Northern Ireland Assembly, 24 February 2014

435 contributions from 63 members. The official report.

Executive Committee Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

We come to the Further Consideration Stage of the Financial Provisions Bill. I call the Minister of Finance and Personnel, Simon Hamilton, to move the Bill.

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

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

One amendment has been tabled. Members will have received a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments, which provides details of the amendment and the grouping list. The single debate will be on amendment No 1, which requires the Department to conduct a review of regulations under article 31C of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, and to lay a report before the Assembly by 31 October 2014.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

We now come to the single amendment for debate.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I beg to move the following amendment:After clause 7 insert

"Review of regulations under Article 31C of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977

7A. The Department shall by the 31st October 2014 review and lay a report before the Assembly on the application of regulations under Article 31C of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977."

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The amendment that we move this afternoon is pretty straightforward. It is pretty much an open amendment, and, hopefully, we will get the agreement of the House to adopt it later today. The amendment is in relation to a review of regulations relating to the small business rate relief scheme, and we are seeking a commitment from the Department to hold the review and to lay a report before the Assembly by 31 October of this year.

The small business rate relief scheme commenced in April 2010 and has been in operation for some four years. There have been some changes to it in that time — for example, the extension to properties with a net annual value (NAV) of up to £15,000. It has been welcomed by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in particular and by many shops in our town centres, and around 25,000 properties currently benefit from it. Its purpose was to support growth and sustainability, and that is especially important given the economic context that businesses have faced and continue to face today.

Town centres and the businesses in them that are now dealing with a changed market are close to the hearts of many public representatives. They are dealing with consumers whose needs have changed and what they want in terms of service. There are new types of competition, the Internet being an obvious one. So, retail has had to face a completely different, utterly changed landscape in town centres.

The Department said that, in 2014, it would look at town centre rejuvenation, and that should be one of the review's priorities. It is important that the right balance is struck with town centre rating as businesses will, of course, have new bills in just over 13 months' time, based on the revaluation of all commercial property. The Assembly debated town centres in October last year. The Alliance Party and Mrs Cochrane, a Member for East Belfast, tabled a motion on the pressures that retail businesses in town centres are under. There continues to be a debate about the future of town centres. That future depends on the policies that we adopt, especially in areas such as rating.

DFP officials indicated to the Finance Committee that, in 2014, the Department will be able to marry the assessment of the impact of revaluation to the continuation of the scheme. There is no doubt that the small business rate relief scheme has been a success for the many businesses that benefited from it. However, a small number of businesses have large premises and low turnover, and, to some of those, it seems unfair. A recent and obvious example of that is indoor go-karting facilities, to which my party colleague will refer later. Those businesses need facilities with a large square footage, but their turnover is small by comparison with many similar-sized properties, particularly large retail stores. Such facilities are dotted throughout many constituencies. I know of one in North Antrim, and there are facilities in East Antrim, Bangor, Derry and Newry. Many of the businesses face large rate bills because of the size of their property, but their turnover is much smaller compared with businesses that have a similar square footage.

The amendment proposes a review. We have deliberately kept the wording of the amendment open, simple and straight to the point in order to get the support of the House. We suggest that the review urgently looks at anomalies such as those I mentioned, as some of those businesses will struggle to sustain themselves, even over the next number of months, never mind into 2015.

As I said, the amendment is quite simple and straight to the point. The issue is urgent for the many businesses that do not qualify for the small business rate relief scheme at present. We are open-minded as to how the review should be taken forward, and many difficult decisions will have to be made. Obviously, we cannot keep all businesses happy all the time, but I feel that now is the time for a review. There is commitment for a review to be carried out in 2014. We believe that it should be carried out and a report laid before the Assembly by 31 October this year.

A Cheann Comhairle, I look forward to the debate.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

I will speak against the amendment. I am not against trying to help small businesses, and I am not trying to create a problem for them. Far be it from us to try to stop our town centres from regenerating.

I appreciate that reductions have been made since 2010, when property with a rateable value of £5,000 could avail itself of a 20% reduction. That was increased to a £10,000 rateable valuation, and lately it has gone up to £15,000. As a consequence, up to 25,000 small businesses have been able to avail themselves of that 20% reduction.

There is flexibility in the Bill to allow the Minister to change the percentage to an amount that could be allocated to specific businesses, and there is a commitment in the Programme for Government to look at this issue. The Minister has already given a commitment to conduct a review of the policy and its operation. As such, I do not see the need for legislative control.

Our town centres seem to have been taken over to a large degree by charity shops, which have availed themselves of many key retail sites and do not pay any rates on any of those properties. We need to look at how we can encourage retail back into town centres and stop them being taken over by charity shops and the like. We need to look at those issues as a way forward and as part of the review that the Minister has already said will happen.

I also have concerns about big businesses that have large land takes but do not necessarily have the turnover. That should and will be considered, but I wonder exactly where Sinn Féin was coming from on this and whether it had identified a specific sector on which it wanted to focus. I am happy enough for that to be answered in the winding-up speech.

People involved in karting were mentioned. I have more than a side interest in motor sport and understand that businesses of that kind cannot always make a lot of money. Other flexibilities can be taken into account in the review, such as the flexibility of the Minister, which was included in the Bill at Consideration Stage, to allow an amount to be allocated to such businesses.

The Bill, as it is, meets those requirements, and I speak against the amendment. We have the bones of a review already in place, and I ask the Minister to expedite that.

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

Go raibh mile maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Éirím le tacaíocht a thabhairt don leasú. I support the amendment, which requires a review of the Order and a report to be laid before the Assembly by 31 October 2014. I do not consider the amendment controversial in any way, largely because we already had an undertaking from the previous Finance Minister that there would be a review. That has been echoed by the present Minister. We are all in agreement that there needs to be a review, and, for that reason, I cannot see why anyone would object to the amendment.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

Yes.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member and the proposer of the amendment have accepted that a review has already been agreed by me and the current Minister. Why, then, is an amendment necessary? Is it because the Member does not believe that such a review will take place? Does he doubt the sincerity of the Minister, or was it simply a case of tabling an amendment of some sort?

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

I thank the Member for the intervention. He should know by now that I take every word that comes out of his mouth as truth and would not dare, under any circumstances, to contradict him. However, it is always reassuring to have what is said underlined, and underlined in legislation. To have such an amendment included would add to the accountability that we have in the House. I think that we all realise that a number of anomalies have arisen from the Order. One is that there are businesses that have large premises but relatively small turnovers. Those are not captured by the scheme.

The Committee Chairman referred to the leisure business of karting. Mr Brady and I have such a facility in our constituency, in Greenbank in Newry. At a time of recession, there is less money in circulation for the leisure activities provided by such businesses. They feel the pinch and could benefit from the type of rate relief that the scheme affords. Under those circumstances, it is appropriate to support the amendment. My party certainly does, and I commend it to the House.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I am also surprised that the amendment was tabled at Further Consideration Stage. Members have referred to the fact that we have a guarantee from the Minister, which, I am sure, is 100% guaranteed.

The other thing that leaves me with some confusion is why the amendment gives a tight time frame. Perhaps its proposer will deal with that when he comes to make his winding-up speech. Why is there a short time frame, when perhaps all the information may not be available by then?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

Yes, certainly.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member makes a very important point, especially because it has been suggested that one of the reasons for the review is that some businesses have a low turnover to large space ratio. There is an issue with how you accurately measure that turnover and how you distinguish between one type of business that is rated on the rateable value and one that is rated on the turnover. All those things cannot be easily worked out. Does the Member accept that to set down a timetable, which the Minister may or may not be capable of meeting, and put it in the Bill is simply ludicrous?

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for his intervention and his wisdom. Obviously, we are of the same mind, but we need to know that. I am sure that —

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. To go back to what the former Minister said, businesses have been waiting for years to get a review, so I presume that a lot of the work will have been done by now.

On the matter of the tight time frame, as it was referred to, I spoke to staff in the Department, who said that having until 31 October is quite a reasonable time frame for it to carry out the work. It is now February, and I am quite confident that the Department is capable of carrying out a review between now and October and getting a report before the Assembly before many more businesses go to the wall.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Chair for that, but I remain unconvinced that we would have all the information collected in the time frame. It is important to do it right, and I am sure that the Member agrees. At this point, I will keep my powder dry, listen to the debate and decide at the end.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The different perspectives that people are developing on this issue are interesting. Perhaps there is a danger that we could talk ourselves into unnecessary conflict. That was illustrated perfectly by Paul Girvan's contribution. That is because, in many ways, his argument was not against the amendment, and nor should it have been. Whoever the incumbent Minister is — we are talking about Simon Hamilton, in whose judgement and pragmatism I, at least, have a lot of faith — this reinforces that there will be anomalies. Those were described, and we have possibly not fully described them.

I think that there is a need for our Minister of Finance to have the ability to respond to those circumstances, because not only are there anomalies in the business structure of individual projects but variants can occur with economic downturns and upturns in the economy. So, different decisions might need to be made in different circumstances. However, if this Minister or any future Minister were dealing with an issue such as that which has been presented for consideration here today, it seems only right that they should have the tools in the toolbox to respond and to come back to the Assembly at a particular point to set out the reasons for their decision. So, if the Minister decides against it or decides to take action, in either circumstance, it would be included in his report back. It seems to me that that is a common-sense approach, and I hope that Leslie's party will reflect on that. We are not asking the Minister to do anything ultra vires, and we are certainly not looking to spend the entire Assembly Budget; we are talking about trying to help businesses that are under genuine pressure. If the business structure, for instance, is a large space with a small turnover and is particularly vulnerable, why would we not try to respond to help that business and that service to continue?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. There are two issues here. What he has been discussing, or what he has been alluding to, is the outcome of the review. However, this amendment is about the timing of the review. If his colleague accepts that assurances have been given that this can be done by October, and the Minister has given an assurance that all additional resources that we put are to having the review completed, why is there a necessity for the amendment, other than that, despite the sweet words about the Minister, he does not actually believe the assurance that has been given?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I will repeat those words, and I am quite happy to. I think that we are dealing with a Minister who listens and responds, and I have worked with him long enough to know that that is the case. I do not really need to labour that particular point, because the track record is there, but I am indicating that there are circumstances in which the Minister might wish to respond before October. There may be circumstances in which he is not bound by a review that will be comprehensive and that will look at the profile of our economy and the businesses that already exist. That is because some of those businesses may not be there in October. I think that our amendment allows the Minister to go with the assurance and the authority to act in our name in the interim, if those circumstances require it. I am not even making the case that that is a dire and essential requirement here, but it is a possibility, and who could deny it?

The particular circumstances that have been described by the presenter of the proposal in Newry and that were referred to again and explained by Dominic were brought to my attention as well in a more localised context. They had not occurred to me, but if our Minister had the ability to do something about it, am I going to say, "We will wait until October"? That is because the business may not be there to avail itself of it, so I ask —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

If you want in before I sit down, I will give way.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I asked the Member to give way again, because I am finding it hard to follow the logic of what he is saying. All that the amendment is saying is not that the Minister will take action but that he will lay a report before the Assembly by 31 October 2014. So, if the logic behind this is to allow the Minister to act more quickly to resolve businesses' problems, the amendment will not do that.

All the Minister can do is bring a report, which will then have to be acted on and, presumably, put into legislation by the Assembly later on.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I will respond directly to that in my closing comment.

The Minister could act now, but, if we have a scheduled period for review and reporting to the Assembly, each decision can be examined in its context, along with the rationale for it, and it can be criticised or supported. We are arguing that we have already developed a fairly comprehensive, and, in some case, very creative and inventive, support for local business. This is another one. There is no dark cloud suggesting that this could do untold damage and would set precedents all over the place. That is not the case. We have specific circumstances and we can respond with support or by saying, "I have looked at it and have decided not to intervene"; and then we can move on. That will then be discussed at the appropriate time.

People should relax and think about this in the context of whether there is something, in addition to what we are doing already, that would support, particularly the survival of, existing enterprises in our economy. We should give that careful consideration.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

So far, the debate has been livelier than I expected and livelier than it perhaps should have been. I oppose the amendment, and I do so, potentially harming the reputation I have developed for being open and listening. It is gone now. Maybe that is no bad thing. I want to explain as carefully as I can and pick up some of the points raised by Members.

At the outset, and fundamental in responding from a position of opposition to the amendment, I want to make it absolutely clear that an evaluation of the small business rate relief scheme will be undertaken by my Department later this year. That intention has been made clear for some time. It has been made clear by my predecessor and by me in the House and elsewhere. The very clear stated position of two successive Ministers of Finance and Personnel representing the Department has been that an evaluation will be carried out because one needs to be carried out at that stage in the life of the small business rate relief scheme.

I accept the comments made by various Members that it has been an incredibly successful scheme. It has been extended on two occasions, to the point where over half of all businesses in Northern Ireland are getting at least 20% off their rates bill. We all agree that it has been successful, but it has a predetermined shelf life. Even though it was expanded to take in other ratepayers, it was always due to run out at the end of the next financial rating year. That was because it was introduced as a recessionary measure and the hope was, and the reality now is, that the recession would be over by that time. However, we wanted to evaluate and examine the effectiveness of the policy, as anybody would understandably and rightly do with a policy that had a short-term existence, to see whether there was a need for it to continue or to be tweaked.

