Northern Ireland Assembly, 3 March 2014

472 contributions from 71 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Mr Lyttle has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member will have up to three minutes to speak on the subject matter.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Mr Speaker, I thank you for permitting me to present this petition today, which gives the Assembly an opportunity to mark the start of Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month 2014. It also gives us an opportunity to renew our cross-party support for the call for a dedicated ovarian cancer public awareness campaign, which was first made in the Assembly over a year ago this month. As I said, it has the support of all parties.

There are a number of organisations that work to raise awareness of ovarian cancer and, indeed, to respond to this disease. One of those is Target Ovarian Cancer, and we are delighted that the CEO, Frances Reid, joins us in the Assembly today. We know that Angels of Hope, another inspirational organisation in Northern Ireland, works on these issues. Indeed, the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry and the Northern Ireland Cancer Network do great work as well.

This petition and call for a dedicated ovarian cancer awareness campaign is inspired and driven by the tour de force that is Una Crudden. Una has achieved the no-small feat, which few others manage to achieve, of uniting the Assembly and all parties around this just cause. She is a tireless campaigner and a courageous lady, given her own battle against this disease. I must congratulate her now on her new title of 'Belfast Telegraph' Woman of the Year for 2014.

It is not acceptable that, in a recent survey, only 3% of women felt confident of identifying the symptoms of ovarian cancer, which are frequent and persistent abdominal pain, frequent and persistent bloating, difficulty with eating and feeling full quickly. With early detection, the survival rate can be as high as 90%; however, in Northern Ireland, that survival rate is around 36% at the moment. That is simply unacceptable. We renew our call, and the call of the petition, on the Minister to implement a dedicated campaign to empower women in Northern Ireland to know the symptoms and to access the treatment that they deserve.

Mr Lyttle moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I will forward the petition to the Minister of Health and send a copy to the Chair of the Health Committee, Maeve McLaughlin.

Executive Committee Business

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move

That this Assembly consents to the Public Bodies (Abolition of the National Consumer Council and Transfer of the Office of Fair Trading's Functions in relation to Estate Agents etc) Order 2014 in the form of the draft laid before the UK Parliament on 5 December 2013.

It may be helpful for Members if I give some background leading to the tabling of the motion and how the order affects Northern Ireland. In 2011, the UK Government launched a consultation document entitled 'Empowering and Protecting Consumers', in which it proposed a number of reforms to the current institutional arrangements to ensure that consumer advice, representation and enforcement were delivered effectively and efficiently. This draft order, laid in Westminster on 5 December 2013, is the second such order flowing from that consultation, and it will finalise the remaining changes proposed in the consultation.

The order will abolish the National Consumer Council (NCC) and transfer almost all of its functions, apart from its responsibilities for postal services in Northern Ireland, to Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland. The NCC’s functions relating to postal services in Northern Ireland will be transferred to the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland (GCCNI). Members will be aware that postal services are reserved to Westminster. Although responsibility for representing consumers in Northern Ireland has lain with the National Consumer Council, the staff employed by it in that area of work have been located in the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland premises on the Holywood Road in Belfast. Therefore, the transfer should not result in any disruption in the effectiveness of consumer representation in that area, even in the transition period.

As postal services are a reserved matter, funding for the new role will be provided by the GB Department with responsibility for consumer affairs, namely the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). Given the funding stream for that role, the order will make provision that the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland annual reports and accounts, which are laid with the Assembly, will also be laid at Westminster.

The order will also transfer the Office of Fair Trading’s (OFT) responsibilities for the regulation of the estate agency market and for money laundering by estate agents to the lead trading standards authority, Powys County Council in Wales and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) respectively. The OFT’s responsibility for the estate agency market comes under the Estate Agents Act 1979. Essentially that involves ensuring that unfit persons are not allowed to operate estate agency businesses.

Trading standards departments across the UK already have some enforcement responsibilities under the Estate Agents Act.

Those responsibilities concern the handling of clients' money by agents, the passing on of offers, and declaring any interest that the agent may have in the property or in offering services to potential purchasers.

Transferring the OFT’s responsibilities under the Estate Agents Act to a single trading standards department will ensure that all the responsibilities under the Act are carried out more effectively. The Trading Standards Service of my Department will work closely with Powys County Council when necessary.

The transfer of the OFT’s responsibility to prevent money laundering by estate agents to HMRC will sit well with HMRC’s existing responsibilities to prevent money laundering in a number of other sectors. HMRC has both the experience and capacity to ensure effective compliance with the money laundering regulations by estate agents across the UK.

It is intended that the draft order will come into force in April 2014. Under section 9 of the Public Bodies Act 2011, the consent of the Assembly to the order is required because it will modify the functions of the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, and the subject matter of the Estate Agents Act 1979 will be transferred and therefore within the legislative competence of the Assembly.

The General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland is content to take on the functions transferred from the NCC relating to postal services in Northern Ireland.

Members will be aware that my Department recently consulted on the review of consumer representation in Northern Ireland, and the proposed role for GCCNI was outlined in that consultation. When final decisions are taken on the review, whatever they are, I will ensure that the postal services functions transferred to GCCNI by the draft order continue to be discharged under any new arrangements that may be made.

I support the draft order as GCCNI already undertakes similar consumer advocacy functions in a number of other areas in Northern Ireland. The existing staff employed by NCC to deal with the function in Northern Ireland are already located in the GCCNI premises. Moreover, as postal services are reserved to Westminster, the UK Government will fund the council’s consumer advocacy work on postal services matters in Northern Ireland.

I am content that the functions of the Office of Fair Trading relating to estate agents will be transferred to Powys County Council, as the lead trading standards authority, and HM Revenue and Customs.

It is important for Northern Ireland that the Assembly pass the consent motion, as consumers in Northern Ireland will benefit from the integration of the new postal services role with GCCNI’s existing consumer advocacy function. The Northern Ireland consumer will benefit, in the same way as consumers in the rest of the UK, from the transfer of the estate agent functions of the Office of Fair Trading to Powys County Council and HM Revenue and Customs. My Department will work closely with Powys County Council when it takes on functions relating to the regulation of the estate agency market.

I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

At its meeting on 30 January, the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment considered the Assembly consent motion during an oral briefing from the Consumer Council. Consumer Council representatives informed the Committee that, for postal services, the Consumer Council will have the power to acquire information from a range of regulators, businesses and any person that supplies goods or services in the course of business for the post and mail markets. In its response to the Department’s consultation, the Consumer Council asked for the same power to be extended across all its remit. The Committee sought clarification from the Department regarding the planned remit of the Consumer Council and whether the Consumer Council remit would be the same as other consumer bodies in Britain. The Committee considered the Department’s response at its meeting on 13 February. The Department stated that, under the Public Bodies Act 2011, there is no scope to amend the Consumer Council’s existing functions. Therefore, other than for postal services, the Consumer Council’s functions will remain unchanged. The Department further informed the Committee that, as part of the review of consumer representation arrangements, the Department will consider whether any amendments to the powers associated with such representation are required and which body or bodies should exercise them. Having considered the evidence, the Committee was content for the Department to proceed in seeking the Assembly’s consent to the order.

I will speak now as a Member representing my party. At the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, we heard that the abolition of the National Consumer Council is not so much an abolition as a transfer of its powers and functions to Citizens Advice in England and Wales and Citizens Advice Scotland. Here in the North, the role of postal and mail markets will transfer to the General Consumer Council. From my point of view, that makes sense. The Consumer Council is ideally placed to take on that role. The two experienced staff who will transfer to the organisation will help with that transition. It makes sense that local mail customers are represented by the Consumer Council. The above-inflation stamp price increase announced by Royal Mail is bad enough, but it is outrageous and ridiculous that Royal Mail expects people posting letters from Garrison to Ballyshannon to pay 88p for an international airmail rate when they can pay a second-class rate of 50p to post the same item to Glasgow. Differential postal rates exist in other parts of the EU, between the Czech Republic and Slovakia, but Royal Mail has not used that common-sense approach here in Ireland. We know from Consumer Futures research that customers here buying goods online from Britain often face additional delivery surcharges, which, in some cases, exclude the cost of the item itself. It makes sense to allow the Consumer Council to take on those challenges. I look forward to working with it to address that unique local problem.

