represented by the steering groups, to decide that.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

After the protracted delay, is it sheer coincidence that OFMDFM is holding off the announcements on what projects have been successful to get those announcements as close as possible to the local government elections?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

No, nothing could be further from the truth. As I said, I have worked in the community sector, and I know the difficulties that people in that sector have in trying to get resources and funding for programmes and the different things that they do there. So, we are trying to get this funding out as quickly as possible, and we will be doing that.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

5. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the Executive's investment strategy. (AQO 5369/11-15)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

In October 2012, we launched the latest revision of the investment strategy, covering the years 2011-2021, envisaging a total investment of something like £13·3 billion. The strategy is sufficiently flexible to respond to developments in priorities and policy, as well as to changes in the wider economic context. That includes access to further capital, which was agreed as part of the Building a Prosperous and United Community agreement that was announced in June 2013.

In the financial year 2012-13, some £1,300 million was invested in capital infrastructure projects, and I expect a broadly similar figure for 2013-14. During the past year, a number of significant projects have been completed, and new ones have been started or have commenced in planning. To ensure that we are making best use of the resource that is available to us, we are completing a review of existing infrastructure and an assessment of future needs. This will ensure that our investment strategy continues to be informed by the latest evidence. That has been complemented by innovative research by the Strategic Investment Board and Queen's University on new strategic infrastructure planning models to assist Departments and public bodies, and by action to manage property assets more effectively.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí go dtí seo. I thank the deputy First Minister for his answer. Can he provide an update on the development of the Community Safety College at Desertcreat?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am sure that all Mid Ulster MLAs will be happy to know that, following some difficulties, the two sponsoring Departments — Justice and Health — have agreed on the design and costings for the college. It is expected that the contract will be awarded in June, when work will begin on the site. Construction is expected to be completed by autumn 2016, and the college will open shortly after that. The total cost of the college, including construction, equipment and ICT will be in the region of £157 million. In line with our Programme for Government commitments, the college's location helps to address regional imbalances in investment, and the inclusion of social clauses in the contract will provide training, work and business opportunities for local people.

It is also important to state that there will be a meet-the-buyer day in March 2014. That will provide opportunities for local businesses to become involved. We are all absolutely agreed that, in the context of the huge contracts, it is very important that small local businesses be given every opportunity to be in there seeking opportunities for themselves and for their employees.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra cuimsitheach. Can the deputy First Minister give us any indication as to why the announcement of the date of commencement has again slipped? Many of us who have been involved closely in trying to advocate the project have seen the date slip quite considerably. We were told that it would be March, then it was to be May, and he has just announced that it will be June.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member is aware that the Community Safety College is a joint venture between the PSNI, the Fire Service and the Prison Service. When the college is completed, it will be a world-leading centre of excellence for training. Initial tender returns received in December 2012 were significantly above the pre-tender estimates, resulting in a process to review specifications and designs. We are all very conscious that that has been the primary reason why we have ended up in a slippage situation. I have taken as keen an interest as anybody in the project. I am very anxious to see it completed, because the college will be hugely beneficial to people, not just in the constituency but all over the North, in seeing the decentralisation of important bodies out of Belfast.

It is also important to state that significant elements were opposed in the first instance to the project going to Cookstown. It took people such as me and others to stand against those who wished to have it in the Belfast area. I am happy to say that we won the day, and the centre of excellence for community safety will be built in Cookstown, starting in June. A bit of slippage? I will accept that over the college not going there at all.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

How will the Executive's investment strategy be utilised to remedy the disastrous effects in many areas in Northern Ireland, particularly on the Ards peninsula, where so many sea breaches, flooding and coastal erosion affected many people's houses and businesses?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

In my initial answer, I said that built into all of this is flexibility. We all have to be very conscious of the incredibly worsening weather situation and the extremes of weather that we have been experiencing in recent years. No doubt, those responsible for devising a strategy will have to take account of coastal erosion and how that can be to the detriment of local communities, such as those on the Ards peninsula. Therefore, it is a point well made.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, Members. We move on to topical questions.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

1. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry. (AQT 601/11-15)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will ask junior Minister McCann to take that question.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Member will be aware that there have been recent developments. The people who were affected by historical institutional abuse have been going to Banbridge. We are trying to ensure that the people who come forward and have to face that process will have as many support mechanisms and services as possible. We are concentrating on that. Obviously, the inquiry is independent, but we are helping and are very keen to make sure that the people who come forward are supported in the horrendous ordeal that they have to face.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the junior Minister for her answer. She and the deputy First Minister will be aware that the evidence given this week, I think, or last week by Sisters of Nazareth nuns was described as "haphazard and piecemeal". What obligations do institutions such as the Sisters of Nazareth have when it comes to cooperating fully with the inquiry?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

There could not be anything more dreadful than what those people had to go through. I think particularly about the vulnerability of the children involved, because they had nobody to turn to. Everyone should approach the inquiry, regardless of the basis on which they are giving evidence, with openness and transparency. I hope that that is the case, whatever organisation people are from.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

2. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister how it proposes to take forward the child poverty strategy to ensure progress. (AQT 602/11-15)

I commend the "turning the curve" exercises in the new child poverty strategy.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, junior Minister McCann will take that question.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Member will know from what was said earlier that the new Delivering Social Change strategy for children and young people is out to consultation, and included in that is the child's outcome model. We have been in consultation on that for some time with stakeholder organisations. We are trying to base that around the health, family support and educational achievement outcomes for children.

We are bound by the Westminster Child Poverty Act 2010 to report to the Assembly by the end of March. That might not be possible, and the date might slip simply because we want to go out to consultation and get information. That is where the strategy sits, and hopefully we will have more information to bring to the Assembly in the coming weeks and months.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the strategy be laid in time to meet our statutory obligations in the Child Poverty Act?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I have just said that that is what we hope to do. It might slip by a couple of weeks, but that is all. We do not want to cut the consultation period short, because we are very concerned about the Equality Commission's view. We want to consult as many people as possible before we bring the strategy back. It might slip by a couple of weeks, but that is all.