Members should also be aware that, as Mr Girvan pointed out, the commitment has already been established as a milestone target in the Executive's Programme for Government. I therefore have no difficulty in making the commitment that Members seek, which is to review the small business rate relief scheme. However, I oppose the legislative changes laid out in the proposed amendment to the Financial Provisions Bill. I see them as unnecessary additions to the statute book, and I think we should not, as a point of principle, legislate unnecessarily. I would see the difference if I, as Finance Minister, were opposed to the review. Then, maybe a timetabled review locked down in legislation would be absolutely necessary; but given that I have reiterated today that I want, and need, a review to take place, there is clearly no opposition from me as Finance Minister.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Minister give way?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Yes, I will.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Does he accept that the real constraint on him is that, since the budgetary commitment to the scheme runs out at the end of the next financial year, if he is going to extend it, modify it or put it forward in some form or other for the next Budget period, he has to have some evidential base on which to make that submission to the Executive? Therefore, whether it is in the Bill or not, there is an actual requirement on him if he wishes to continue that in any form at all.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Absolutely. Without wishing to prejudice the outcome of a review that has not happened yet — the Member will appreciate this from conversations that he and I have had in the past — I am incredibly sympathetic to the principle of supporting businesses when they are suffering. Over the next number of years, as we move into economic recovery, one of the difficult balances for us as a House and an Executive will be that there are still businesses that will struggle and need support and assistance from government in order to get through what will be, for them, a very long tail of recession and downturn while others do a lot better and perhaps do not need the same degree of support. He is absolutely right that, going into the 2015-16 Budget, if I am going to make a recommendation for a scheme that is similar to the small business rate relief scheme, at whatever quantum or extent that will be, I will have to be able to persuade Executive colleagues on the basis of evidence that the previous scheme worked and what a new or adapted scheme might look like. He is absolutely right. This is not an evaluation of it at the end of its life; it is to see genuinely whether there is a need for the scheme to continue to exist in some way or another beyond the end of the next financial year.

Members might wish to note that I have been in touch with the newly established Northern Ireland Centre for Economic Policy to ascertain how best to assess the small business rate relief scheme's effectiveness and consider the need for longer-term support measures. The reason why that work cannot be undertaken earlier is because we need to know what the impact of revaluation will be on small businesses. We will not know that for another few months yet. That said, I will have to complete the evaluation by October at the latest, which, again, is in line with the desires of those who have proposed the amendment. I will have to do that by October at the latest in order to ensure that we have the regulations in place for whatever replaces the current scheme. So, I have no difficulty with the timescale that is laid out in the amendment.

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

Before I conclude, I want to turn to some comments that were raised during the debate because there were a few that are worth picking up. One was the reference to the specific example of indoor go-karting as a business that has a large square footage but small turnover. Having researched those various businesses, the locations of some of which were mentioned during the debate, and having looked at the outstanding rates balances of those businesses, I see that, certainly for the ones that I looked at, a total of over £600,000 of outstanding rates debt can be attributed to them. Even though Members mentioned certain businesses, I cannot go into the individual details of each one. However, it strikes me that, even if I had the power and vires right now to extend the small business rate relief scheme to those businesses, the 20% relief that they would receive would not be sufficient to eliminate the outstanding rate balances that they have on their accounts. It strikes me that many — not all, but many — of those businesses have issues beyond not being eligible for the small business rate relief scheme.

The review that I am committed to will look at the success or otherwise of the small business rate relief scheme and its future. Many of the issues that were raised, certainly by Mr McLaughlin and Mr McKay, were more about the totality of non-domestic rating rather than specifically the small business rate relief scheme. I want to put on record again my commitment to reviewing the whole business rates system post-revaluation. When the revaluation is out of the way, it will be close to 10 years since any review of non-domestic rates in Northern Ireland has taken place. It will be timely that, around nine or 10 years after the last review, we once again look at the totality of the system.

Mr McKay mentioned that he wanted to see something done before many businesses go to the wall. To reiterate Mr Wilson's points: a report will not do anything to stop any business from going to the wall. Certainly, if I was to bring forward a report in the next week, it would not make any difference. If I brought it forward by 31 October, it would not make any difference. What could make a difference to a business is the recommendations that any report would contain, not the report itself, but the recommendations that it makes. Even if those recommendations were in place by October, as the amendment requires — as I said, I have no intention to try to meet that as a deadline — I would probably still need legislation to be in place to make a new scheme or extended scheme work. That will not be in place for a whole host of reasons, principally practical reasons, by the next rating year. So we are talking about it being 13 months from now before any measures included in any report could be put into action.

Mr Bradley again talked about businesses that have a large square footage or square metreage but a small turnover. I think that that is one of the problems that arises. It is not that I do not accept that there are issues. That is one of the issues that arises when you have a property-based tax, which is what rates are. To move away from — I appreciate that he did not argue for this — basing it on property size and move towards basing it on turnover is a fundamental change, the like of which would, I think, be incredibly difficult. I will not close my mind to any change at all, but I would want to look at the evidence. Problems such as the fluctuations that come from a local tax-based system based on turnover would be incredibly difficult to address. I ask the question that others asked about what constitutes small turnover. One business might be eligible for relief on the basis of small turnover this year, but what happens if its turnover rises next year? Do we continue the relief? If we did, there would need to be all sorts of manual interventions in the system, which can complicate things quite extensively.

Mr McLaughlin was very effusive in his praise for me. I much appreciate that. It is a very rare thing, so I will take it from whichever quarter it comes. I would like to think that I am responding to circumstances. In fact, the small business rate relief scheme, although not my responsibility, has responded, on at least two occasions, by its extensions to include, as I say, over half of all business properties in Northern Ireland. The Member talked about having the tools in place to make a change and a difference. However, I point out to him respectfully that the amendment before us does not offer any tools. It offers a timetabled review, which I am already committed to doing without the need to legislate. I again wish to point out that the wider non-domestic rating review might be more relevant by providing better, more up-to-date and more tailored tools to address some of the problems that he talked about.

In conclusion, I oppose the amendment to the Bill. I see it as being unnecessary and inappropriate in the context of the Bill. A commitment to review is already provided for in the Programme for Government. I assure Members that my Department will meet the terms of the amendment without it having to be set out in statute. I hope that the assurances that I have given today will be sufficient to see the House reject the amendment. Thank you.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the amendment. Far be it from me to impugn the integrity of the current Minister or, indeed, his predecessor; I am sure that he will endeavour to do what he says that he will do. My colleagues laid out clearly the reasons why the amendment was put forward. The idea is to give the Minister some flexibility by making something available to him in legislative terms. I think that it was Mitchel McLaughlin who mentioned explicitly having the tools in his toolbox. I think that that is a reasonable argument for putting forward the amendment.

Paul Girvan had some sympathy for the type of business that we are talking about. I will be very parochial and give a specific example of a situation that exists in my constituency in Newry. I think that the example puts into context the difficulty that some businesses have with being rated based on size rather than turnover.

The Minister seems to oppose the amendment in principle. He seems to be not in favour of legislative change for the sake of legislative change. I think that the argument in this case is that the amendment has been put forward for very good reasons.

Mr Cree may well be convinced. He is keeping his powder dry, and I hope that it stays that way. I will try not to dampen it in the process of my winding-up speech.

There are good reasons for putting forward the amendment. It does not seem unreasonable to have a particular date in mind for a review to happen and a report to be laid.

I will give the example from my constituency. The Minister talked about £600,000 in rates being owed. As I said, this puts the issue into context. A go-kart business in Newry has a turnover of approximately £350,000 net VAT, and its rates are £39,281. Another business that is not that far away has an annual turnover of over £46 million, and its rates are £42,941. We are talking about a difference of maybe £2,500 to £3,000 maximum, and yet the turnover is just as incomparable in those terms, so that puts it into perspective. My colleagues and Mr Bradley mentioned that particular situation. It may well be that that business will go to the wall because of the amount of rates that it has to pay. The business employs people and creates opportunities for young people coming off schemes, etc, and it has won awards. Nevertheless, the amount of rates that it has to pay makes it almost impossible for it to carry on. That was one of the reasons for the amendment.

The Minister has admitted that the scheme works very well, and over 50% of business have benefited in the North as a result. However, some businesses are not benefiting from it and that is one stark example, although other businesses along the same lines are having the same problems. I have not heard anybody really putting forward a strong argument against the amendment. It seems, as you said, Minister, a matter of principle, and that you do not want to introduce legislative change for the sake of it. However, if it is good legislative change, I do not see why it should be opposed.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Surely.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I want to pick up on something that the Minister addressed, which was the accumulation of rates arrears over time, and that is a significant issue for the Assembly when you take it right across the board. With regard to the examples before us, the point is that the current system, good as it is, has not helped those people. In fact, the accumulation of rates arrears was an indicator that those businesses were in distress, but there was no response from the system. By the time the review is over, it is quite possible that some of those business will have disappeared, not necessarily because they are facing this year's rates bill, but because of the accumulation of arrears that will be subject to court action at some stage. The Minister also has in his toolbox the ability to deal with write-offs, and we get a report each year on that. What we were attempting to put forward was that the system, good as it is, could still be tweaked and refined. The pressure that those businesses are under is a demonstration of that need.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for his intervention. Mr McLaughlin made a very valid point, because it is an accumulative problem for many businesses. While not being too sweet about the Minister, I accept that he is open to innovation and innovative change where it can do something specific and concrete to help businesses in this situation. I do not want to be too flowery with my language, but it is an opportunity for the Minister to be innovative and look at these things in an innovative way. I do not see any reason why he should be afraid of good legislation. This is not all about a point of principle; this is about trying to save jobs and save businesses that may well go to the wall. On that note, I will finish.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Assembly divided:

Ayes 38; Noes 54.

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

That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Financial Provisions Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I beg to move

That the Budget Bill [NIA 32/11-15] do now pass.

As Members will be aware, the Final Stage of the Budget Bill draws to a close the legislative process for the 2013-14 financial year. The House has engaged in robust and, at times, spirited debate on the Bill and the Supply resolutions over the past few weeks, and I do not intend to rehearse the arguments here. The past few weeks' debate has been informative, and I welcome the opportunity for Members to have their say on this important legislative process.

The Budget Bill covers the 2013-14 financial year and provides the legal authority to spend in the first few months of 2014-15. Looking at the management of public expenditure in 2013-14, we began the year with an overcommitment that we sought to manage through the monitoring rounds and the in-year monitoring process. Through the three monitoring rounds, we were able to manage down successfully that overcommitment, as well as reallocate surplus funding to key areas to support our economy and our public services. However, the process by no means draws a line under the 2013-14 financial year, and it would be remiss of me as Finance Minister if I were to give that impression to Members. Five weeks remain of the financial year, and Ministers and Committees must continue their vital work to ensure that departmental budgets are maximised using sound financial management principles, thereby ensuring that we minimise underspend and the risk of having to return unspent funding to Treasury.

Ministers and Committees should also now turn their attention to 2014-15. Departments are, undoubtedly, in the latter stages of planning for the next financial year, the first few months of which this Budget Bill covers. That planning will be further complicated if we continue to delay progress on welfare reform. Should that delay run into 2014-15, we face significant reductions in our block grant from the Treasury, which will have an impact on all departmental budgets.

I want to spend a moment or two reflecting on 2013-14. This year was yet another important one for our tourism industry. Northern Ireland hosted the UK City of Culture, the World Police and Fire Games and the G8, which brought much-needed publicity and tourism to our shores. The Titanic building received its millionth visitor in July, exceeding all expectations for that wonderful attraction.

Our local economy has begun to show determined signs of recovery, with unemployment falling, activity in various business sectors increasing, and, despite what the governor of the Bank of England may think, house prices are now rising. The Executive allocated £430 million for public expenditure in 2013-14 in the three monitoring rounds of this year. Nearly one third of the available capital departmental expenditure limits (DEL) funding was allocated to the Department for Regional Development, recognising that investing in our road and transport infrastructure is a key economic driver. Almost one third of our available resource DEL was reallocated to the Department of Health to respond to pressures in our health system.

The Executive also issued £40·9 million of financial transactions capital loans in 2013-14. That was loan funding that went directly to our private sector to deliver housing schemes and to support the University of Ulster in taking forward its relocation project. I could go on, but I hope that these things give a flavour of the different ways that the Assembly has delivered for our citizens, not to mention the delivery of ongoing routine public services on a day-to-day basis.

Moving on to 2014-15, the Assembly must ensure that public services continue to be delivered, which is what this Vote on Account legislation intends to facilitate. I look forward to hearing from Members on this important legislation.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. As the Minister said, the robust and spirited debate on the Budget Bill has already happened. I am sure that most Members are saving themselves for the climate change debate this evening.

By this stage in its passage, Members will be well aware of the purpose and scope of the Budget Bill. Its aim is to provide the statutory authority for expenditure in 2013-14 as specified in the spring Supplementary Estimates, which encompasses the year's monitoring rounds. The Bill also includes the Vote on Account, which allows public expenditure to continue in the early part of the next financial year, until the Assembly votes on the Main Estimates for 2014-15 in early June.

I do not intend to rehearse the Committee's contribution to the debate on the Supply resolutions. As the Finance Committee recognised, the legislative stages of the Budget and financial process are cumbersome and need to be streamlined. The Committee and the Minister are concurrently considering a proposed memorandum of understanding between the Assembly and the Executive on the Budget process, which, if operated effectively, would support future streamlining of the legislative stages of the Budget and financial process, thereby expediting Assembly approval of the Executive's annual Estimates and Budget Bills.