Post offices are a vital part of the fabric of our towns and villages. In many rural contexts, the post office is the last shop in the village, providing much more than access to postal services. Post offices provide a valued and trusted route to banking and other financial services, similar to credit unions, which we debated last week. The Assembly all-party group on postal services was formed in part because of the concern about the potential impact of the post office transformation programme. Further changes to post office delivery models or locations can have a significant impact on rural or vulnerable urban customers. It makes sense that local customers' needs be represented by the Consumer Council in that regard.

Although the transfer of postal services to the Consumer Council makes sense to us, the order also raises some concerns. In Committee, we heard that the Scottish Government, although they have approved the transfer order, have published 'Consumer Protection and Representation in an Independent Scotland: Options'. It seems that they have designs on a much more robust system of consumer representation than that which is planned for England and Wales. The Scottish Parliament has sought to explore what the very best consumer protection should look like and has in mind a less fragmented design based on our very own Consumer Council. That contrasts with the situation in England and Wales, where energy and postal consumer advocacy is transferring to Citizens Advice, rail transport will stay with Passenger Focus and water will remain with the Consumer Council for Water. That approach is a bit piecemeal, and the Scottish Parliament has acknowledged that our approach is a much more sensible one.

Some of the written evidence that we received in Committee, including that from Larry Whitty, the Labour peer and former chair of the National Consumer Council, and Mike O'Connor of Consumer Futures, reveals that the model of consumer protection that we have in the North is regarded as being best practice. Although the order supports the abolition of the legal entity that is the National Consumer Council, we will not support any reduction in consumer protection here. It is important to state that for customers who want protection and members of staff in the Consumer Council who are concerned about their future employment prospects.

The transfer of postal services to the Consumer Council adds further protections for local customers to the remit of that devolved body. We want to see the information-gathering powers that the Consumer Council will get in post and mail markets extended right across all the areas in which it operates. Although the transfer order cannot achieve that, the Assembly can look at bringing forward legislation that will deal with that.

In conclusion, a Cheann Comhairle, I want to make it very clear that what is on the table is not going to reduce consumer protection in any way, and that is not a proposition that we will support in the future. We want to see greater powers for the Consumer Council to allow it to continue to do the excellent work that it does to protect customers' needs and to provide customers with a voice.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I, too, welcome the Assembly consent motion before the House. The Committee looked at the issue and held a useful evidence session with the Consumer Council in January 2014. The motion will give greater powers to the Consumer Council in the post and mail markets. It is positive news for consumer protection in Northern Ireland.

As postage costs continue to increase, the public and businesses are looking to alternative suppliers for postage services. The Consumer Council, with its local representatives, will do a firm job to ensure fair play for customers. The Committee is content with the motion, and I am happy to commend it to the House.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Committee for considering the matter in a very timely fashion. I know that it has wider issues that it will want to address with me about the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, but this particular order is very specific, dealing just with representation on postal matters.

I am pleased that the Committee had a quick but detailed look at the matter and is happy to support the motion. I ask the House to support it as well.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly consents to the Public Bodies (Abolition of the National Consumer Council and Transfer of the Office of Fair Trading's Functions in relation to Estate Agents etc) Order 2014 in the form of the draft laid before the UK Parliament on 5 December 2013.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I beg to move

That the Rates (Regional Rates) Order (Northern Ireland) 2014 be affirmed.

As Members will be aware, the order is brought forward annually and stems from the Executive's agreed Budget, which was originally brought to the Assembly back in March 2011 and covers the four-year period from 2011 to 2015.

The regional rate helps to supplement Northern Ireland's share of relevant public expenditure. It helps to provide additional revenue over and above the block grant, helping to fund departmental expenditure on hospitals, roads, schools and other essential public services and investment. To underline the significance of the rating system, over £1 billion is now collected in regional and district, domestic and non-domestic, rates. Taken together, the domestic and commercial regional rate is around £640 million in the next rating year.

I will turn to the breakdown of rate bills. The regional rate represents just over half of a typical bill, with the other half being made up of district rates, which are set independently by local councils.

When the four-year Budget was agreed, the Executive pledged that the regional rate would be frozen in real terms until 2014-15 — the next rating year — to provide certainty and stability for businesses and households in order to allow them to plan and manage their finances. Thankfully, economic conditions are improving, but there are still many challenges ahead. My Executive colleagues and I want to do whatever we can to make sure that the conditions for economic growth are in place in Northern Ireland.

The real terms freeze is adjusted for the effect of inflation. By way of inflationary measure, we are using what is called the GDP deflator, as determined at the outset of a Budget period. The legislation before you today for approval is the simple outworking of that important Budget decision. It will fix two regional rates in the pound for 2014-15: one for households; and one for business ratepayers. The new rates in the pound represent a small increase of 2·7% in the regional rate for the 2014-15 rating year for households and businesses.

The Executive wish to continue the commitment of ensuring that household and commercial budgets are protected, given the continuing economic difficulties being faced across the board. The order represents the best that we can do to balance the interests of ratepayers and the demands of public expenditure.

Some may argue that the regional rate should be reduced to alleviate the pressures of the current economic backdrop that continues to affect domestic and non-domestic sectors. The economic pressures of recent years have been unprecedented, but I firmly believe that the Executive have taken a sensible and measured approach. Any cut in the regional rate would mean a reduction in resources for other areas such as healthcare, education, roads and investment in other essential public services. The regional rate increases were agreed at the start of the Budget period in line with the Executive’s projected expenditure. Holding the regional rate constant in real terms also complements the commercial rating measures introduced since April 2012.

One of the measures included at that time was a levy on large retail premises designed to rebalance the burden of rates on the business sector. The order also serves to fix the additional regional rate in the pound to be levied on large retail premises, otherwise known as the large retail levy. The large retail levy is set at an additional 15% on average to a large retail premises' rates liability, and it also increases in accordance with the non-domestic and domestic regional rate increases. The levy helps to fund the small business rate relief scheme, which now assists around 24,000 small businesses.

Mr Speaker, allow me to move on to more technical matters covered in the draft order. Its main purpose is to give effect to the decisions made during the Budget process by specifying the regional rate poundages for 2014-15.

Article 1 sets out the title of the order and gives the operational date as the day after it is affirmed by the Assembly. Article 2 provides that the order will apply for the 2014-15 rating year through to 31 March 2015. Article 3 specifies 33·91p in the pound as the commercial regional poundage and 0·3986p in the pound as the domestic regional rate poundage. Article 4 specifies 8·98p in the pound as the additional regional rate in respect of large retail hereditaments.

I look forward to hearing Members' comments, and I commend the order to the Assembly.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I will make my comments brief and less technical than the Minister's.

The 2011-15 Budget, which was agreed by the previous Assembly in 2011, proposed that domestic and non-domestic regional rates increases should only be uplifted in line with inflation. As we heard, the purpose of today’s rule is to set the rate of uplift for 2014-15. It also provides for the continuation of the levy on large retailers, which was introduced in April 2012 as a measure to rebalance the rating system by funding an extension of the small business rate relief scheme.

The policy proposals contained in the statutory rule were considered by the Committee in January, and we raised no issues with them. In February, we formally considered the statutory rule that is before the Assembly today, along with the accompanying report from the Examiner of Statutory Rules, who raised no points in the technical scrutiny of the rule.

I agree with the Minister that the Executive have taken a common-sense approach to this issue in recent years by only uplifting rates in line with inflation. In my view, that is the proper course of action, given the pressures that households and businesses, particularly small businesses, are under. That said, the Committee agreed to recommend that the order be affirmed by the Assembly. Therefore, we support the motion.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I want to express some concerns about this. I recognise where the Minister is coming from in following a policy of setting the rates. I welcome the large retail levy, and maybe we should look at whether we can increase that margin. No Member looking at town centres in their constituency and across Northern Ireland will be in any doubt about the difficulties that many face. Particularly for small rural towns such as Rathfriland and Kilkeel, which are under real pressure, the level of rates is a major issue. I want an assurance from the Minister that he is doing all that he can to recognise that pressure and that he is looking at whether we have the right balance between town centres and large retail units. Do we need to see whether we can do more to alleviate the pressure on those town centres?