This proposed memorandum of understanding would aim not to reduce Assembly input to the Budget but would enable it to be front-loaded to enable Committees and Members to undertake effective scrutiny and provide advice at a formative stage in the Budget-setting process and, critically, before the Executive have agreed the draft Budget. Although Budget Bills would still require Assembly approval, the proposed improvements would maximise the opportunity for the Assembly to provide constructive input, add value and influence decisions. I recently briefed the Chairpersons' liaison group on progress on the memorandum of understanding. Hopefully, the wider Assembly will have the opportunity to debate the proposal in plenary in the coming months.

As I outlined, the Committee took evidence from DFP officials on the Bill on 5 February. That marked the culmination of a scrutiny process of the 2013-14 in-year monitoring rounds at a strategic and departmental level. On the basis of that process of engagement, the Committee determined that it was content to grant accelerated passage under Standing Order 42(2). In that regard, the Committee welcomes the engagement with DFP during the quarterly monitoring rounds and on the Estimates and the Bill. It was particularly helpful for members to receive clarification on the details of the in-year technical changes to resource and capital allocations to Departments, some of which were quite significant.

The Committee raised the issue of whether to increase transparency. A final out-turn report could be laid in the Assembly in a similar format to the provisional out-turn report that the Minister provides in June or July each year. I acknowledge the Department’s responsiveness to that request and welcome its willingness to provide that data to the Assembly.

Regarding the residual issues to be addressed in the weeks ahead, the Committee reiterates the importance of Departments minimising any year-end underspend to ensure that the Executive keep within the limits of the Budget exchange scheme agreed with the British Treasury. In that regard, I recommend that all statutory Committees closely monitor the forecasting and expenditure of their respective Departments during the remainder of this financial year and over the course of the next financial year.

Full and timely engagement by Departments with their respective Committees will be crucial in ensuring that all statutory Committees can fulfil their important advisory and scrutiny functions in that area. In turn, the Committee functions are exercised most effectively when they provide constructive input that adds value to the Budget considerations.

On behalf of the Committee, I support the motion.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

I support the Bill's passage. The Minister alluded to some of the positives we achieved in the last year, including the City of Culture, the World Police and Fire Games, jobs and inward investment. Those have been great to see. We also had investment in our infrastructure, and some moneys have been set aside to improve it, which encourages inward investment. Also, help has been given to small businesses through the continuation and extension of the small business rate relief scheme.

We are dealing with £16·6 billion of spend, and one area causing major concern is the possibility that we will not be able to spend all of that money on the delivery of services. Some of it might well have to go back to pay for the delays that the House has put on welfare reform. Potentially, we could end up with some of our block grant disappearing as a consequence. We have already heard that it is £5 million a month, and once the computer system has to be changed there could be a very big expense. That will focus our minds in the near future on ensuring that we do not lose part of our block grant. We heard the figure of up to £1 billion over the next few years, so we have to be mindful of how that could impact on what we have to deal with.

We came into this Assembly mandate with a Budget reduction of £4 billion. A Budget was set in 2011, which included that £4 billion reduction over the next number of years up to 2016. As a consequence of those reductions, a number of Departments have done very well.

It has been noted that, although Committees seem to be dealing with the business, some of them are not that interested in dealing with the budgets associated with their Departments. As a consequence, this is something that there needs to be more focus on to ensure that we get the correct and proper spend of that money and, as the man says, more bang for our buck. I want to ensure that we do not have to waste money. What has been good is not having to hand money back; that is important.

The monitoring rounds have been a very helpful and worthwhile exercise. There have been lessons learnt. Gone are the days when we were handing tens, if not hundreds, of millions of pounds back to the Exchequer. That is to the benefit of Northern Ireland, and it is good to be able to do it. It is down to good management, and it is something that we have to encourage. I appreciate that the Vote on Account is to allow us to go ahead and make some of the spend up until the Budget is approved in June. We have progressed quite well on that. Ensuring that we do not have any moneys to hand back is important.

I support the Bill's progression at Final Stage.

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

Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Tá mé buíoch díot as an deis cainte ar an Chéim Dheiridh de Bhille an Bhuiséid. Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in the debate at the Budget Bill's Final Stage.

At this time, the Assembly is not held in particularly high esteem among the general public. That is partly due to the fact that, to date, there has been a failure to reach agreement on the various issues involved in the Haass talks. That failure to reach agreement does have an impact. It has an impact on our ability to attract foreign direct investment. The failure to agree on important key legislation in the House also impacts on public spending.

At earlier stages of the budgetary process and in the various debates that go with it, I mentioned, for example, that the education and library boards and other education sectoral bodies are reporting that the reduction in their staffing levels and the moratorium on recruitment is preventing them from being able to process various capital projects that they would like to bring forward. I said that I believe that the £180 million capital programme for education is in danger because the staffing complements in those bodies are reduced to such an extent that they cannot process the various projects that they would like to bring forward. I mentioned that earlier and do not recall the Minister responding to it.

Sometimes, when we fail to agree on important legislation in the House, we think that it is something that affects only those within the parameters of the House. However, the fact of the matter is that it has far-reaching implications outside the House. It affects the public services that we deliver and how we deliver them. It also has an impact on jobs and the economy. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the Education and Skills Authority Bill.

Previously, when we have had issues with Whitehall about such things as air passenger duty, we were able to muster a very strong team, including the First Minister, the deputy First Minister, the Finance Minister and others to enter into negotiation with the Treasury to get a good deal on the issue. I think that we probably did get a good deal on that issue.

The same applied to the Presbyterian Mutual Society. We had top-level ministerial involvement, DETI involvement and the involvement of the Minister of Finance, and we managed to get a good deal on that issue. But when it comes to welfare reform, that is left to one Minister: the Minister for Social Development. It is potentially the biggest issue, far bigger than air passenger duty and far bigger than the Presbyterian Mutual Society, yet we leave it to one Minister to negotiate the terms with the Treasury. Why do we not have that high-powered delegation? Why do we not have the First Minister and deputy First Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Social Development? Why do we not have that high-powered ministerial delegation over, hammering out the best possible bargain for us here? There is still time. I think that such a powerful delegation should meet again with Lord Freud and the others to look at the bargain that we have and to get the best possible bargain. I do not believe that we have that at the moment.

One of the major impacting events last year was the announcement of the financial pact, yet there has been no mention of it throughout this budgetary process. As we all know, a pact is an agreement involving two or more parties; in this case, two: the Executive here and the Westminster Government. We never learned exactly what the terms of that pact are. They were never revealed to us. It would be interesting to know what they are. One of the elements of the investment plan was that:

"we are on course to deliver the commitment to £18 billion of capital funding over the period 2005-2017".

We all agree that we have had a commitment to the £18 billion in capital funding, and we have had it for many years, but can we now move on to delivery? Can the Minister say whether anything has changed to give him the confidence to believe that we will get that £18 billion? I have heard no reference to it to date.

Can the Executive, in conjunction with the Westminster Government, devise any specific legislative plans to unlock the financial benefits of Belfast port? As I remember, that was one of the elements of the financial pact. We need to be sure that there is something in that pact for Northern Ireland and that it is not merely sleight of hand to create the illusion of action on the economy when, in fact, nothing may have changed. I am interested to hear from the Minister how he sees that financial pact having impacted on this Budget, hopefully, in a positive way.

During the course of these debates, several Members referred to the reform of the financial process. We remember that a report was published some years ago by the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants on parliamentary financial scrutiny in times of austerity.

That report compared the levels and quality of financial scrutiny across different countries and jurisdictions. The report noted:

"The outdated 'estimates supply votes' process that exists in Westminster-style systems is a key barrier to effective parliamentary scrutiny of the budget and financial reports. In countries using the Westminster model of government, parliaments cannot realistically amend spending proposals, and many are barred from substituting a budget of their own. Instead, they are confined to assenting to spending proposals that are put to them ... The focus of financial scrutiny needs to be re-aligned with the budget, spending plans and resource accounts, but this will require significant structural and cultural reform."

In one of my earlier speeches, I outlined the proposals that arose from the Committee's inquiry into the financial process. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased to hear that I am not going to reiterate those today. However, I asked the Minister how much of it he can go ahead with, in light of the fact that the Education Minister is not cooperating with his plans to reform the financial process. Will he continue to press on to introduce as many of those reforms as possible?

In various speeches during this budgetary process, I have outlined the SDLP's position on a number of matters. Colleagues will make a contribution later in the debate. Ach don bhomaite tá mo sháith ráite agam, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, agus fágfaidh mé aige sin é. Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will leave it at that.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I support the Final Stage of the Budget Bill. As has been highlighted, it provides a statutory authority for expenditure in 2013-14. Two weeks ago, we approved the spring Supplementary Estimates, which covered the monitoring rounds, and the Vote on Account, which permits public expenditure in the early part of the next financial year. The Main Estimates for 2014-15 will be considered and decided by the Assembly in June. We will then be entering the final year of the four-year mandate. As I have said before, it is crucial that the Executive ensure that all Departments engage fully with their respective Committees by providing adequate information in time for scrutiny.

Mr Bradley referred briefly to the review of the financial process. I make no apology for raising it again. It was intended to provide clarity to make such engagement meaningful. I ask the Minister, again, whether he expects the Executive to agree and implement the improvements in time for the Main Estimates. The current system is ineffective and does not show transparency or direct read-across. Moreover, Ministers must make every effort to ensure that departmental budgets are adhered to and that underspend is capped to an absolute minimum. We have to avoid the risk of having to return any unspent funding to the Treasury. The Minister said that such an occurrence would be extremely difficult to explain to the taxpayers as we work through one of the tightest Budgets in recent years. It remains so.

Another concern that I have is that the Departments may well have failed to make the efficiency savings that they announced. The Minister is well aware of the Audit Office report, and I would appreciate any comments that he is able to make on the situation and how it will have a direct effect on the Budget figures. We need to up our game and illustrate delivery during the incoming year. The Estimates in June will be a critical time in defining the success or otherwise of this government. We will be judged on that. We need to illustrate the achievements against the Programme for Government, and it is crucial that all the financial targets be achieved and all savings be made. We also need clarity on all spending in all Departments and on credit balances, which have yet to be applied. In the hope that this will happen, I will support the Final Stage of the Bill on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Final Stage of the Budget Bill. As we heard from other Members, the Budget Bill provides statutory authority for expenditure as set out in the spring Supplementary Estimates 2013-14. The discussions that we had during earlier consideration of the Bill have covered all the ground required in the debate. The systems that we have developed and implemented together are working quite effectively, and are being worked effectively. In the earlier stages of the Bill, I referred to the fact that a number of significant allocations and easements have been made over the three monitoring rounds. I drew particular attention to the hardship scheme and the funding that has been directed to assist farmers through DARD, which shows how we can target resources effectively and efficiently. That said, we can always focus on further enhancement and learn from improved practice to date.

The A5 remains a challenge, and, on moving forward, we must consider how we can progress this much-needed infrastructure. This significant project, which will strengthen our economy, must come to fruition. We must pay particular attention to building the infrastructure that supports our local economy and enhances our ability to channel the potential of the island economy, which generates £2·3 billion for the island and provides a larger return to our local economy.

We must also ensure that we get the maximum return for our budgets within the provisions of the financial system that we are operating in. Our challenge is not only to manage our budgets effectively but to ensure that we are accessing all available resources. That means ensuring that we effectively channel the return from the Barnett consequentials. We need to scrutinise British public expenditure plans and maintain a close watch on the British Budget announcement in March. We must do all in our power to protect our budgets.

We should identify exactly how much finance should be directed to our budgets as a result of the British policy on free school meals, and with respect to British Rail upgrade projects that will be coming on line. We must be vigilant with the March statement to identify how British expenditure will affect our budgets, and we must ensure that we use our ability to target the Barnett consequentials effectively.

We should also be mindful that the announcement in March could trigger further consequentials, which will benefit us all. We must also have our eye to the future and take the opportunities to grow our economy in a just, fair and equitable manner to the benefit of all our citizens. To do this means exploring all potential tools and levers for economic growth.

I support the Final Stage of the Bill.

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

I acknowledge the work of the Committee, the Department and the Minister on the Budget Bill. However, if I may, I will return to a number of themes from earlier debates, in particular, comments by the Finance Minister at Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage. He made a comment about the economy in Northern Ireland, about where it is and where he thought that it would go. On both occasions, he commented on welfare reform and the situation that faces Northern Ireland given the threat from the Treasury through the monthly penalty clause that will arise from the failure to take forward welfare reform legislation.

The first issue that I will deal with is the Northern Ireland economy, because that theme was touched on by the Minister. The House will recall that, on that occasion, the Finance Minister chose to use the word "booming" when describing the economy generally and said that, by the end of this year, that word, as I think he understood it, could apply to the North. When challenged on that, he commented on what the anticipated growth in the Northern Ireland economy might be between now and the end of the financial year.

Of course, only a matter of days later, his big boss in London, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, began putting down some caveats. He said that people needed to show a bit of caution as to whether the recovery was "stable" and "sustainable". I understand that those were the words that he used on that occasion. Although I would not rely very much on the words emanating from the Chancellor — that might be a part of the rebuttal, if there is one, from the Minister of Finance — I thought it curious that people in London were beginning to urge some caution about the recovery: was it stable or sustainable? The word "selective" could be added to that question, because any recovery in Britain is selective in that it is concentrated in the southern part of England. Given that comment, the Minister may want to reflect upon his use of the word "booming" and how it might apply here.