In places, we are building a town-centre economy based almost solely on charity shops. The loss to such town centres of their bigger customers, for example, when a bank branch closes, has a profound impact, not only on the district and regional rate take but on the town itself. We certainly need to see more joined-up government, whether on car parking or the managing of our town centres, to address those pressures. Those are my concerns about the motion. I would welcome the Minister's comments on whether he feels that the balance is right or whether he would like us to do more not just to stabilise our town centres but to start the rejuvenation and regeneration that we all desperately want to see across Northern Ireland.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I will just follow up a few points that my colleague Mr McCallister made. The real challenge is that our high streets are full of empty properties and charity shops. Everybody says to us that commercial rents have fallen but not rates. A revaluation does not change the total tax take; it just spreads it out in a different way. Notwithstanding the fact that this has been to the Executive as part of the Budget, I have a question for the Minister: is there no opportunity here to reduce rates dramatically? I know that people will say that we would have to take money from somewhere else. I am not oblivious to the fact that there is only so much money in the pot, but I am sure that every Member has wandered through their town and seen the empty properties and the charity shops. Perhaps the Minister could explain the options, including those that he has considered with his Executive colleagues, for trying to take the burden off ratepayers, particularly the owners of a small commercial property.

In my constituency, I am aware of a coffee shop in Lisburn that has to pay rates of £25,000 per annum, which is quite a lot of money. You would have to sell a lot of cups of coffee to make that amount. There is pressure, and I think that we should be looking at it. I realise, Minister, that you cannot do it in an unplanned way and that rates make a contribution, but surely we should be looking at ways of aligning the rates take with the rental income. People do not really understand that we need to reduce rates to align them with the reduction in rent. Then, of course, we have to work out how to make up the shortfall from other areas.

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

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank all of the Members who have contributed to this important debate, albeit there were few. I am sure that it was a case of quality over quantity. As always, it has been a useful debate, with a range of views expressed. I have already stated that the Rates (Regional Rates) Order (Northern Ireland) 2014 gives effect to decisions made as part of the 2011-15 Budget. The Executive have aimed to strike a balance between the needs of ratepayers during what remain challenging economic times and ensuring that public finances are sufficient to cover the priorities that we set ourselves.

If I may, I will turn to points raised in the debate. I begin by thanking the Committee Chair, Mr McKay, for his brief contribution. He was right and kept to his word; it was less technical than my contribution, but I think it was only marginally less dull. Nonetheless, I thank him and the Committee for scrutinising this important legislation. He is right to comment, and I agree with him fully, in respect of the Executive and the Assembly having struck a balance over this Budget period. I think that that balance is one that stands the Assembly and, more importantly, this place in good stead.

I turn to Mr McCallister's comments. He mentioned the large retail levy and seemed to express some support for its continuation. I remind the Member that the legislation was passed with a sunset clause, so its natural life will run out at the end of next year. This will be the last year that it will operate. That was the case, in part, because of the revaluation that is ongoing. We will see the result of the revaluation before we make final judgements on various aspects of our rating legislation.

He mentioned the need to have a balance between town centres and big out-of-town retailers. I would point out, and am sure that the Member appreciates — indeed, he referred to DRD and the issue of car parking — that it is not an area that is entirely my responsibility. However, as I stand here, I am responsible for the Rates Order and for the issue of rating in town centres. I know that that has an impact on many retailers. It is an issue of great concern, and there is not a town that I travel to in Northern Ireland in my capacity as Finance Minister where the issue of rates is not raised.

I am proud, however, of the rating regime that we have put in place. I accept that nobody, no matter who they are, likes to pay rates. I do not like paying my rates bill, so I do not expect retailers to like paying theirs, which are more sizeable than mine for my house. We have tried to strike that balance that the Chairman and I referred to earlier, between giving some support through various reliefs and allowances that have assisted greatly in keeping a large number of businesses in place in Northern Ireland that, I think, would otherwise not have been there.

I accept that probably there is little we can do to arrest the decline of many of those big household and brand names of retailers that we have seen removed from our high streets, and while there is nothing that we can do, as a Government, to substitute for the lack of revenue that many businesses have faced because of changes in technology or the impact of large retailers on towns, we have done quite a lot. I remind the Member of the extensive support that we have given through the small business rate relief scheme, which is, in part, funded by the large retail levy. If you take Down District Council area, where he and I have a shared interest, 1,137 properties are currently getting small business rate relief, and that has seen £1·9 million of relief awarded to such businesses in that area to date.

I turn to Mr McCrea's comments. I am glad that he was here, obviously, to add value to the comments made by his colleague, who has party responsibility for finance. Mr McCrea obviously wanted to just top that up a little bit and add a bit of value. Unfortunately, he is no longer in the Chamber. He mentioned, in his incisive contribution, the revaluation. To clarify for the Enterprise Minister, a touch of sarcasm was added there. He mentioned the revaluation and the need to get rates more closely aligned with rent, and I agree. That is why the revaluation is being done. Obviously that revaluation was postponed — put back a few years — because of the lack of activity in the market and the inability to get a good, firm foundation. It is still an incredibly challenging enterprise to engage in the revaluation at this time, but to have put it off even further, as England has done by a further two years, would have added to the groundswell of opposition, and the annoyance that we are hearing would have reached a crescendo and forced us to do something. So, I am glad that we are proceeding.

He called for a massive reduction in the rate. I reiterate that nobody likes to pay their rates, but a massive reduction in rates would have resulted in a cut in services somewhere, which, to be fair, he identified. However, the one thing that he did not point out was that we might have to move the burden elsewhere, perhaps on to householders or to different types of business. We have, in totality, given some £44 million of relief through the small business rate relief scheme, and I think that what we have before us represents a useful and helpful balance that gives certainty. It has given certainty in this Budget period to households and businesses.

In conclusion, I trust that Members will show the necessary support for the order. I believe that households and businesses alike will welcome the minimal increase in the regional rates. It clearly demonstrates that all ratepayers have benefited from the decisions that the Executive have taken. I commend the order to the Assembly and ask Members to affirm it.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Before we proceed to the Question, Members, I remind everyone that the motion requires cross-community support.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That the Rates (Regional Rates) Order (Northern Ireland) 2014 be affirmed.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

As there are no dissenting voices, I am satisfied that the necessary cross-community support has been demonstrated.

Committee Business

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer will have 15 minutes to propose the motion and 15 minutes to make winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move

That this Assembly approves the second report of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment on its review into electricity policy: part II — electricity pricing (NIA 14/11-15); and calls on the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, in conjunction with her Executive colleagues, the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation, the System Operator for Northern Ireland, the Single Electricity Market Operator and the Consumer Council to implement, as applicable, the recommendations contained therein.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The structure of the electricity market is highly complex and highly convoluted. There is a wide range of stakeholders with a variety of views and experiences of the electricity market. There are a number of distinct elements to the electricity market, and each has its own complexities. So, Members will understand that the review of electricity policy has been, and continues to be, a marathon journey for the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

I thank all Committee members, past and present, who have been involved in the review for the time and effort that they have put into getting it to this stage. Unfortunately, this is not the end of the journey. I also thank the Committee staff for their Trojan work in delivering such a well thought out and considered report that has secured the whole Committee's agreement. I also thank them for putting up with last-minute amendments and additions. I thank everyone who came before the Committee and presented written or oral evidence. Without their expertise, the report would have been much the lesser. I also take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of the Chairperson of the Committee, Patsy McGlone, who, as a result of attending a funeral, is unable to move the motion.

The electricity tariff for any consumer is made up of generation costs, network costs and supply costs, and the Committee has worked to unravel the complexities in each part. The Committee has found that there is a considerable lack of transparency in generation costs and network costs. Both the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the Consumer Council supported that view. Invest NI has also failed in its attempts to get some visibility on charges.

So, when the Committee on behalf of the Assembly, the CBI on behalf of businesses, the Consumer Council on behalf of the public and Invest NI on behalf of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment cannot get visibility on charges, what chance is there for anybody else? For that reason, the Committee has recommended that the Single Electricity Market Operator (SEMO) undertake a review to see how generation costs can be made more transparent and that the Utility Regulator undertake further work to improve transparency in network charges.

Renewable generators are appropriately rewarded through renewable obligation certificates, so we must ensure that those generators are not overly rewarded on the generation side of the market for the electricity that they generate. There are three elements to the way in which renewable generators are rewarded that raised concerns in the Committee.

First, there is the system marginal price, which is the price bid by the highest cost generator in each half-hour period and the price paid in that half-hour period to all generators bidding into the system, regardless of the cost of generation. That is the key point: all generators receive the same system marginal price (SMP), regardless of how much it costs them to generate the electricity that they sell. The profit they get is the difference between their marginal cost and the system marginal price. So, a wind generator, generating at zero cost, receives the same price for their electricity as a high-cost gas generator. As gas is the dominant fuel in the market, that is the price they get virtually all the time. There are very few occasions when wind or other renewables set the price. When the price of gas increases, the price paid to wind generators increases and, therefore, their profit increases.

Every generator deserves a reasonable rate of return for the electricity that they generate, but we must ensure that the profits made are not excessive and are commensurate with the risks involved. The Committee, therefore, believes that the best way to reduce generation costs is for the Single Electricity Market Operator, which operates on an all-island basis, to decouple the price that is paid to renewable generators from the price of electricity from fossil fuels.

The Committee was told that the system marginal price is a commonly accepted economic model, and perhaps it is. However, in an open market economy, one type of supplier does not get incentivised at one end through a mechanism such as renewable obligation certificates and then get to charge the same price for its product as its competitors that have much higher overheads. The phrase “having your cake and eating it” springs to mind.

Secondly, an element of the system marginal price includes the cost of carbon produced by fossil fuel generators to generate electricity. However, as that is built into the system marginal price, renewable generators, which do not produce carbon, also receive the cost of carbon. The cost of carbon must be separated from the system marginal price to ensure that all generators receive a return on the cost of carbon that is directly linked to the carbon that they produce.

Thirdly, any generator that is available and open to operate on the system receives a capacity payment. Capacity payments constitute around 17% of generator revenue. The Committee questions the need for capacity payments for any form of generation, but especially for wind generation. As wind generation is the least expensive form of generation, it is always put onto the system first. Therefore, wind generators are not waiting around to be called into action. Also, wind is intermittent. If the wind is not blowing, wind generators still receive a capacity payment, even though they do not meet the requirement of a capacity payment to be available.

The Committee has decided that the Single Electricity Market Operator must review the capacity payment mechanism with a view to removing capacity payments from forms of generation such as wind, which neither meet the requirement nor require the payment. The review should also consider the requirement for a capacity payment to be in place for any form of generation.

Another element of generation that adds to charges for consumers are imperfection costs. Those are mostly made up of constraint payments to large-scale renewable generators when the electricity that they produce cannot be used on the system. It cannot be used because the electricity grid needs to be strengthened and because there is not enough interconnection between here and the South and here and Britain.

The Committee agrees that the Planning Appeals Commission must set an early date to reconvene the inquiry into the planning application for the North/South interconnector and that Mutual Energy must work to ensure that a permanent solution to the faults on the Moyle interconnector is put in place at the earliest opportunity. It is a ridiculous situation; we have generation in place and are charging consumers for it, but we cannot use it because we do not have the infrastructure in place, whether that relates to interconnection or to the inadequacy of the grid. That brings me on to the area of the electricity grid and network costs.

There is considerable cause for concern about network costs and the way in which they are apportioned between consumer groups. Network charges constitute around 22% of the domestic electricity tariff. Representatives of the large industrial and commercial sector argue that network charges here are apportioned in favour of domestic consumers and small businesses at the expense of large industrial and commercial consumers. Manufacturing NI has argued that electricity costs for large businesses here are the second highest in Europe; a position that has been confirmed by the Utility Regulator. Manufacturing NI believes that there is a risk that some large companies could leave the North if energy costs continue to be prohibitive. Such a move would have a huge impact on jobs and the economy, both directly and indirectly. It would also have a very significant impact on all electricity consumers, as the network charges that they have been paying would have to be apportioned across all other consumers, thereby increasing electricity costs for everyone.

There is continuous pressure on businesses to reduce costs. Large industrial and commercial users are no exception, especially if they find that they are paying two or three times as much for their electricity as their sister companies in other parts of the world, as the Committee was told throughout the review. Members will have seen reports recently of Bombardier planning to generate large amounts of its own electricity. Although that is to be welcomed on one front, it raises concerns on another in that if many more large industrial and commercial users took a similar approach and reduced their reliance on the grid, that would cause grid costs to be apportioned across fewer consumers, resulting in increased electricity bills for everyone.

It is essential that network costs be apportioned appropriately and that charges reflect the costs incurred by each consumer group. That is a European directive. We have evidence that in the Oireachtas, a former Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources stated that they were going to transfer some of the costs from large energy users across to domestic customers. So, that is what is happening in the South and is one reason for the large differential between the price that large users pay in the South and the North. There is a problem of a greater difficulty in competitiveness for our businesses here.

The Committee welcomes the work being done by the Utility Regulator in the effective apportionment of costs. However, network costs have to be paid, and reducing costs for one group will result in increased costs for others. About 42% of our population is in fuel poverty, and the reapportionment of network charges could drive even more vulnerable customers into fuel poverty. For that reason, before there is any consideration of a move to reapportion network charges in favour of large industrial and commercial users, work should be undertaken to reduce costs through generation and other means to ensure that no consumer suffers detriment as a result. That can be achieved by accepting and implementing the Committee's earlier recommendations on generation costs.

The large industrial and commercial sector raised concerns about public service obligation (PSO) charges being applied to large businesses. A substantial proportion of the PSO charge results from the sustainable energy programme NISEP, which is due to come to an end in the next two years. Although the Committee considers it essential that such support is provided to vulnerable customers, members question the appropriateness of funding an energy efficiency scheme through the electricity tariff. The Committee believes that a further programme should be put in place to follow on from NISEP to promote and improve energy efficiency for vulnerable consumers but that the Executive should explore how such a scheme could be funded through other means.

As I stated, generators are appropriately rewarded through renewable obligation certificates for the electricity that they generate. However, there is increased need for grid strengthening to enable the renewable electricity generated to get onto the system. The Utility Regulator cautioned the Committee on the need to be careful about adding to network charges. There has to be a balance between strengthening the network and increasing costs to consumers.

The Committee is looking forward to the outcomes of exploratory work being undertaken by the Utility Regulator and NIE to explore the potential use of European regional development fund (ERDF) funding under the 2014-2020 programme for grid strengthening. Although the €50 million being sought would be recovered from consumers, ERDF funding would reduce the overall cost to the Executive by about half. Perhaps the Minister can update the Assembly on progress in that area.

The Committee heard convincing evidence from the MATRIX Sustainable Energy Horizon Panel on its report into intelligent energy systems. This is an area in which the panel believes the North can become a market leader with the appropriate support. As well as providing opportunities for the economy, intelligent energy systems, or "smart grids", have the potential to reduce the need for grid strengthening by maximising the use of the existing network infrastructure. This must be considered for reducing costs to consumers and for its wider economic benefits. The Department is due to review its strategic energy framework in the very near future. The Committee feels that the review must consider how intelligent energy systems can be fully utilised to reduce the need for grid strengthening and costs to consumers.

A key driver and motivator for the review into electricity prices was last year's announcement of a 17·8% increase in electricity prices for domestic consumers. However, it is not about price increases only. Do we simply accept the narrative that prices have to continue to rise? We are living with high rates of fuel poverty, and, year on year, electricity prices seem to fluctuate widely with huge increases and considerable decreases. Can we expect a considerable decrease later this year or another huge hike in prices? We do not know. It is highly unpredictable. That means that people cannot plan and that hard-pressed families cannot budget properly.

We cannot expect people to live like that from one year to the next. Consideration must be given to putting mechanisms in place to insulate domestic and small-business consumers from wide fluctuations in electricity prices from one year to the next. The regulator must keep a watchful eye on Power NI's hedging strategy.

As electricity prices increase — regardless of fluctuations, the trend is undoubtedly upwards — one way for consumers to reduce their costs is to shop around for the best deal. However, consumers must be made aware of how easy it is to switch. All barriers to switching have been removed. People can save up to 10% in their electricity bills by making a simple phone call or going online to switch supplier. To help people to get the best deal for their electricity, there should be an extensive awareness campaign to inform consumers of the ease of switching suppliers. This can serve only to stimulate competition further in the electricity market.

This debate is taking place at a very opportune time. Electricity markets across the EU are required to comply with rules to increase integration. The single electricity market between North and South must comply by 2016. So the opportunity now exists for the two regulators to reconfigure the single electricity market to match EU requirements and, in doing so, provide the most efficient and effective electricity market to meet the long-term needs of all consumers on this island. For this to be successful, it will require robust oversight by both Governments and both energy Ministers in Ireland. For that reason, the Committee has recommended that energy issues in general, and electricity issues in particular, must be assigned a high priority at meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council. This may require energy to become one of the areas of cooperation under the auspices of the North/South Ministerial Council.

The electricity market is a complex and ever-changing field. The Committee will continue to keep a close watch on developments during the mandate to ensure that the policies being developed provide the best balance to meet the needs of business and domestic consumers. We do not want to be simply reactive to problems. We want to come up with policies and deal with problems before they exist.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I also welcome the opportunity to speak on this important issue as a member of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee.