In any case, he may also want to reflect on research produced by the Resolution Foundation since Further Consideration Stage. It found that, between 2008 and 2013, income per head in Northern Ireland fell by 10%, from £17,910 to £16,130 — the highest fall in Britain and Northern Ireland. The average reduction across Britain and Northern Ireland was 5·8%; in the south-east of England, it was 3·3%; in Northern Ireland, it was 10%. That suggests that the recession had a deeper and longer lasting impact here than elsewhere. The foundation indicated that that was influenced by the particularly severe crash in the property market. I put it to the Minister that he should be somewhat cautious about using the word "booming", given that the Chancellor is more cautious than that; the recovery is selective; and the recovery from recession is, in this part of these islands, a more exaggerated process than elsewhere.

The second major political issue in the Budget, which the Minister relied on at Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage, was welfare reform, which my colleague Mr Bradley touched on. I will echo some of his comments and then try to add to them.

During an earlier debate, I said that, in my view — I think that I have some evidence to confirm it — the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) had the measure of DSD when it came to welfare reform. To that, I now add that DWP has the measure of DFP. On the last occasion, there was nothing in the Minister's reply to indicate that he was beginning to think outside the box or, to borrow that phrase again, acting more like Swinney than like Sammy when it comes to how to scope out, grapple with, resolve, interrogate and move forward the issue of welfare reform that he, very significantly, touched on. Any media commentary on the Budget was on the Minister of Finance and Personnel's comments about welfare and the penalty from the Treasury rather than any of the other arguments being made at the Bill's various stages.

I want to put the SDLP's point of view on the record. If a penalty of £5 million a month is imposed by the Treasury arising from the failure to bring the Welfare Reform Bill back to the Chamber, that is a price that should be paid. It is a price that is being paid by tens of thousands of people and thousands of families already in this part of the world, because welfare is measured in multiples of £5 million. Let us be very clear about this: if, at this time, the British Government are imposing a £5 million penalty a month on the Budget of Northern Ireland, we say that that is a price that should be paid, because the price of welfare and the quality of experience of thousands of families in this part of these islands is so much greater than the £5 million that the Minister says London now intends to impose.

In September 2013, NICVA published research undertaken by Sheffield Hallam University that stated that the impact of welfare to date and welfare change to come was going to take £750 million out of the Northern Ireland economy. Work it out yourselves: £5 million into £750 million results in a figure that is many multiples of £5 million. The £750 million that will be taken out of the Northern Ireland economy will take £650 per annum away from every adult of working age in Northern Ireland. By comparison, the impact of welfare change on each working adult in Britain is £470 per annum. The impact on citizens of working age in Belfast is £840 per annum.

My question to the Minister is this: is the withdrawal of up to £750 million from the Northern Ireland economy, which would have an impact on the working-age citizens of Belfast of £840 per annum, not something that should be waved in the faces of Ministers in DWP, the Treasury and Downing Street before they casually and idly wave in our faces the threat of the withdrawal of £5 million a month from the Budget?

What is the strategy to deal with the threat to the Northern Ireland Budget that the Minister outlined? My colleague Mr Bradley outlined it earlier, and it is to recognise that DWP has the measure of DSD and that the negotiation with London on welfare should be escalated beyond DSD in order to maximise the impact that it has on the people in DWP, the Treasury and Downing Street. That was the model of choice that was deployed in the case of the PMS, is being deployed for corporation tax and was deployed when it came to the very moderate economic pact of May 2013.

If that was the model of choice to maximise outcomes for all those issues, it should be the model of choice when it comes to negotiations on welfare reform and the threat from London. That negotiation should involve all parties from the Executive and should represent all of government in Northern Ireland to drive home the point that the Minister for Social Development has failed to drive home. That point is that, for all the reasons that I will rehearse yet again and will add to, the impact of all this on the people of this part of the world will be so disproportionate that it is intolerable that a Minister of Finance and Personnel should come to this House and warn it about £5 million without, at the same time, saying that he will join in the effort to interrogate the London position to get results that are more favourable to the people of Northern Ireland.

Why should he do that, Mr Deputy Speaker? I will ask the Minister a question. I must point out that I do so not to score a point but to ask a question that I think that he and his officials, as well as other Ministers in government, should answer in such a powerful way that responds positively to the strategy that we are pointing out. OFMDFM, on a rolling basis, commissions research on child poverty and working-age poverty in Northern Ireland. The most recent research that it published, which was commissioned from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), was published just last month. I do not deny that I have not read it all, but, if I have read anything that is a manifesto for the argument on welfare that the Northern Ireland Executive should be putting to the Treasury and DWP, this is the manifesto. This document explains, as does Save the Children, the reality of child poverty in Northern Ireland and how it will all be compounded by what is happening with welfare reform.

So, what is the argument that the Minister and his colleagues should be deploying to London? It is that the figures, not mine or those of the SDLP but those produced by government, show that, by 2020, in six short years, child poverty levels in Northern Ireland will be 38%. That is when there had been an ambition — pre-recession, I give you — to get it down to 10%. So, at the time when we are meant to have the relevant figures down to 10%, they will be nearly 400% higher than what we as a government intended to achieve pre-recession. I put it to the Minister that, if that is the scale of what is now predicted for child poverty in Northern Ireland and if those figures are the worst in any part of Britain and Northern Ireland, that is an argument that needs to be more fully deployed with Treasury, Downing Street and DWP. The Institute for Fiscal Studies forecasts that child poverty will increase across the UK, with the sharpest increase in income poverty among children in Northern Ireland. IFS warns that relative child poverty will increase to 30·9% and that absolute child poverty will increase to 38·5% in Northern Ireland by 2020-21. I give you that that is not just because of welfare reform but is a cumulative impact of that, recession, rising costs and other austerity measures.

This part of this world, the children in this part of this world and the families in poverty in this part of this world suffer disproportionately more because of all those factors, including welfare. Yet, we do not bring that argument to London.

I ask the Minister to join in taking that argument to London.

When it comes to my constituency, and when they were analysed at ward level, the figures revealed that 43% of children in West Belfast are living in poverty, which is the second highest level in the UK. My argument to the Minister before he makes the argument again about the threat of Treasury is this: have you made that argument? Have the First and deputy First Minister made that argument? Has the Minister for Social Development made that argument explicitly and on the basis of evidence to London, relying on the very report that the IFS produced, which was commissioned by the First Minister and deputy First Minister and published on the OFMDFM website a matter of days ago? I wait to hear that argument.

I also suggest to the Minister, and it is relevant to this debate, that we came out of Haass/O'Sullivan attempting to deal with the past on a more comprehensive and ethical basis. To be fair to all parties, there seems to be more unanimity around Haass/O'Sullivan when it comes to dealing with the past than when it comes to one or two other issues. At the heart of dealing with the past is a recognition that there needs to be support to the victims of the years of state violence and terror. There is a recognition that they need to be supported. If you look at the words of Haass/O'Sullivan, they very much acknowledged the work undertaken by the Victims' Commissioner in respect of the review of the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS). That begins to open up the potential for further conversations about how there should be support.

Just last Friday, the First Minister and deputy First Minister rightly came out and completely endorsed the recommendations of the Victims' Commissioner and her team when it came to the review of the VSS in order to ensure that support, financial and otherwise, that goes to our victims and survivors is done in a way that is empathetic, sensitive, well managed and done properly and not bureaucratically. Given that the London Government, to some degree, has begun to talk about their support for Haass/O'Sullivan, and given that, at the heart of this, is the need for support for victims and survivors who have suffered because of the years of violence, how is the argument being made to London that that needs to include a recognition that our incapacity levels are, in part, of such a scale because of the legacy of conflict?

If we are going to really measure up to the Haass/O'Sullivan ambition when it comes to dealing with the past, then we should do what the Victims' Commissioner and her team did on Friday, which was to make recommendations that support individuals in need and families who are still in pain. That argument needs to be deployed with London because we cannot, on the one hand, say that we want to deal with the past, hopefully, in a comprehensive and ethical way, and, on the other hand, not take the argument to London that part of the scale of incapacity in the North is a direct legacy of the conflict, and that, as such, the British Government have a responsibility to recognise that and financially assist in addressing that issue. It is a matter that should be done ethically, but it is a matter that is, in my view, a political consequence of Haass/O'Sullivan.

Thirdly, with respect to the bedroom tax, the Housing Executive explained that it has more than 26,000 tenancies with the potential to underoccupy either one or two bedrooms, and, as a consequence of universal credit, the tenants who live in those properties will have to pay between £7 and £15 per week extra to stay in those properties.

I have not heard any dispute around the House, and there is consensus that Northern Ireland does not have suitable alternative accommodation, given what is being proposed under the bedroom tax, which is part of welfare reform, which is part of what the Treasury is threatening Northern Ireland with in respect of the £5 million, which the Minister referred to in Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage. All that — the particular profile of housing in the North and those 26,000 tenants who might be impacted on by the proposed bedroom tax — is compounded by the segregated nature of our housing, which, whatever their circumstances, makes it very difficult for people to move. I do not believe that that argument has been deployed fully and faithfully in the negotiation with DWP.

It may be that, in the current conversation that is going on on the Back Benches between the previous Finance Minister and the current Finance Minister, I may be rebutted and contradicted. I will give way to the Member if he wants me to.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Do not flatter yourself.

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

They might have been talking football. I hope it was not football; I hope it was welfare.

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

Sunday football.

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

Yes, Sunday football. Given that that is what the Housing Executive says, the point is about whether the Social Development Minister has fully deployed the argument about the 26,000 tenants to DWP in London. Has the argument about the segregated nature of housing in Belfast and beyond been fully deployed? I am not convinced that it has. If you are not convinced that it has and if the negotiation has been silent for close to a year, how can a Minister come to the House and tell us to swallow welfare reform because of a £5 million penalty?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will he give way on that?

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

Yes.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I cannot understand the argument that the Member is making. It is as if he had never had any knowledge of all the negotiations around it. He knows full well that the straw man of the spare room subsidy, the bedroom tax or whatever he wants to call it is only a straw man. That issue has been resolved. It will not apply to existing tenants. Furthermore, the Executive have made a decision to allocate £17 million a year to ensure that it does not apply. If that is his excuse for handing £5 million a month over to the Exchequer, it is a fairly flimsy one.

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

It is curious that the first time that the former Finance Minister found his voice was not to try to address the issue of incapacity and the particular issue of people who have physical and emotional needs arising from the years of terror and conflict. It is interesting that he did not rise to his feet when the argument was being made, informed and compounded by the publication of the IFS report on OFMDFM about the impact of welfare on children and families in poverty. I find it curious that, having made those points and made them at some length, the former Minister of Finance and Personnel has nothing to say on them.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will he give way?

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

I will give way in a second. In any case, even if some money has been found and some potential decisions might be taken by the Northern Ireland Executive to deal with the bedroom tax, it is a domestic response to what should be a national obligation. The national obligation, for want of a better term, on London is to recognise what the Housing Executive says about the tenancies that would be impacted and to recognise the full consequences of our segregated housing and how limited people's opportunities to move to alternative housing might be.

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

Order, please. I encourage the Member to please return to the Budget Bill. The same advice applies to those who ask to make interventions.

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

The London Government, if they say that they govern this part in part, subject to the constraints of devolution, should recognise the objective different circumstances when it comes to housing, the 26,000 tenancies and segregation. London should recognise it, not just Belfast; otherwise, we are sending a message to London that, when it comes to the next 50% of austerity cuts and the further £12 billion of welfare cuts, we will swallow the medicine. Whatever arguments we have, which are deep in evidence and compelling regarding the lived experience of our citizens and communities, we are now sending to London the message that, whatever else you want to impose when it comes to welfare change and welfare cuts, we will swallow it. It is not simply an argument and a response of the Northern Ireland Executive to deal with these issues: it is the responsibility and the response of the London Executive to deal with them. For all the success that Sammy may well claim that there might have been around the Executive table in respect of these matters, that misses the point, because of the responsibility and political obligation that London has to recognise what everybody in this room and others recognise about the different circumstances that our people face.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I think that the point that the Member has got to now in his speech well illustrates the tactic that people use when their argument is weak, which is to start shouting. That is where his argument is weak. He knows full well that he and his party cannot justify, in a time of austerity, handing over £5 million a month — and rising — to the Exchequer in London. Of course, the reason why he now points the finger at London and says that it must recognise that is to try to divert attention away from the argument.

Let me just take up the point that the Member made about people who are claiming disability living allowance and what the Executive have done to recognise that. The Executive have done a lot to recognise that in so far as they have put £6 million aside so that those people can get independent doctors' reports done to help their cases when it comes to having their independent assessments done. Therefore, the Executive have —

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

Order, please. The Member has not taken my advice. We are discussing the Final Stage of the Budget Bill.

I will use the intervention to remind the speaker that Question Time begins at 2.00 pm. He may wish to conclude his remarks by then. Otherwise, he will be called after Question Time.

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

I always want to be very attentive to the words of the Chair. However, maybe, on this occasion, I will not be able to comply with them.