Unfortunately, electricity costs in Northern Ireland are amongst the highest in Europe. Real challenges continue to exist for domestic and commercial customers here. Energy costs are one of the major overheads for any business here, particularly our large manufacturing companies, some of which would be keen to expand but are restricted because of having to offset the costs of energy, which are high in comparison with those in other countries throughout Europe.

In today's 'Belfast Telegraph', it is mentioned that we are competing for business with the United States, where energy costs have fallen following fracking for oil and gas. Electricity prices in the EU are double those in the United States and 20% higher than in China. Michelin highlighted a stark example during a visit to the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee. We learned that Michelin's monthly energy bills for manufacture are in the region of £1 million, which shows the challenging environment in which it has to work to try to be competitive.

Fuel poverty continues to be a problem for many domestic customers across Northern Ireland. The cost of electricity is subject to regular price fluctuations ranging from a reduction of up to 16% to increases of up to 19% within a four-year period, which, we understand, relates largely to the wholesale cost of generation.

One of the report's recommendations highlights the need for greater transparency in the make-up of transmission costs and network charges, which should involve the work of the Utility Regulator. Generation costs are the main component of the domestic electricity tariff, which makes up around 44% of the domestic electricity bill and is determined through the system marginal price. The Committee recommends that all generators, including renewable generators, should receive a reasonable price for energy output. There is clear evidence that some renewable generators receive higher rates of return at less risk.

There should be a clear distinction between the price paid to renewable generators and the price paid to electricity generated from fossil fuels. That would result in a significant saving to the SMP. The section of the SMP that includes the cost of producing carbon by the generators should be reviewed as it is unfair that renewable generators receive the cost of carbon without producing it during production.

Constraint payment is another issue that needs to be addressed. It occurs when renewable generators cannot offload the energy produced as the grid is not fit for purpose and results in unnecessary costs of generation. That again highlights the real need for the North/South interconnector to be established between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, which will allow interconnection between GB and the Republic of Ireland. The ongoing delay of a number of years is costing consumers here £7 million a year. Progress on the project is urgently required, and perhaps the idea of local community buy-in for the farmers affected could go a long way to providing a solution. The Fermanagh Trust is an example of how communities can benefit from working together on energy projects. We saw that recently during its visit to Stormont.

There is clear evidence that our electricity network, which was largely constructed in the 1950s and 1960s, needs to be upgraded. It is in need of considerable investment to improve consumer protection during extreme weather such as last year's heavy snow. Improvement is also needed to support connection to renewable electricity generators. The network charges issue needs to be reviewed to ensure that establishing the cost of network upgrades is carried out in a fair and balanced way for domestic and large commercial users.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

Yes.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On recommendation 15, which advocates that energy should now come:

"under the auspices of the North South Ministerial Council",

as a subject for cooperation, will the Member, before he finishes, tell the House when it became the policy of his party to expand the influence and subject matters of "North/Southery"? When did that particular U-turn take place?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

This is a Committee report, as the Member well recognises, and it does not clearly state that in the report.

The network charges need to be reviewed to ensure that the cost of network upgrades are carried out in a fair and balanced way. I welcome the report. A lot of constructive work has been carried out, and I express my thanks —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close, please?

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

— to Committee members, the Committee Clerk and staff for their work on the report. I encourage the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to work with all the various agencies and Departments in the interests of getting a value-for-money electricity supply across Northern Ireland.

Fearghal McKinney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and support the Committee motion. The Committee took substantial evidence on the matter, and its recommendations are important and timely.

In considering electricity prices, one key issue, which I suppose is self-evident, is the fuel price itself. The system marginal price is influenced by the price of fuel, and that largely determines the amount that each generator bids into the market. Plainly speaking, if fuel prices increase, generators will increase their prices in order to reflect the rise.

The Committee considered the reasons for increased prices and tariff charges here. We heard that the main descriptor over the past number of years is "instability". In an evidence session, Power NI outlined that that volatility does not produce a good outcome for the consumer, large or small. The Utility Regulator told the Committee that the tariff charges were the result of the situation that Northern Ireland is in with fuel prices. We are challenged by our size, location and dependency on imported fossil fuels.

As we have been hearing, another key issue that the Committee dealt with is transparency. There was some disagreement. The Utility Regulator felt that the electricity market is very transparent, but others, including the Consumer Council, have grave doubts about whether competition is working to the benefit of the consumer and point to a lack of information and transparency as the main reason for that. Let me point out that the contributions from the Consumer Council underscore the important role that that body plays, not just on this issue but on others.

One of the significant focuses of the Committee's discussion was around the system marginal price, as we have been hearing. That is because it exists to strike a balance between making sure that investors get a reasonable but not unreasonable return and, importantly, that consumers get a fair deal. As the Deputy Chair explained, there were many issues around the SMP for wind generators and the amount of revenue that they receive.

The competitiveness of Northern Ireland regarding large energy users was again raised in this section of the Committee's work on electricity. This is of real concern. We heard from the CBI and Manufacturing NI that high electricity charges were having a substantial effect on jobs in the private sector. Furthermore, the worrying statement was made that current policy is resulting in jobs being traded for fuel bills.

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

Will the Member give way?

Fearghal McKinney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I will.

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

Does the Member accept that the very point that he makes about the high cost of energy and the impact that that has on economic activity puts a greater onus on the Minister to ensure that, regardless of whether it is north, south, east or west, she must get the best price for consumers, whether domestic or business?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Fearghal McKinney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I welcome the Member's contribution. It is imperative that we act in this regard. The fact is that the electricity prices that we experience in Northern Ireland have the potential to dissuade large investors from locating here as our costs are among the highest in Europe. In fact, the CBI contends that Northern Ireland has lost several major inward investment projects to the Republic because of these factors.

It is doubly important that we attract large energy users to Northern Ireland as having more large energy users on the grid reduces costs for others. If we continue to harbour large network charges, more and more large energy users may come off the grid and self-sustain. That, then, will increase prices for all others who remain.

In answer to the Consumer Council's concerns that there is no transparency in electricity pricing, one of the Committee's key recommendations is that the single electricity market operator and the Utility Regulator should undertake work to improve the transparency of network charges. The Committee rightly acknowledged that high network charges pose a significant risk to consumers and the economy, and welcomed the work being undertaken by the Utility Regulator in this regard.

We must do all that we can to achieve the best price for the consumer and large energy users on the grid. It is for that reason that I commend the recommendations made by the Committee. It is vital that we retain our large energy users and that we do not do anything, either by commission or omission, that would put the economy here at risk due to those high network charges.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on this important motion brought by the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Development, of which I am a member.

Much has been made in recent months of the high energy prices paid by domestic customers, and rightly so, especially on the back of a number of years where energy prices have risen steadily and where household incomes have remained stubbornly static. It has been shown that large industrial and commercial customers here pay some of the highest energy costs in Europe. This has a debilitating effect on their ability to be competitive in a world market, which ultimately sees the end user, the consumer, paying high costs. Manufacturing NI successfully highlighted the issue to the Committee some time ago, and I was particularly pleased that everyone agreed about the importance of further examining the high energy costs that our manufacturing base faces, especially in these difficult, austere times.

As politicians, we are often told that we should listen more to those in the business sector in order to properly understand their concerns so that, as policymakers, we can create a better environment to enable our local economy to grow and prosper. In listening to businesses and the various business organisations that presented to the Committee, we recognise that one of the huge costs they bear is electricity, especially considering the 17·8 % increase that came into effect from July last year, which caused us great concern.

Government need to consider the effect of those large energy users who are faced with increasing bills and who then have to consider their options: either to turn away from the grid altogether through generating their own electricity or to leave Northern Ireland and set up and expand elsewhere. Both would have a knock-on effect of adding costs to the rest of the users on the grid.

Manufacturing NI stated that the 22 largest users in Northern Ireland account for 15% of the volume of electricity used. If they were to leave the grid, the cost of that 15% would be passed on to the remaining grid users. Furthermore, it has been said that our high energy prices have been a real deterrent to potential foreign direct investment. Many other European countries, including the Republic of Ireland, have structured their energy policies to ensure that the energy costs paid by large industrial and commercial users are more competitive, especially when compared with Northern Ireland.