I will deal with the question. Sometimes, you do have to raise your voice in order for an argument to be heard. The last time these sorts of arguments were outlined to the Finance Minister in this Chamber and the point was made to the Benches opposite, for all the talk about the imposition of the £5 million, there was very little talk in that debate at Further Consideration Stage about the impact of welfare reform and cuts on the citizens of Northern Ireland. Given that that argument was made and deployed, sometimes, you have to turn up the volume to hope that it might be heard more fully.

That is true for other issues as well. Previously, in this House, I have referred to what I saw as the defeatism around the Executive table when it came to trying to save Driver and Vehicle Agency jobs up in Coleraine. Here we are, a couple of years later, when it may yet be the case that some or all of those jobs might be saved. We will know soon. At least the arguments were deployed and defeatism did not prevail. If that required my raising my voice, which I have done quite a few times, including with transport Ministers in London in respect of that particular issue, I will not apologise or seek forgiveness.

The point that Sammy misses is that, although money has been found in the Northern Ireland Budget to ease some of the welfare burden, I remember that, in the 2011 Budget negotiations — Sammy, as the former Minister of Finance and Personnel, will remember — that I made an argument for a welfare hardship fund.

The debate stood suspended.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I ask Members to please take their seats as we move to Question Time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

1. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister what actions they have taken in response to the recommendations in the Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland publication 'An exploration of e-safety messages to young people, parents and practitioners in Northern Ireland' prepared by the National Children’s Bureau Northern Ireland. (AQO 5597/11-15)

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 very much welcome the report that the Safeguarding Board recently produced on e-safety messages. Indeed, junior Minister Bell and I were present at the launch to provide our support. We believe that the report's findings represent a major step forward in addressing how e-safety messages should be relayed in today's fast-moving online community. We support the recommendations in the report; in particular, the need for the Executive to develop an overarching strategic and coordinated approach to e-safety.

We believe that we must act now to ensure that our children are protected in all aspects of their lives and that our approach should be consistent with the best child protection principles. That is why junior Minister Bell and I have written to the Minister of Health asking him to take forward the development of a policy framework on e-safety as part of his responsibility for child protection. We have also advised the Minister that we believe that Delivering Social Change governance structures provide the mechanism through which that framework can be developed. We have undertaken to provide whatever support we can to assist him in his role.

We also note and support the report's recommendation for the establishment of an e-safety forum, which is being taken forward by the Safeguarding Board. We believe that the report's findings on the quality, accessibility and impact of current e-safety messages will provide a critical contribution to the work of that forum. Our officials will meet the Safeguarding Board shortly to discuss OFMDFM participation in the forum.

In addition, since the publication of the report, we have helped to promote Safer Internet Day on 11 February, through ministerial visits to schools and through the issue of press releases, locally and in conjunction with the UK Safer Internet Centre, on internet safety.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Questions 7 and 8 have been withdrawn.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the junior Minister for her response. I am sure that she knows only too well that good advice is available. However, there is a failure in getting the right message and the same message across to all Northern Ireland's children. It is government's responsibility to ensure that all Departments work together to enable that to happen. I refer primarily to the development of a policy framework.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Member to come to her question.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Can the junior Minister confirm that the Health Minister has agreed to take on the formation of the strategy? Has she any further information on the time frame in which that strategy will be drawn up?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Member for her question. She will be aware that we all attended the launch of the report. We have written to the Health Minister, although we have not yet received a reply, because he has overall responsibility for child protection policy. We are willing to work with him, using the Delivering Social Change governance structures, because we realise that this is a cross-departmental, cross-cutting issue. The Member will be aware, from meetings that we attended with her, that we are fully supportive of the recommendations in the report. We will play our role in the e-safety forum as well.

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

Minister, many of the young people who are cyberbullied are reluctant to tell a teacher, a parent or even a trusted friend. What are the Executive doing to ensure that the message is put out and that the stigma is stamped out?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

We in the Department are taking particular measures. During Safer Internet Day, we visited two schools: St Ita's Primary School and Wellington College.

We discussed the issue with local children and young people, asked how they felt and whether they had encountered such issues. We also asked them about the best way forward. When raising awareness, we feel that it is necessary to make sure that children and young people come up with ideas. We also commissioned research to gain a better sense of how P7 children use the Internet, because we realise that younger children are using the digital world. There was a review of activity on Internet safety across Departments. My Department has also engaged with the UK Safer Internet Centre, so we are doing a number of things. However, it is about raising awareness and working with parents, teachers and children about the best way forward.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

2. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for details of their forthcoming trip to the USA. (AQO 5598/11-15)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The First Minister and I will travel to the United States in early March to promote inward investment opportunities on the west coast. We will also travel to Washington, DC, to attend a number of high-profile political events connected with the annual St Patrick's Day celebrations. On Monday 10 March, we will meet HBO's president of production and six other top executives. We met HBO for the first time in Los Angeles in 2009 when we persuaded them to take a leap of faith to locate the production of the 'Game of Thrones' series here.

We will also support the Cinemagic charity at an evening event in Los Angeles, which will include young people from disadvantaged backgrounds from here and LA. We will then travel to San Jose to meet Seagate's senior management team. As you know, Seagate Technology is one of our most prestigious high-tech companies, whose facility in Derry employs over 1,300 people. The company makes a major contribution to the economy of the north-west, and this is our first opportunity to meet Seagate's senior management team at its US headquarters, and we look forward to it.

We will host an investment luncheon for over 120 Silicon Valley business executives to discuss the merits of doing business here. Later that day, we will travel to San Francisco to officiate at the official opening of Invest NI's new office on the west coast. The remainder of our time in the United States will be spent in Washington, DC, where we will participate in a range of other engagements connected with the St Patrick's Day celebrations.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Clearly, job creation and inward investment need to continue be a top priority for OFMDFM and the Executive, especially given the recent job losses at KPL in Dungiven. Will the deputy First Minister outline the importance of foreign direct investment from the United States to the local economy and how the Executive will position themselves to increase such investment?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I absolutely agree with the Member; the loss of 200 jobs through KPL's difficulties in Dungiven is very disappointing. However, in recent years, we have become increasingly successful in attracting foreign direct investment, particularly from a number of key United States-owned multinational companies such as Citi, Seagate Technology, Allstate, Caterpillar and Liberty Mutual. The companies have sought to capitalise and build on the success of those investments, and many have already reinvested or are preparing to invest more.

Attracting and retaining foreign direct investment (FDI) is an important means of promoting economic growth in a region such as ours. Foreign-owned firms are associated with higher levels of productivity, wealth creation through exports and the introduction of new skills and technologies. The United States is one of our largest target markets for FDI and as such plays a major role in the development of the economy. Within the past week, the First Minister and I attended a very important engagement hosted by the Japanese ambassador to London, where we met a large group of Japanese businesspeople and senior executives. The evidence of success is very clear, given that we have had three important job announcements for Derry, Carrickfergus and Larne from three Japanese companies during the past couple of months.

So foreign direct investment is very important, but we also understand the huge importance of our indigenous businesses and their massive contribution to employment. That is why we are so disappointed at the collapse of the company in Dungiven, which has left 200 people on the dole. We hope that every effort will be made to ensure that they get support to find further employment.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Does he anticipate that his trip to Washington and America will produce sufficient jobs to replace the 1,600 potential job losses that will result from the way in which his party and the SDLP have dragged their feet on welfare reform?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is important to emphasise that we have been told that the cost to the local economy of welfare cuts — I note that the Member chose to use the word "reform" — was estimated, in NICVA's contribution to the debate, at £750 million a year, which many thought was widely exaggerated. That was then downgraded by other experts, who told us that it would represent a loss of not £750 million to the economy but something like £450 million. This is big stuff. There is a huge responsibility on all of us to do everything in our power to ensure that whatever outcome we reach protects the most marginalised and disadvantaged. My party has been involved, even in the past week, in further discussions with representatives of the British Government, with further discussions to take place in the time ahead.

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

I am sure that the deputy First Minister would agree with me that a satisfactory outcome of the Haass process would greatly influence potential inward investment from America. Will he discuss the Haass process with political representatives, which I know might depend on getting an invitation to the White House?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I do not think that there is any possibility of our travelling to the United States and not having a conversation about the Haass process, given that Richard Haass and Meghan O'Sullivan are two highly respected diplomats and well known on Capitol Hill. So there can be no doubt whatsoever that the Unites States of America remains very engaged in this work. After all, the Vice-President of the United States, Joe Biden, took a very personal interest and I know that President Obama has done similarly.

We can be sure that the report from Richard Haass to the State Department and the White House will have been very accurate on how we found ourselves in a scenario that meant that we could not go forward with agreement from the five parties. I am certainly honoured that my party was prepared to sign up to the Haass proposals. The big challenge ahead is to continue to explore how we can conclude an agreement that will mean us all moving forward on the important issues of the past, parades, flags, symbols and emblems.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

3. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the social investment fund. (AQO 5599/11-15)

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)

On 10 February, the First Minister and deputy First Minister announced that £33 million would be invested in the 23 projects of the first tranche to be delivered through this important programme. The 12 capital projects and 11 revenue projects are aimed at tackling poverty and deprivation through improved community-based services and facilities. They represent the beginning of an exciting period of innovation, community-led cooperation and, most importantly, delivery against the most important objectives that the Executive are required to meet.

The projects range across all nine social investment zones and demonstrate that, despite the challenge of addressing the most durable issues in the most difficult of circumstances, the Executive remain committed to Delivering Social Change through significant investment and working with communities in areas of greatest need. These first 23 projects were identified as priorities by local steering groups in each zone. Letters of offer will issue to the successful projects following completion of the verification and governance checks that are taking place.

The release of funding to each project is subject to all the necessary approvals, but we have made significant progress in cutting through the red tape requirements of managing public funds to accelerate delivery to address local needs.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Perhaps you will indulge me, Mr Speaker. The deputy First Minister said that Dr Haass was reporting to the White House and the State Department. Not with my authority he was.

I thank the junior Minister for her answer. Given that her colleague the deputy First Minister, the First Minister, the Executive and, indeed, the Assembly all agree that the economy is at the front and centre of our work, particularly in the Programme for Government, can she explain why the businesspeople who were supposed to sit on the zonal advisory panels have not been appointed after all this time despite the support and offer of encouragement and help from organisations such as Business in the Community?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Member will be fully aware that the steering groups that were set up were decided on by people in local communities. It was always a community-up approach. As you say, steering group membership includes people from the voluntary and community sector and political members. When the steering groups were first set up, the idea was that they would invite other people on to them as soon as the projects were identified. That was the right way to do it, because there was no point in bringing in someone from a group that had no impact on the projects being decided on in communities. It is very important to remember that the projects have been brought forward by the community — the people who live and work in the area and know what the area needs. Through the nominations, a Broad Church has been brought on board. However, the community and voluntary sector had the primary role to play in the first stages.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Looking to the next stage of the social investment fund, I ask whether the junior Minister agrees that there is a need for all the communities, particularly those in the social investment zones, to ensure that agreement is reached on the essential and necessary projects that can deliver real change for them for the next round.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I certainly agree with the Member. To reiterate what I said, it is a community-led process. The community was very much involved in setting up the steering groups by deciding who went forward for nominations. There was a lot of consultation, and the community and voluntary representatives on the groups are going back into local communities to ask stakeholders what the area needs. That dovetails with other area plans in the local communities. Therefore, yes, I agree that it is very important that those needs be met.

Bronwyn McGahan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. What will happen if some projects fail their economic appraisal?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I am not sure whether the Member has any specific project in mind, but the projects that are undergoing economic appraisal are those that each zone has already prioritised. In the light of that, it is very important that we work with steering groups and project promoters, because, when some projects do not make the economic appraisal stage, we need to give people feedback on why they are not meeting the requirements. We need to make sure that consultation, dialogue and engagement is continuing with our officials and the steering groups on the ground.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

4. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, under their civil contingencies remit, what steps they have taken to improve emergency funding and planning in the face of worsening and extreme weather patterns. (AQO 5600/11-15)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We will continue to improve our preparedness for severe weather and other emergencies through the work of the civil contingencies group (CCG) and other groups of key responders. The civil contingencies group is the principal strategic-emergency-preparedness body for the public sector, comprising representatives from Departments and agencies, the emergency services and councils. Just over a year ago, OFMDFM, which chairs the multi-agency group, put in place new and enhanced arrangements to ensure effective delivery of the civil contingencies group's functions. Members identify, agree and oversee the delivery of priority work to enhance our collective capability to prepare for a range of emergencies. Severe weather emergencies and their damaging impacts are a key element of that work programme, which continues to be developed in response to identified need. For example, in line with good practice, following the spring blizzard of 2013, civil contingencies group members participated in a multi-agency debrief to capture learning from the emergency. That has since been incorporated into actions that the civil contingencies group is delivering. In a similar way, learning from a recent coastal flooding test exercise and the emergency at the start of this year will be used to inform the further development of that work programme.

As a member of the civil contingencies group, the Met Office plays an active part in progressing the civil contingency agenda here by advising on weather issues. A meeting of the Met Office's public weather service customer group was held in October 2013 and proved very useful in developing a further understanding of the services that the Met Office offers to assist emergency planners.

OFMDFM does not provide a central funding stream for the civil contingencies function; rather, individual Departments fund emergency preparedness in their organisations and sectors.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his response in length. Will he join me in congratulating the Police Service of Northern Ireland for the exemplary role that it played in preparing for the recent threatened flooding event in Sydenham in Belfast? In the event of serious flooding in Northern Ireland, will he outline what fast-track arrangements are in place to deploy the troops that are locally stationed?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I absolutely and wholeheartedly congratulate and pay tribute to the PSNI for the lead role that it played in working with all Departments and groups that are involved in civil contingency situations. I think that it did a tremendous job.

When you consider what has happened in the south-east of England and, indeed, in the South of Ireland in places such as Cork, Limerick and Kilkenny, you can see that we have been very lucky to escape the worst effects of flooding on this occasion. I certainly hope that we can come through what has been a very difficult winter in a way that ensures that our farmers and homes, particularly homes in the most vulnerable areas, will escape the very high levels of rainfall that are affecting us at the moment.

There are no plans whatsoever for the involvement of troops. I think that we will always deal with those situations by working closely through the civil contingencies group and with the advice of the PSNI.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

Does the deputy First Minister agree with me that the Executive should be working with local groups that are involved in contingency work such as the Connswater Community Greenway? It recently received tremendous support to alleviate the floods in east Belfast.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

That is obviously a hugely important project. I absolutely agree with the Member that we all have to work in a very joined-up way to ensure that communities, the civil contingencies group, Departments and the PSNI, all working together, can alleviate the challenges that we face with extreme weather.

I know that there are one or two sceptics about global warming and all the rest of it in the House. One of them is now looking up at me with a big smile on his face. I think that the rest of us believe the scientists when they tell us that the planet is facing enormous change.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Which ones do you believe?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We believe the ones that we want to believe, not the ones that you want us to believe.

More seriously, it is an important subject; of that there is no doubt. I think that we have all come to the conclusion that something very dramatic is happening to our weather. In turn, that can have a massive impact on people's lives. So, yes, the community, the civil contingencies group and the police have to work together to ensure that we head off dangerous situations at the pass.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle, agus gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra. Will the Minister give us an idea of the central response to the recent weather emergencies?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As I said, it is important that we deal with each issue on its merits with respect to the different challenges the weather throws at us. We have to take account of each situation as it arises, and that is what we are doing. The important thing is that we have a high level of preparedness. That has stood by us and ensured that, for the most part, people have been protected.

When serious incidents arise, the relevant Minister has the opportunity to raise the issue of funding, for example at the Executive and with the Finance Minister, to seek additional support if they feel it is required. As I said, we look at each situation on its merits and base our decisions on that.

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

Given that the adverse weather caused a lot of damage along coastal roads, and a crisis in the fishing community, particularly at Ardglass, Kilkeel and Portavogie, would the Minister agree that more help is needed, including financial help, for those?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I certainly have a lot of sympathy for what the Member said. Undoubtedly, it has been a difficult time for the fishing community with the poor weather over the past few months. It has meant that they have not been able to put to sea as much as they would like and that has undoubtedly caused hardship.

The main fishing season runs from April to October, so we are hoping that things will improve. The DARD Minister, Michelle O'Neill, has agreed to meet representatives of the fishing industry. I think that that meeting is tomorrow, and she will agree with them what assistance may be available. Michelle was able to support the industry last year by paying for landing fees and satellite equipment to the value of £400,000 to offset overheads. I know that she is dedicated to seeing that the industry is sustainable.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

5. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the Maze/Long Kesh Development Corporation. (AQO 5601/11-15)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

There is no current agreement on Maze/Long Kesh. We continue to discuss a way forward with this important project. The development corporation continues to ensure that the site is secure and maintained and is progressing plans to facilitate the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society (RUAS) show on the site in May 2014.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his crisp reply. What are the continuing costs of the corporation? You mentioned some of the work that it is undertaking. Is there anything of a strategic nature in that work?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We will write to the Member about the specific costs of the corporation. I do not have that information to hand except to say that it is an important body with an important function, and my hope is that, at some stage, we can see the difficulties that afflict us in relation to the further development of the site resolved in a way that will progress the employment prospects of many thousands of people who are looking for jobs.

At the minute, the corporation's work is to ensure that the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society show goes ahead and that its project on that site is developed. I am a big fan of the RUAS. Its courageous move from Balmoral to the site was a tremendous vote of confidence in the site. The fact that it had such a massive increase in attendance at its show last year, and will probably do so again this year, shows that there is huge community support for the development of the site. I look forward to the difficulties that are before us being resolved in a way that will see us develop the site consistent with the original vision, which is really about providing employment for our people.

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

I listened carefully to the deputy First Minister and I share his sense of loss regarding the vision of developing the site, the loss of the stadium and the loss, at least temporarily, of a peace and reconciliation centre. Have the deputy First Minister and the First Minister entered into any discussions with the European Commission on any of the lost funding?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member will know as much as anybody else in this room that it is the Special EU Programmes Body that takes up the challenge of how that funding is effectively distributed against the backdrop of the non-development of the peace building and conflict resolution centre. It is important to stress that the project caught the imagination of the international community. For example, it caught the imagination of President Obama, the White House and the US State Department. It also caught the imagination of the European Union, with President Barroso being very much involved in and excited by it. I have not given up hope.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

That concludes listed questions to the deputy First Minister. We move to topical questions.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

1. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, given the deputy First Minister’s recent rightful condemnation of the disgraceful racial abuse directed at our Assembly colleague Anna Lo, whether they will take this opportunity to join with me in condemning all online racist, sectarian and sexist abuse directed at public representatives. (AQT 761/11-15)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

First, I was appalled and absolutely disgusted that a Member of this House, Anna Lo, who is hugely respected as an elected representative and is hugely respected in the community, could be subjected to such vile treatment. Anna Lo stands head and shoulders — head and shoulders — above all those bigots and racist criminals who clearly attempted to target her through the social networks over the past number of days.

There is not a lot that we can do. On sites such as Twitter, there are all sorts of headbangers. There are all sorts of people out there who are very racist and who use every opportunity to try to influence situations for their own benefit. However, there is one thing that we can and must do as elected representatives, which is to be seen to be standing together. That must be done without any equivocation. We must unreservedly condemn the activities of those people.

I stand by Anna Lo, and I am sure that the vast majority of people in our community stand with her also. However, we have to raise our voices, get angry about this and make it absolutely clear to everybody in society that not one Member of this House is prepared to tolerate the sectarian or racist abuse not just of a Member of this House but of anyone in society.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chomh-Chéad-Aire as an fhreagra shoiléir sin. I thank the deputy First Minister for his clear and concise answer. Does he agree that, in circumstances in which a public representative is abused, whether it is online or elsewhere, it is incumbent on all political representatives and all political parties to condemn such threats and abuse plainly and unequivocally?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I absolutely agree that, where people are inflicting sectarian or racist abuse on any elected representatives, it is very important that all of us speak out and do so very loudly so that everybody in society knows where we, as the political leaders of our society, are coming from. It is hugely important that we show solidarity. It is hugely important that we make it absolutely clear that that is unacceptable behaviour. It is also incumbent on all of us to do that at a time when racism and sectarianism are clearly out there in society. We must defend, not just elected representatives, but anybody who has been affected by racist abuse.

We have seen over the past couple of weeks people from different ethnic groups having their cars and homes targeted in absolutely disgusting behaviour. We have to stand by all those people, not just elected representatives. We have to stand by everybody in society because we should know that being subjected to that type of abuse makes this a very lonely place for people who come here and contribute to our society. We have to let them hear where we stand, and we have to stand with them.

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

2. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to clarify how much weight public authorities should give to Equality Commission advice on fair employment practices. (AQT 762/11-15)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is very important that, where there is Equality Commission advice, that is taken into very serious consideration by all groups. It is also very important that we recognise the huge challenges that there are in society. Where there is a clear perception of inequality, organisations such as the Equality Commission have to be taken very seriously in the promulgation of their views.

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the deputy First Minister. Does he think then that the Executive or the Policing Board should disregard the concerns of the Equality Commission that the current criteria for appointing a Chief Constable may be discriminatory towards women, those with dependants or those with disabilities?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Or when they comment on the —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am sure that the Policing Board and everybody else, including the Executive, will take what the Equality Commission says into very serious consideration. There has been discussion on this particular subject at the Executive and outside the Executive. Further discussions will happen over the next very short period.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

3. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister what action their Department has agreed with the Education Minister on shared education and its funding. (AQT 763/11-15)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The First Minister and I take very seriously the whole issue of shared education and how we continue to promote and encourage it. The evidence of that is the way in which the Education Minister has gone into the community during the consultation process to encourage people to bring forward further ideas and suggestions for the further development of shared education in our society. Of course, the iconic scheme in Omagh, where six schools will come together on a former military site at Lisanelly, is a very clear indicator of where we want to go on this matter. It is hugely important that we continue to provide opportunities for our young people to come together and to do so in meaningful ways, as opposed to what, in the past, some people might have thought were symbolic ways. This new approach is likely to gain huge support in our society.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you very much. I welcome any move forward on shared education. However, in last week's debate, the DUP amendment took out all reference to sharing in education other than shared campuses and the signature projects. The dFM's party supported that — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

— by abstaining. Does the deputy First Minister actually believe in trying to achieve the long-term goal of a single, shared education system?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

There can be no doubt whatsoever that the Executive's commitment to shared education is absolute. We all understand the importance of our children, from different religious denominations, coming together in meaningful ways. The projects that we are encouraging through the Department of Education are a very clear evidence base of where we want to go.

The First Minister and I are on the public record as saying, for example, that, if we were starting with a clean sheet of paper and without the baggage of history, we would both absolutely favour a single education system. However, we have to deal with the realpolitik of where education is at and the fact that people out there want and believe in choice. We certainly believe that people should have the opportunity to choose. We must present all the individual sectors in education with the opportunity to answer the big question of whether or not they accept — I think that the vast majority of people do — that we need to progress and accelerate a process of bringing our young people together in shared education campuses. The other shared education projects that DE is involved in are also very clear testimony of our commitment to sharing in the education of our young people.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

4. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to confirm that social investment fund northern zone funding is ring-fenced. (AQT 764/11-15)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I will ask junior Minister Jennifer McCann to answer that question.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

As I said earlier, the allocations in the social fund have been set out. When the fund is ring-fenced, it is not in the baseline of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister; it is in DFP because it is a central fund and an Executive fund. However, the money will be ring-fenced for the entirety of the social investment fund.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

With only £500,000 announced and confirmed so far, when does the junior Minister believe that her Department will be in a position to announce other projects in the northern zone?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The northern zone is like any other zone. If there are projects there that have already been approved, and I am aware that there are, when the next tranche of projects meet the criteria in the economic appraisals, they will go forward. The difficulty at the moment is that there are some projects across all zones, not just the northern zone, that are not yet at that stage. Our officials are engaging and consulting with steering groups to bring them up to the stage that they need to be at and to tell them why they are not yet at that stage. That engagement is ongoing, and if the Member wants more information on who is dealing with the steering group in the northern zone, I can provide him with it.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

5. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister what advice they would give a potential investor if, in the course of their forthcoming trip to the USA, they receive a serious business enquiry about a potential investment at the Maze site. (AQT 765/11-15)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have no doubt that the Maze/Long Kesh site is of huge national and international importance, and I have no doubt whatsoever that quite a number of businesses are very interested in seeing it developed. However, it is important to point out that, of the initial assessments that were done, even by people with an international reputation in development, all pointed out the huge importance of the peace-building and conflict resolution centre in the development of the site.

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

Give up.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, Members.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It was made clear to me, and to the Rev Ian Paisley when he was First Minister at the very early stages of this project, that those people saw the peace-building and conflict resolution centre as the jewel in the crown of Maze/Long Kesh.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his answer. Unlike the people behind me, I support the concept of a conflict resolution centre, but does the deputy First Minister think that it is reasonable to allow a political disagreement in his office to impede potential economic progress on the site?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have always described myself, and have been characterised throughout my involvement in the peace process over 20 years, as being a problem-solver and a solution-seeker, and I am still in that mode. I think that we need to try to overcome the difficulties that we face.

I am also very conscious that there are people associated with victims' groups who feel strongly about this project not going ahead. I have every sympathy with them, even though I have a different point of view. The peace centre was designed to be just that: a centre for peace and reconciliation. The only shrine at that centre would be a shrine to peace and reconciliation. However, I am also conscious that there are other, politically motivated, people on the extremes of loyalism who have attempted to use the situation and, indeed, on occasions, use victims against this project.