The Committee report is lengthy, with a number of recommendations, and although I would like to mention them all, time limits me to a few. I agree with the report that we need increased transparency in the electricity market and in network charges, as was so clearly explained earlier by the Deputy Chair. The report recommends that, as a result of work being undertaken, the Utility Regulator must be in a position to demonstrate how the current apportionment of network charges reflects the costs incurred by each consumer group, including large and small industrial and commercial concerns and domestic consumers. Indeed, further work should be undertaken to reduce costs through generation and other means. The benefits of effecting positive change will filter through to all users in the medium to long term, ensuring a more competitive and fair energy pricing environment in future.

The public service obligation charge is currently levied across all electricity users, but not everyone benefits from the service. The Committee report recommends further consideration for energy efficiency schemes but requests that the Executive consider how it could be funded through means other than the electricity tariff.

As stated in recommendation 14, more needs to be done by the Department, the Utility Regulator and bodies such as the Consumer Council to ensure that people are given information about switching energy supplier in order to get the best possible prices and that consistent rises in energy prices are reduced.

The Committee found that although it is right to incentivise the renewables sector, it should not be to such a degree that it creates unfair costs for customers, which, it seems, is currently the case. Capacity payments and carbon costs are paid to producers of wind energy, despite the fact that the service is comparatively unreliable and does not produce carbon. This needs to be examined by the Department and the Utility Regulator. The cost of carbon must be decoupled from the system marginal price to ensure that generators receive a return on the cost of carbon that is directly linked to the carbon they produce.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member must bring her remarks to a close.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I commend the report to the House.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I support the report. I sometimes wish that we had a seat on the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment. This is a very complicated and long report, and it would have been helpful to be privy to the various discussions. There has been a lot of input from the Consumer Council and other organisations and particularly, from what I hear, from large businesses.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Yes.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am sure that, if you approached some of the other parties, they would be happy to swap an Executive seat for a seat on the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Mr Flanagan said that so quickly that I did not pick it up. I am sorry. Not to worry; our time will come. [Interruption.]

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I said that because the report runs to 570 pages, and I have not had an opportunity to study it all.

I want to touch on some particular recommendations. Recommendation 10 seems to be the big one. It centres on the complaint from large businesses here that they pay substantially more than the European or UK average and smaller businesses. I have a lot of sympathy for them because that is absolutely correct. However, I wonder what the answer is. The recommendation is that work be undertaken to reduce costs through generation. That is fair enough, but it is also the conundrum: how do you reduce costs through generation, given the state of the market and the fact that we rely primarily on oil for that generation? When I first heard about Bombardier's proposal to generate its own power, I thought, "Hallelujah, this is a great idea", but, in fact, as others including Mr Flanagan said, if too many companies go down that route, it will have an effect on the grid costs, which will have to be reapportioned. That may not be of long-term benefit to anybody.

Recommendation 14 is about informing customers about the ease of switching supplier and the need to shop around. I am not against that at all. I am certainly not going to say anything critical about the Consumer Council, because I think that it does a terrific job. We have seen this issue in various areas in terms of oil prices, gas prices and telephone charges. Everybody is urged to shop around, but if you look at the way the electricity market is structured, if somebody puts their price up this week and people change to another supplier, such as Airtricity or Energia, a few weeks later that company will have to do the same thing. So, I wonder about the overall benefit of shopping around, but there we are. If there are savings to be made, fair enough.

Recommendation 15 is about the European market. I see the European directive that we have to have a single electricity market between North and South by 2016. I heard Mr Allister's comment about the fact that there is a recommendation that it might become one of the areas of cooperation under the auspices of the North/South Ministerial Council. Frankly, I am surprised that it is not already, because this is such an important area, and it ties in to recommendations 7 and, probably, 8, which are about the North/South interconnector. It is plain common sense, this sort of cooperation. It is not just between North and South; this kind of thing is happening across Europe. It is nothing but common sense that if there are savings to be made, we should embrace them and welcome them. So, I really do not understand Mr Allister's reticence about that.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Yes, certainly.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

If the Member had listened, he would have realised that I was drawing attention to the fact that a party in this House has long publicly protested any expansion of "North/Southery" through the North/South Ministerial Council, yet its four members on the Committee voted for a recommendation that would do exactly that. That is the point that I am drawing attention to. It is another U-turn on behalf of that party. [Interruption.]

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

They know where their bread is buttered.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order, order.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

They know what side their bread is buttered on.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

You do wonder sometimes why you ask for it. [Laughter.] The point that I am making is to commend DUP Members. If they can see the sense of making a commercial decision, and if that involves a bit of North/South cooperation, which, perhaps, instinctively, they are not necessarily in favour of, then why not? It is good sense. We are talking about commercial industrial issues. We are not talking about politics, or we should not be. I think that I had better leave it at that, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. The wording of that recommendation, which is in a Committee report, not a DUP report, states that:

"This may require Energy to become one of the areas of co-operation"

It does not say that it should or it must. There is great communication and collaboration between the two jurisdictions, not only North/South but east-west.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close, please?

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I was going to mention the east-west Mutual Energy recommendation as well. This thing seems to have been dragging on since time began. It is time that something was done about both issues — North/South and east-west.

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

The Member's time is up.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I support the motion.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

This is an important issue that I have been very keen to speak on, to debate and to do work on in the Committee. I am glad that the Committee has taken up the mantle of energy and, in particular, electricity prices.

Like a lot of Members in this Chamber, I know that this is one of the biggest issues that our companies and manufacturers in particular face on a daily and weekly basis. It is critical that we try whatever we can, albeit limited, in this Assembly, in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and anywhere else in the sphere of business to reduce the burden and cost on the manufacturers who create wealth and the businesses that create wealth and employment in our communities.

It is very clear that this is as big an issue and as big a debate as the one around corporation tax. The last thing that I want in my constituency of North Antrim is to lose one of the large manufacturing plants that employ up to 1,000 people. That is not just 1,000 people; that is 1,000 families. Furthermore, hundreds of subcontractors are employed indirectly throughout that company.

It is incumbent on us in the Assembly, and of the most significant importance, to debate the issue and come up with recommendations that will then go forward to the Department for it to look on and to make changes so that we can get electricity prices down in this country. It is also the case that, if one of those large plants were to disappear from the skyline of our towns and cities, 1,000 families would be plunged into poverty practically overnight. That is not something that I would look forward to, and it is certainly something that I think is extremely important to bear in mind.

I spend a lot of my time not only trying to promote my area to bring in foreign investment or to create jobs, wealth and employment but helping to retain the jobs that we already have. I must say this: it is shameful that another North Antrim MLA would pluck out one recommendation from a Committee report and try to clobber a party that is doing its best to retain employment.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Yes I will; I will give way to the Member.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I can understand the Member's embarrassment. I think that there is much good in this report, and I think that, for the first time, it exposes the renewable energy industry in a way that I greatly welcome. However, all the recommendations are worthy of scrutiny.

The fact is this: although the DUP has a manifesto commitment against expanding North/South bodies and interests, recommendation 15 gives, appropriately enough, a green light to expanding one of the areas of interest under the North/South Ministerial Council to include energy. The Member might try to hide behind the language and say, "It only says 'may'". It is anticipating, and it is a direction of travel that conflicts with the manifesto upon which the Member was elected to the House. However, that does not surprise me at all.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute. May I remind Members that all remarks should be made through the Chair?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Yes. I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Member will be so gracious as to allow me the same time as I have afforded him when he speaks. I remind the Member that it says, "This may" and of course we have not heard from the DUP Minister of the Department, so let us wait and see —

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

What about the DUP Committee members?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Although I represent North Antrim to the best of my ability, is it little wonder that the Member cannot even reach quota in the Assembly elections, as he lets his people down so badly when he cherry-picks for a headline — [Interruption.]

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order. Can all remarks be made through the Chair, please? Will you return to the debate?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

OK, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take your direction. It is very important that we get this balance right and that we take the burden off our industry and our employers and spread it out evenly. Look at some of the costs and the breakdowns of the costs. Generation costs make up 44% of our costs, and all generators receive the system marginal price in each half-hour period, regardless of the cost of generation. That means that wind receives the same price in every half hour. That is totally unfair and should be reviewed. So, it is more to do with the spectrum of generation and the most costly generator, but wind energy and companies that generate such energy get an abundance of costs or money that way. The cost-of-carbon element is the same. It is unreasonable that wind generators receive the cost-of-carbon element. Then there are the capacity payments. Wind is intermittent and is not always available; therefore, there is not a reliance on a capacity payment to maintain availability when not needed.

It is incumbent on us, and very important, that we have the North/South interconnector in place as soon as possible, because that will reduce the cost.