It is time for a big debate within unionism and loyalism about how we should move forward in our society. Does the construction of a peace-building and conflict resolution centre on that site contribute to our providing a normal society that is coming to terms with the challenges of the past but is prepared to move forward in unity in the future? I think that, clearly, it does.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

1. asked the Minister for Social Development to outline the analysis used to reach a determination of equal unionist and nationalist housing need in North Belfast. (AQO 5612/11-15)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I have stated a number of times now that the need for social housing in both communities in the North Belfast constituency is roughly the same. That is not my view or interpretation of the figures; it is a case of the facts speaking for themselves. The figures are the Housing Executive's own figures, and they are based on housing waiting list figures for the North Belfast Assembly and parliamentary constituency. They are the Housing Executive's totals for the number of applicants for social housing who self-identified as "Protestant" or "Roman Catholic" within each common landlord area in the constituency. The latest figures that I have received from the Housing Executive, which are from the end of December 2013, again speak for themselves, with 1,994 Protestants and 1,988 Roman Catholics on the waiting list in the North Belfast constituency. The figures are very clear that the need in North Belfast, according to the waiting list, is roughly the same in the Protestant and Roman Catholic constituencies. That is very different, of course, from the impression that has often been given in the past that there is a huge differential. Those are the executive's own figures, which they have produced and provided to me.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answer. You have provided us with statistics, but you have not given us the basis on which the analysis was carried out. Will you provide us with that? What was the process of analysis that led you to that conclusion?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Everyone who registers for social housing self-identifies as "Protestant" or "Roman Catholic" and there are other categories that can be grouped together as "Other" for people who do not designate as one or the other. The Housing Executive has detailed figures for every common landlord area across Northern Ireland. It has simply taken the figures for the common landlord areas in North Belfast and totalled those figures for those who self-identified as "Protestant" or "Roman Catholic". The figures that it came up with are, as I said, 1,994 people who self-identified as "Protestant" and 1,988 who self-identified as "Roman Catholic". There is, of course, the issue of people who do not identify as one or the other. You can go through a process of trying to put those people into one category or the other, which is contrary to what they want, but, even if you do that and assume that, if a person puts down Ardoyne, for example, they are probably from the Roman Catholic community and, if they put down Woodvale, they are probably from the Protestant community, it does not change the balance between them. The figures still work out roughly the same. Those are the figures for those who have self-identified. All you would do by designating people in a way that they have not done is increase the figures, but it would not change the balance.

There is a suggestion — I read it again in 'The Irish News' this morning, coming from someone in the SDLP — that there is discrimination and a differential. The figures speak for themselves: 1,994 people from the Protestant community and 1,988 from the Roman Catholic community. That is a difference of six.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister yet again for pointing out the figures for housing need in North Belfast. In the Minister's opinion, how has the obvious lack of focus on dereliction and decay in certain housing stock over the years led to the breakdown of our communities?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member makes a very important point: the role of the Department for Social Development does not include only housing; it also includes regeneration. We have areas with high levels of dereliction and decay, with empty houses boarded up, and they drag communities down. They become magnets for antisocial behaviour and dumping. They blight the lives of the residents, creating despair, and they are a lost opportunity. In the past, the solution to these problems was to bulldoze the empty properties, clear the site and walk away, but, as I have said before, a bulldozer and a packet of grass seed do not solve the problem.

Building Successful Communities is therefore a new initiative that is part of the Facing the Future housing strategy for Northern Ireland. It aims to use housing intervention as one of the main catalysts for local regeneration. The six pilot areas selected to take forward this new initiative meet the criteria for selection, as detailed in the housing strategy. All are already designated areas of deprivation but, critically, have good potential for recovery, with available land or properties that can be refurbished. I am pleased that, for example, in lower Oldpark, all of the first group of refurbished houses have been allocated and are fully occupied.

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

At first, I thought that the Minister was simply spinning, but now I believe that the Minister is also self-delusional — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

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

— in relation to housing in North Belfast. Irrespective of whatever spin or self-delusion he indulges in, there is a basic need for housing in North Belfast.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I urge the Member to come to his question.

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

Will the Minister properly address that need and urgently?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

First, I will deal with the Member's point that I am self-delusional. The figures that I quoted — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The figures that I quoted were in fact produced by the Housing Executive. They are not my figures; I did not create or write them. They were given to me this morning by the Housing Executive. If the Member thinks that the Housing Executive is delusional, that is his opinion. He is entitled to that, but he cannot get round the fact that these are the figures. They may not be the figures that he wants to hear or the figures that he heard in the past, but they are the facts. The reason behind them is very simple. The North Belfast constituency embraces all or part of four housing areas: Shankill, north Belfast, Newtownabbey 1 and Newtownabbey 2. In the past, certain people who were trying to manufacture figures took the part of the constituency that is predominantly Catholic and nationalist and ignored the figures for the other parts of the constituency, which are predominantly unionist and Protestant. The Housing Executive has taken the figures for the entire constituency, treating everybody equally and fairly, and including people from both communities equally and fairly. Not being partisan, partial or biased in any way, but taking the entire constituency, these are the figures. The figures previously quoted excluded people who lived in Rathcoole, Woodvale, Rushpark, Rathfern or Queens Park. Those communities are as entitled to have their housing needs met as any other. I believe in fairness, equality and equity for everyone.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

2. asked the Minister for Social Development for an update on the negotiations between the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and their contractors relating to the £18m overcharging alleged by the Minister. (AQO 5613/11-15)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member is well aware, I am sure, that negotiations in the matter are ongoing. We must ensure that the Housing Executive's ability to conclude the negotiations successfully is not compromised in any way, particularly by talking openly about them here in the Chamber. The details of the negotiations remain commercially sensitive, and it would not be appropriate to comment further until these are concluded. The Housing Executive has advised me that it continues to explore the issues with the contractors, and its assessment is that a settlement is possible. The Housing Executive's board has assured me that it wants this resolved as soon as possible and that it will continue to strive towards that outcome.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

From what the Minister now knows, does he accept that his enthusiastic announcement of £18 million of overcharging was a gross exaggeration and did gross damage to contractors and their credit standing?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

A similar question was asked last time, and I will give the answer that I give on each occasion: I did not invent the figure of £18 million of estimated overpayments to contractors. I was advised of the figure by the chairman of the Housing Executive board, following a report to the board in May 2013. The Campbell Tickell report estimated that the sum of overcharging was in the region of £9 million to £13 million, and I have already stated that, although that remains a substantial amount of taxpayers' money, I was somewhat relieved that the level had slightly reduced. However, I have already stated clearly this afternoon that we must all await the outcome of the current negotiations, and I am hopeful that we are coming to the point at which those negotiations will be concluded and a settlement between the Housing Executive and the contractors reached. Until that point, we must leave the matter with the Housing Executive.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I appreciate the Minister's steer on confidentiality about where the negotiations are currently. However, there were two Campbell Tickell reports — a draft report and the main one — so let us talk about the main report, because it is in the public domain. Will the Minister outline some of the other findings that were in that report?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question, which is an important one. The key thing in all of this is to learn lessons that will ensure that never again do we have the problems that the Housing Executive has had with its contracts and the management of those contracts over a period. The report found that shortcomings in management and governance in the Housing Executive had led to a situation in which there were substantial overpayments to contractors on planned maintenance contracts. Secondly, it found that a lack of understanding and implementation of a new form of partnering contracts was the root cause of the failings. Thirdly, it found that the current situation appeared to have improved but was still not fully satisfactory. The report found no evidence of fraud or corruption and, in order to remedy the situation, stated that a wide-ranging programme of change and transformation was required. I am pleased to say that, under the leadership of the chairman of the Housing Executive, we now see that action plan put in place and implemented to ensure that the mismanagement of contracts, which existed over quite a number of years but which I recognised when I came into the Department, is now being addressed to make sure that it does not happen again.

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

The Minister refuses to confirm that there was not significant overcharging. Does he agree with the House that there was, in fact, significant undercharging? At this stage, will the Minister consider parking the ministerial car and perhaps giving the briefcase to someone else? [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I do not know whether the Member concerned has a problem with hearing answers or with understanding them. Clearly, he did not get the point that I made a short time ago. It would be utterly irresponsible of people in the House, from whatever side of the Chamber, to interfere in this in a way that would compromise what, I have already stated, are delicate negotiations to reach a settlement between the Housing Executive and the contractors. Until we get to the point at which the matter is concluded, the less that is said, the better. It is important that we get the best outcome for the public purse and ensure that the matter is resolved satisfactorily all round.

I simply say to the Member that there is a need for a little patience. This matter is with the Housing Executive. It is dealing with it and negotiating, and we should leave it to get on with that in commercial confidence.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

We still have Members who, for whatever reason, seem to have a difficulty rising in their place.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I have to say that I had stood up that often that I was getting dizzy.

Can the Minister confirm whether all the contractors that he referred to have been or are about to be allocated new contracts?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The planned maintenance contracts have not yet been awarded because, as is well known, the matter is tied in with getting a resolution with the contractors. That is one of the difficulties that we and the Housing Executive have faced, because where contracts have not been awarded any work that was in the system has, more or less, been used up and a situation is created where there is an underspend. However, it is important that we get this matter resolved satisfactorily. I encourage people to be patient until we get a resolution.

As regards companies being given other contracts that were not planned maintenance contracts, there is no technical or legal way in which people can be barred from being given contracts. Whatever questions might remain, there is no legal basis for that. This applies, for example, to the double-glazing contracts. That is something that has to happen; it does not help to sort out what happened in the past which, let us be honest, was a mess. Over a number of years, the handling of contracts by the Housing Executive was unacceptable.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Who was the Minister then?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member may indeed ask who the Minister was then. That is a question that people might well ask, but it is important anyway. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Did he give up his ministerial car?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

He does not have a car to give up. [Laughter.]

Megan Fearon (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

3. asked the Minister for Social Development when he will launch a consultation on the introduction of an enhanced statutory minimum fitness standard for housing across all tenures. (AQO 5614/11-15)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The statutory minimum fitness standard requires all dwellings to be structurally stable and free from serious disrepair and that there should be adequate provision for lighting, heating, bathing and the preparation of food. My officials are examining options to identify how the current minimum standard for housing across all tenures can be most effectively enhanced. Work is progressing in line with the housing strategy action plan and, that being the case, I expect to launch a consultation on the introduction of an enhanced standard in the coming year. The consultation will provide an opportunity for all stakeholders to formally submit their views on the future of the standard. Any enhanced statutory fitness standard will apply across all housing tenures, including the private rented sector.

Megan Fearon (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. A few years ago, the Savills report said that Housing Executive houses were of a very high standard. Does the Minister agree that that standard needs to be maintained and that investment is required for it?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I welcome that question. I feel passionately that we need to maintain the standard of our social housing stock. In fact, there has been very substantial underinvestment in our social housing stock in recent years. I am not going to ask people to get briefcases or ministerial cars on their way out; I will simply point out that the evidence is clearly there that there has not been the investment by the Housing Executive that there should have been. That is why there are thousands of properties with no cavity wall insulation. That was identified as a major issue, and we are making real progress on it at the moment by getting the right technical approach to dealing with it.

That is why, when I came into the Department, we had to initiate the double-glazing programme. Initially, the executive said that it would take 10 years, but I said, "No, that is unacceptable. We will have that done within the term of this Assembly". It will be done by May 2015. In just over a year, that whole piece of work will be completed.

Those are the issues surrounding double glazing and insulation. The executive is also looking at the energy efficiency of all its stock. There is a substantial amount of work to be done, and it is important that it is kept up. I regret that a significant number of tenants were left for a long time in properties that, because of the lack of insulation in particular, were not of a standard that we would expect today.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

How do the fitness standards of urban and rural properties compare?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member makes an interesting point. The house condition survey indicates that 60% of unfit dwellings are located in rural areas. This is largely attributable to the higher vacancy rates among these properties. My Department recognises the importance of rural areas as places to live and work, and it aims to create a living countryside with strong, vibrant communities. To that end, last May, I launched the Housing Executive's latest rural housing action plan. That plan is designed to ensure that rural areas get their fair share of available resources and will help to reduce unfitness rates outside our urban areas. Overall, across Northern Ireland, the unfitness level of the housing stock stands at 4·6%; however, when vacant dwellings are removed from consideration, that figure drops to 1%, which is the lowest figure to date. There is a higher number of vacant properties in rural areas, and, therefore, the figure appears to be higher.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Minister, given any minimum standard for fitness of property, how will you ensure that the private rented sector is adequately dealt with in this matter as the largest growing sector, particularly with regard to fitness of property, heating and other aspects? Sometimes, properties in the private rented sector are among the worst.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

As I pointed out in my initial answer, any enhanced statutory fitness standard will apply across all housing tenures, including the private rented sector. It is important that we look on the private rented sector as a significant provider of accommodation. The tenancy deposit scheme was brought in to make it a more attractive option, and landlord registration is now under way because of that. All those things are small steps. The area was maybe neglected in the past by others. I want to make sure that we make the right interventions, and I think that those are starts. The point about landlord registration is, of course, that, if we have direct payments to landlords, it will be in the interests of landlords to be on the register.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

4. asked the Minister for Social Development, in light of his recent visit to the Corcrain and Redmanville estates in Portadown, what opportunities exist to tackle social deprivation in these estates. (AQO 5615/11-15)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Having visited both estates, I have witnessed at first hand the issues of concern. My Department is already to the fore in taking forward work to endeavour to address the issues, and both estates have benefited from a number of opportunities to tackle social deprivation. On both estates, the Housing Executive has undertaken a very comprehensive multi-element improvement programme, and a working group has been established with the PSNI, Craigavon Borough Council and the policing and community safety partnership to help to tackle antisocial behaviour.

In addition, the Corcrain Redmanville Community Partnership received community support programme funding totalling some £2 million, sorry £2,689, which was awarded in 2013-14. I think that it was going to do better than it thought for a moment. The CSP is a unique and collaborative initiative involving DSD, the 26 district councils, local community and voluntary groups and local advice organisations and aims to strengthen local communities, increase community participation and promote social inclusion through the stimulation and support of community groups, community activity and advice services.

My Department’s SPOD scheme, which aims to drive physical, economic, social and community renewal and improve living conditions at a small scale, is in its final year and provides the potential to further direct regeneration funding. I will be considering whether there is any scope to consider a bid from the Corcrain and Redmanville estates. The Northern Ireland Executive have agreed to transfer a range of powers to the 11 new councils from April 2015, enabling councils to take responsibility for community development and regeneration, including tackling social deprivation. In the meantime, I intend to meet David Simpson, the MP for the area, to explore further opportunities to tackle social deprivation in these estates in the period up to April 2015. I look forward to that meeting.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for that detailed response. I appreciate some of the comments that have come forward today. I also thank him for taking the time to visit the Corcrain and Redmanville estates in Portadown. Minister, as you are aware, those two estates fall outside the neighbourhood renewal area —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Member to come to his question.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I will, indeed. They find it very difficult to attract funding. What investment has the Department already made in those areas?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member is absolutely correct in saying that they fall outside the boundary of the neighbourhood renewal areas. However, the Housing Executive has invested £2·6 million in improving its housing stock in the two estates of Corcrain and Redmanville. Gas heating was installed in 2011, at a cost of £1·1 million, and an ECM scheme took place in 2011, at a cost of £266,000. Some properties in Redmanville received new kitchens last year at a cost of £266,000, and uPVC windows were installed in both estates in 2012, at a total cost of £968,000.

Three blocks of flats — approximately 30 in total — were passed to the South Ulster Housing Association in the 1990s and are currently included in that association's 2014-15 ECM programme for the spring/summer of this year. I was also pleased to note that a play park at Corcrain Road was provided and is being maintained by Craigavon Borough Council. The Housing Executive is aware of ongoing discussions between residents and the council about the future of the park and a potential upgrade scheme.

I refer back to the initial answer: my Department's SPOD scheme has some potential, and we will consider very soon whether there is any scope to consider a bid from Corcrain and Redmanville estates to the SPOD scheme.

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

I welcome any investment in areas of deprivation. As the Minister stated, those areas fall outside the neighbourhood renewal areas. How are you ensuring equity across all areas in relation to investment and tackling social deprivation?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The schemes that I inherited from my predecessors, who were from the Member's party, were based around neighbourhood renewal, areas at risk and SPOD. The resources that have been put out through neighbourhood renewal during the time that I have been in the Department are very much the same overall as they were under predecessor Ministers. So, if there is any criticism of what I have done in that regard, it is criticism that would rebound on certain other predecessors. However, it is important that we keep these issues under review. That is why we brought in some guidance on how a neighbourhood renewal partnership should function. We have also tried to see what is good practice, so that it is not simply the amount of money that you put in; it is the value that you get out of it as well. There are lessons that some neighbourhood renewal areas could learn from others, hence the guidance.

Moving forward into the future, in the longer term, councils locally may decide to abandon neighbourhood renewal and go in a different line. Focusing on the top 10% creates a difficulty in that, over the years, areas that were in stayed in, and areas that were out were left out. The result was that some areas have fallen significantly. They might have been just outside it before, and now they are within the 10%, but, because the boundaries were set previously, they have not been included. That is something that also needs to be reviewed. So, there is quite a bit of work to be done to get a system that is really fit for purpose.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

What progress is being made on narrowing the gap outside — the outcome indicators in neighbourhood renewal between Corcrain and Redmanville and the rest of Northern Ireland?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I think that that question is "What are the figures for that area compared with other areas?". I do not have those detailed figures to hand, but we can get some figures for that estate. I hope that the small pockets of deprivation will make a difference. I think that the question was about narrowing the gap between that area and other areas in Northern Ireland. The core point here is that a neighbourhood renewal area is in the top 10%, and the areas at risk are below that. We need to check back on where particular estates sit at the moment, but I am happy to do that and come back to the Member.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. That concludes oral questions to the Minister. We now move on to topical questions to the Minister.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

1. asked the Minister for Social Development to share his views on the recent statements from Church leaders in Great Britain on the implementation of welfare reform. (AQT 771/11-15)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Recently, a number of statements were made in regard to welfare reform from Great Britain. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster — and, I understand, incoming cardinal — commented on welfare reform in an interview with the 'Daily Telegraph' on 14 February, and we also had an open letter sent to the Prime Minister on 19 February from 26 Church of England bishops in relation to changes in welfare reform. Actually, many of the points that they made were points that I would not really disagree with. Interestingly enough, I even noticed a Conservative MP on a television panel programme the other night saying that there were many things that he agreed with as well.

First, I think that it is valuable that civic and religious leaders engage on important social and economic issues such as welfare reform, and we should listen carefully to what is being said. Many of the points that they made have some validity. It is also important to say that we are not necessarily doing things or intending to do things in Northern Ireland in exactly the same way as in Great Britain. We are actually doing things better in Northern Ireland than across the water.

What they were talking about, I think, was the fact that the welfare system should be there as a safety net for those who are particularly vulnerable or who find it impossible to secure work because of a disability or illness or because they are in an area where there is not work available. We all agree with that. It is important that there is a safety net for some of the most vulnerable people, and I hope that, as we move forward in Northern Ireland, that will also be the case here. It should be the priority of all of us.

I met a number of groups from the faith sector in Northern Ireland, including the four main Church leaders, to talk about those things. That is something that we will want to continue with.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

In light of the Minister's answer and, indeed, the statements made by the Church leaders, will the Minister outline how he sees Northern Ireland implementing those changes? Can he see it being any different from what has been said?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

There are two things that I will pick out in particular in answer to that question. For many years the social fund has been the social security benefit of last resort for the most vulnerable people in our society, ensuring that they are not left in a position of hunger or destitution. I recognise the need to put in place a new discretionary support scheme to replace the current social fund, which will be available across Northern Ireland, so I have secured funding for the scheme from the Treasury and plan to extend it so that it is available not only to people in receipt of benefits but to low-paid working families, who have often lost out in the past. That extension to low-paid working families is something of real value.

The new discretionary support scheme is only one example of where we can see the devolution of social security working for the people of Northern Ireland by enabling us to do things differently from other parts of the United Kingdom. I also believe that the package of measures that I have developed to shape how welfare reform might be implemented in Northern Ireland addresses many of the concerns raised by the Church leaders.

The other thing that we have done with great commitment here in Northern Ireland is maximise income from benefits. The benefit uptake campaign has been particularly successful. In fact, over the past few years we have trebled the amount of money; it went up from about £1·4 million or £1·5 million to about £5 million. We are now up to around £15 million, and there will be further progress on that. Those are things that we are doing differently in Northern Ireland, and I think that that is important.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

3. asked the Minister for Social Development for his assessment of the progress of the new council transition committees in transferring urban regeneration and neighbourhood renewal from his Department. (AQT 773/11-15)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for the question. I was assured by my officials that the transfer and conferring of powers on local government authorities would be smooth and seamless. It is hugely important that it is smooth and seamless and that, first of all, in neighbourhood renewal and tackling deprivation, we do not find a cliff edge where difficulties arise at the transfer.

Secondly, there was the issue of public realm schemes and big urban regeneration schemes, which not only benefit town centres but are hugely important to the construction industry at a time when it has been under significant pressure. It was important, therefore, that those were smooth and seamless. You do not want to be in a position in which a scheme starts and then falls into difficulty because of power being conferred on councils. We conducted a gateway review from the Department's side to see how DSD was geared up for the changes.

There is also the other side: the councils. We are moving into a period of real change. We will have new councils and significant numbers of new councillors. Many councils will have new staff at senior levels to deal with those issues. Councils are taking on new and enhanced additional responsibilities. It is not surprising, therefore, that concerns have been expressed about changes with neighbourhood renewal and urban regeneration and the fear that that will not be smooth and seamless. For that reason, I have been keeping a close watch. I have written to the chairs of the transition committees about meeting them to hear their views on where we are, and on the basis of those meetings and the gateway review, we will have a better idea of where this is going.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

Does the Minister accept that those functions are key to the survival of town centres and to tackling deprivation and economic inactivity in communities throughout Northern Ireland?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I agree entirely with that. As I said in answer to an earlier question, regeneration is one of the main thrusts of the Department. If we look at the two issues of areas of disadvantage and deprivation and town centres, we see that it is hugely important that that work proceeds smoothly, seamlessly and effectively. We do not want it to be disrupted in any way.

Town centres, which are providers of employment as well as having great social value, are under real pressure for a whole range of reasons: economic climate, out-of-town shopping, online shopping, and so on. Public realm schemes and town centre master plans have made a significant difference to many of those towns. They make them much more attractive for people to shop and to socialise. From the point of view of town centres, we need to keep that work moving smoothly.

One focus of the work to tackle deprivation through neighbourhood renewal, and so on, has to be on increasing employability and making people ready for employment, perhaps by supporting a social enterprise that creates employment. All those things are ways in which we help to address unemployment levels and increase levels of employability. Therefore, with town centres and neighbourhood renewal work, those are hugely important aspects of what we do.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

4. asked the Minister for Social Development, given that, if we do not do things differently, we cannot expect the outcomes to be different, to outline what measures we can put in place to ensure that the outcomes are different, albeit that I am greatly heartened by his earlier answer to Ian McCrea in which he stated that he shares the concern of Church leaders about welfare reform. (AQT 774/11-15)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

This is an area in which certain things are in the public domain officially, and others seem to be in it unofficially. Certain things seem to be bogged down because of the inability of some people from one side of the Chamber to face up to the challenge that we need to do things differently and move on doing them differently.

Over a year ago, I indicated that we negotiated flexibilities for Northern Ireland for direct payments to landlords, split payments when those were necessary and fortnightly instead of monthly payments. Those things were identified at a very early stage when I was negotiating directly with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) in London.

As the Member will be aware, since then, my Department has been doing ongoing work on and looking carefully at what other things need to be done differently. There were conversations not just with London but with the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. By June last year, I had a package of measures that, I think, goes a very long way to making the situation in Northern Ireland much better than it is across the water. Those things have been tabled in the Executive on a number of occasions but have not quite managed to get through to discussion, so it is difficult for me to spell out all the detail.

I continue to have meetings in the hope that people will recognise that, if we do not move on the issue, we face a £1 billion penalty or levy from Westminster. I do not want to be in a situation in which we have to explain to people why, because of some people's intransigence, we are taking £1 billion out of the budget for health, education or whatever over a period of years. One billion pounds is an awful lot of money to have taken out.

Some people have suggested that we could do it differently and commission our own IT system, the cost of which would be £1·62 billion. That is on top of the £1 billion. In anybody's finances, £2·62 billion is an awful lot of money to take from health, education, farming, deprivation — all the areas that we are trying to work on. I do not know where that will come from.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I remind the Minister of the two-minute rule. I understand that Ministers sometimes need more time because of the nature of the question.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for his detailed answer, which is appreciated. If we are going to do things differently, which the Minister now accepts, they have to be seen to be different. The way that they will be seen to be different is in the lives of the vulnerable people whom we all represent. Given the caution of senior Church leaders following the experience in England, how can we satisfy ourselves that we are not signing up to something that will have a devastating effect on people?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

It is because of those concerns and because I believe that we have a responsibility to show compassion to vulnerable people that I developed a package of measures, flexibilities and interventions.

Also, it is important to bear in mind the cost impact, not just of the penalties, levies and development of an IT system but of not moving forward. Over the course of 2016, various groups in Northern Ireland entitled to certain benefits will no longer be able to receive them because the Northern Ireland Assembly will have failed to move ahead fast enough. It will be the end of 2015 before we can get the legislation and the regulations through the Assembly. That is very close to the point at which the changes in IT would be such that people ceased to receive certain benefits. HMRC benefits, for example, would no longer be paid.

Having to say to families in Northern Ireland, "You could've had that benefit, but you can't have it because we have faffed around, wasted so much time, talked so much and procrastinated for so long", would be the most appalling position to be in. I do not know how the Member opposite or others from his party could possibly explain that away to the vulnerable people who would suffer directly from that procrastination.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

5. asked the Minister for Social Development what action his Department will take on paramilitary murals on the route of the Giro d’Italia, given his reference to its work on public realm activities. (AQT 775/11-15)

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I do not have direct responsibility for the route or for what is or is not on it. I have to confess that I have not pursued with a map the full detail of the route. There are all sorts of paraphernalia — murals and other things — in all sorts of places that I am sure Members would prefer not to see there. On the other hand, there are murals that I find very pleasing, as they are cultural and historical and enrich our society.

I was lobbied some time ago about the restoration of one particular piece of graffiti in east Belfast. There are some very attractive murals in east Belfast that tell its football and the shipbuilding history and other aspects. Whether it is those on the route, the situation that you have in Castlederg, where there is a paramilitary IRA memorial on public property or some of the paramilitary memorials of a republican nature at the side of roads, the problem has been around for quite some time. I want to see a position adopted in Northern Ireland where we celebrate our culture and our heritage. There is a long tradition of murals in Northern Ireland. I think that the first ones appeared around 1912. They were very fine and reflected the unionist perspective at the time. I think that King William featured extensively on a number of them.

However, on the issue of offensive things, this is not a one-sided thing, yet sometimes people seem to think that it is. There are challenges, and it is an issue for both communities. I hope that the situation can be addressed over time. We have done a lot of work with reimaging. I have seen quite a number of paramilitary murals in different areas being replaced by much more acceptable ones.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Time has gone. That concludes Question Time. Before we move on to the question for urgent oral answer, I invite Members to take their ease as we change the top Table.

(Mr Principal Deputy Speaker [Mr Mitchel McLaughlin] in the Chair)

Question for Urgent Oral Answer

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Mr Cathal Ó hOisín has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. I remind Members that if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should rise continually in their place. The Member who tabled the question will be called automatically to ask a supplementary question.