An element of the electricity tariff is known as imperfection costs. Those are made up mostly of constraint payments. Some renewable generators receive constraint payments when the electricity that they generate cannot be used in the system.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Can the Member draw his remarks to a close, please?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

That usually results in the grid needing to be strengthened. It is vital that the North/South interconnector is connected as soon as possible so that the burden can be taken off our industry and off our grid.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member's time is up.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Megan Fearon (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome, as other Members have, the opportunity to speak in this important debate. It is apt to thank the Committee staff for their hard work and all those who gave evidence to the inquiry.

Electricity prices are a huge issue, for domestic customers and our business community. Large energy users here face the second highest prices in all of Europe, and that is a serious problem for their competitiveness and for our ability to attract and retain large employers, including manufacturing companies. If this issue is not resolved, we could see some large users taking their business elsewhere or taking themselves off the grid, which would result in the network charges they pay being spread among every other electricity customer.

A piece of work needs to be carried out to determine whether the allocation of costs between large energy users and domestic customers is cost reflective and sits within the directive of the European Commission. Any efforts to reapportion costs from domestic customers to large energy users without reciprocal support from the Executive could have a devastating impact on domestic customers.

Domestic customers also face uncertainty in the prices they pay as a result of hedging strategies, and we have seen prices go up by 17·8% recently. We cannot accept the narrative that the price we pay for electricity will continue to rise and not challenge the policy decisions that cause prices to increase.

The way in which generators are rewarded needs to be looked at in great detail. The fact that generators of renewable electricity will continue to receive increased rates of payment through the single electricity market and the system marginal price while the price of fossil fuels continues to rise is wholly unacceptable.

Information that we have been provided with, and some have already alluded to this, has shown that some firms had a profit margin of 79%. That is an absurd figure, given that over 40% of our homes are in fuel poverty. In proposing a feed-in tariff with contracts for difference from 2017, the Department has acknowledged the potential for over-rewarding renewable generators, but that does not apply to connections that are on the grid before 2017. So, there has to be a way to ensure that customers are protected from over-rewarding.

One of the most galling factors about the recent price hikes for domestic customers was the manner in which other suppliers followed the lead of Power NI and introduced a 17·8% increase. That was despite the fact that a significant proportion of their electricity came from renewable sources, the cost of which had not increased, but the price that they were paid for generating it did. So, they ended up making more profit out of the arrangement than should have been the case.

The Committee has therefore recommended that a campaign be undertaken to encourage customers to shop around and change supplier if appropriate. Competition is not the solution to the problems we face with electricity prices, and it is probably one of the areas that has the least possible savings for customers. However, it is the only area that is directly within the control of the customer. There are no barriers to switching suppliers, and people need to be made aware of the potential savings that can be made.

As regards the workings of the single electricity market, there appears to be a lack of ministerial oversight in the SEM committee. There is no regular or dedicated forum for energy Ministers, North and South, to discuss issues of mutual concern, and having one would be a useful and welcome step.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I speak in support of the motion as a member of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee. I also thank the Committee Clerk and the Committee Staff for their assistance with this report.

In our last report, which was presented to the House last December, we considered security of supply. However, as I made clear in my speech on that occasion, security of supply impacts on pricing. Around the time of that debate, the then recently appointed Utility Regulator, Jenny Pyper, said that high prices were here to stay. So, it is imperative that we explore every avenue to reduce costs.

Historically, we have had higher prices in Northern Ireland than the rest of the United Kingdom. The 17·8% increase for most domestic customers from July last year was certainly alarming, and it will have the effect of driving more people into fuel poverty. Following the announcement of the increase, we took evidence from key players such as the Utility Regulator, Power NI and Airtricity.

On the business side, figures released by the Utility Regulator show that, in the first six months of 2013, Northern Ireland's commercial and industrial users were paying the second highest price in Europe for their electricity. It is unacceptable that our hard-pressed manufacturing and business sector, which has been trying its hardest to emerge from the economic downturn for the last few years, is being charged such high prices. Representatives of Manufacturing NI, from whom we heard in the Committee, summed it up well when they said that the recovery of the local economy could be derailed by those sky-high electricity costs. They told us that large companies would not be able to expand and that some might fold, which would result in more jobs being lost. It is as stark as that. The Committee also examined a range of aspects of the issue, and these are summed up in the recommendations of the report.

Recommendations 13 and 14 relate to supply costs. They urge DETI, the Utility Regulator and the Consumer Council to work together to make the public more aware of the availability of options from electricity suppliers. There is a pressing need for a high-profile publicity drive so that consumers can obtain best value and secure the best deals. Many consumers shift suppliers. However, they are not really sure whether they are doing the best thing because, some time later, they find hikes in prices again, and they are left maybe where they were before or worse off. Continuing variations in electricity prices year on year are also a cause for concern, and we want work to be done in that area as well.

There is also evidence of lack of transparency in relation to competition in electricity generation and network charges. As a Committee, we would like the single electricity market operator to undertake a review to see how generation costs can be made more transparent, and we want the Utility Regulator to do more work on improving transparency in network charges. I know that the Minister and her Department are committed to the development of sustainable energy. The renewable energy sector is part of the broader sustainable energy initiative, and there is little doubt that renewable energy has a beneficial impact, but there is a cost impact as well. Costs flow from the need to encourage and promote renewable energy, which is done via the Northern Ireland renewables obligation and paid for through the electricity tariff.

Costs also flow from the need to reinforce the grid. We were informed that the need to strengthen the grid could be reduced by investment in what are known as smart grids; these are state-of the-art, digital grids that can save energy and cut costs. All of this is highly technical, but we feel that DETI's review of the strategic energy framework should consider the possibilities offered by intelligent energy systems. If these can reduce costs to consumers, they need to be seriously considered.

The Committee has given much consideration to this important area of electricity pricing, and I hope that our report will focus minds on those issues and, ultimately, lead to reduced costs. I commend the Committee's report to the House.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

It is a welcome change of heart to hear a Sinn Féin Deputy Chairman talk about the high cost of energy and the impact that it has on people in Northern Ireland, given that his party has singularly tried to do all that it can to ensure that energy prices are kept high in Northern Ireland. The interconnector is held back as a result of the attitude of Sinn Féin. When it comes to preventing the exploitation of our resources in the form of shale gas, he proudly leads the way. Of course, it has been the exponent of what the report has shown to be the cause of high energy costs: renewable energy. So it is good to see that there is now a conversion, or maybe this is just Sinn Féin's ability to face both ways on the energy issue as it does on everything else.

Let me come to a number of points about the report. It highlights the fact that energy costs are a huge issue, not only for industrial and commercial users but for ordinary domestic users, with the highest level of fuel poverty in the United Kingdom existing in Northern Ireland. The report highlights the fact that, as a result of how the market works, one of the parts of the energy industry that has added to the costs is the renewable energy industry, with its special treatment of renewables obligations. Special subsidies are made available, and the grid is forced to purchase at a high price from the renewable sector. On top of that —

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes. I will give way, because this is another man who believes that we should impose a burden on industry and on consumers because of some daft ideology that he supports.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way, because it is important that we introduce some facts to the discussion. If the Member has read the minutes of evidence of the Committee briefings, he will know that, in the main, gas sets the single marginal price. In fact, when wind energy sets the price, because it has a zero unit cost, it brings the price of electricity down. It is only because of our over-reliance on gas that we have such prices. Gas prices are going up, so gas is driving the price up.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I know that I taught this man his economics, but he has still not learned the difference between marginal cost and average cost. Average cost includes the huge fixed capital costs that are required for wind energy. Indeed, those fixed energy costs are well highlighted in the report, not only the costs of erecting the turbines but the huge costs of strengthening the grid. If it is the cheapest form, why do we have to give the subsidy in the form of renewables obligation certificates?

Other Members highlighted additional subsidies and the fact that the highest marginal cost — not the average cost — sets the baseline, so that gives an extra profit and a windfall to the renewables industry. There are also constraints payments for not producing on certain occasions. In addition, there are capacity payments, even though the capacity of the industry is quite dubious because it varies from one day to the next depending on the wind, but it gets a fixed capacity payment. It also gets the benefit of carbon tax not applying to it. Had it not been for the efforts of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister, who succeeded in preventing carbon tax from being applied in Northern Ireland, it would be far higher. It would have put electricity prices up by 15%, but, of course, the Member supports that because he wants to save polar bears from drowning, so he would like our electricity prices to go up by 15%.

Let us not run away with the idea that, because the report states that renewable energy, in marginal cost terms, is the cheapest form of energy, that means that it is the cheapest form of energy. The emphasis of the report is that, when you take into consideration the subsidies, the strengthening of the grid and the special treatment that is given to the renewables industry, that adds considerably to the cost of energy and impacts in the way that we spoke about.

The only defence that was made was that it increases security — it does not because we do not have security if the wind does not blow — and would reduce costs in the long run. As you well know, as J M Keynes said:

"In the long run we are all dead."

In this case, in the long run, we are all bankrupt while we pay the high prices as a result of going for the highest-cost form of energy.

In closing, let me make one point about recommendation 15, which Mr Allister drew attention to. I think that the answer will come when the Minister speaks.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member's time is almost up.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Despite what the Committee report states, it will ultimately be a decision for the Minister. I believe, as with all such things, that it is best done on a Minister-to-Minister basis rather than through a structure that is moribund and does not deliver anything anyway.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

I rise as a member of the Enterprise Committee to take part in this debate, which, in my view, is on one of the most important issues that the Assembly will debate, because it affects all members of our society, including consumers and ordinary people in the street. It affects small and medium-sized enterprises and larger business, and, as one of my colleagues said, it impacts on farmers.

My colleague mentioned that Jenny Pyper, the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Utility Regulator, said that high energy prices are here to stay and that bills need to be good value for customers. That is what we are about today: debating how we can get good value for customers as well as allowing energy companies to turn a profit. We have no problem with that. Jenny Pyper went on to say:

"I am afraid that the era of high energy prices is going to be with us for a considerable time, and there isn't any silver bullet".

We all agree that it is a major issue, for which there is no silver bullet. The Minister, in responding today, will talk about some positive outcomes. She is well aware of the concerns across Northern Ireland.

A synopsis of energy prices in the Northern Ireland energy market in the past decade shows that the regulated electricity price is at its highest since the Northern Ireland Consumer Council began its records in 2002. Power Northern Ireland has increased its regulated tariff by 61% since November 2007, and the average annual bill has increased by £210 in the same period. Since 2009, the average annual price of home heating oil has increased by 62%. Those are the issues that people on the street are talking about. Those are the issues that people want us to raise and deal with. In many ways, they want us to come up with the answers.

Northern Ireland is in a deepening energy and fuel-poverty crisis for consumers. As was mentioned earlier, some 42% of households in Northern Ireland spend more than one tenth of their income on energy, compared with 15% in England. We have the highest level of fuel poverty in western Europe. I was at an Age Northern Ireland conference recently. One of the major issues for senior citizens is deciding whether to eat or heat. That is a big issue, affecting not just senior citizens but many people in our society. We need to address fuel poverty, but we also need to deal with the affordability of heat and light for consumers and businesses.

Figures from the Utility Regulator show that, in the first six months of 2013, Northern Ireland's commercial and industrial users paid the second highest price in Europe for their electricity. We all know that some of those companies spend millions of pounds every year. Electricity in Northern Ireland comes from a single electricity market in conjunction with the Republic of Ireland, yet prices for industrial and commercial customers remain consistently high. They are higher here by some 20%.

Look at the likes of Bombardier, which I visited last week. It is looking at generating its own system, called gasification and that would mean Bombardier coming out of the grid. The biggest danger from that is that other companies will look at whether they can afford to build their own generating system or, as is happening in the harbour estate, look to —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close, please?

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

— jump on board with Bombardier. That would take them out of the grid as well and mean higher electricity costs for us all. I commend the report to the Assembly.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have listened with interest to the debate. It comes at a time when we should all be concerned about the instability in the Crimea region of Ukraine. That could, of course, have a very particular impact on energy costs, in not just Northern Ireland but the whole of the United Kingdom. For me, as energy Minister, I continue to watch that region with concern and interest.

I share Members’ views and concerns about the importance of the affordability of electricity prices for consumers, both businesses and households. I have repeated many times in the Chamber that modern economies and communities cannot function without reliable, sustainable and affordable energy. The phrase "reliable, sustainable and affordable" is the key to all our energy policies. It is the balance between those competing priorities that we need to get right. We can focus on one issue, such as prices, and make various recommendations, but, without balance, we are not going to get it right.

Our aim must be to deliver measures that work for today’s consumers and future consumers. The balance is currently provided in the Executive’s strategic energy framework, from which I quoted. To be fair, I think the Committee has acknowledged that the Executive have got that right.

The Committee has published its views on security of supply. We debated that just a few weeks ago. That, of course, is the reliability part of the balance. Now, we are debating pricing, which covers affordability. The Committee has now decided to look at renewables, which is the sustainability part of the balance. I am reassured that we are all starting from the same place. It should not, therefore, be surprising —

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I thank the Minister for giving way. What does she believe would be the long-term impact on consumers if we followed Mr Wilson's line of argument and did not bring renewables onto the system?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

If you can wait a little longer, I hope to address that in my comments.

As I said, I am reassured that everybody is starting from the same place and that we are looking into those particular parts of the energy mix. We have reached similar conclusions on all the main issues. The Committee has taken evidence from across the energy sector, including the Utility Regulator, the Systems Operator, generators, suppliers and, of course, businesses, as well as their representative organisations. The range and nature of stakeholders clearly shows the competing tensions that energy policy must address. It is a range of stakeholders with which I am familiar, of course, because I, too, frequently meet the same parties to discuss energy issues and take their views.

There is another important point to bear in mind about the range of interests that are involved in energy policy. The Committee will be aware from its research that not all the suggestions fall solely to me or, indeed, to my Department. I also noted that the Committee specifically acknowledges in its report:

"Electricity policy is an extremely complex and dynamic area of government policy."

I am particularly minded to note that the Committee agreed the terms of reference for its pricing inquiry on 27 June last year. On initiating the review, the Committee indicated that it would report to the Assembly with findings, conclusions and recommendations by 25 October 2013. In fact, the Department and I have only recently received the body of the report. It has not been published and we do not have the supporting papers that are referred to, which include Minutes of Evidence, written submissions and research papers.

So, when Mr McKinney says that he received evidence from Manufacturing Northern Ireland that jobs have been lost — not "may" or "will" but "have" been lost — I find it very difficult to counter because I have not seen the evidence that has been given to the Committee by that organisation. I can take only what Invest Northern Ireland tells me about that issue, which is that it has not lost any new projects as a result of energy pricing and that, although energy costs may be higher, it can still offer generous support in other areas to help to balance the effects of energy pricing. I am not underplaying the cost, particularly for large energy users, but I have not got the evidence as yet, so I cannot counter that in the debate today.

The requirement to devote considerable resource over a prolonged period emphasises how complex an area this policy is. So, I am surprised that a motion for debate should be tabled at such short notice. I am not sure what value this will add or whether I can promise to deal with the report in any detail due to the fact that I do not have all the information before me or, indeed, in the Department. However, I can assure the Assembly that I will continue to work with regulators, system operators, owners and generators, businesses, the renewables industry, the European Union and authorities in other jurisdictions to deal with some of the important issues that are touched upon in the report.

The Assembly will be aware that there is only one overarching energy policy for Northern Ireland, which, of course, is the strategic energy framework (SEF). It has four goals: building competitive markets; ensuring security of supply; enhancing sustainability; and delivering the energy infrastructure.

In signing up to the SEF, the Executive acknowledged the challenges of developing our market and that there would be cost implications. It is a 10-year strategy. At an appropriate point, it should be reviewed. It will be, but I must caution that we still face similar challenges. We will still have an obligation to deliver that all-important sustainable energy mix that Mr Agnew and Mr Wilson love to debate in the House. We must ensure that we continue to have security of supply and we must support the requirement for appropriate investment in the grid to ensure that it continues to meet our need.

We have had a successful track record in the implementation of European Union directives. Through appropriate regulation, we have transparency in the setting of gas and electricity prices. However, I take the point that has been made about transparency, particularly with regard to the single electricity market mechanism. We need more transparency. It is a point that I made in private discussions.

Our small market presents challenges when it comes to competition. Nonetheless, we now have five suppliers of electricity to domestic consumers and eight suppliers to industrial and commercial customers. Competition in the supply of gas is well established in the greater Belfast area, and the gas market in 10 towns outside greater Belfast will be fully open to competition by next year.

We are making excellent progress on the extension of the gas network, with the launch on 6 February of the competitive licence application process for towns in the west. Following delivery of the Enduring Solution project in 2012, which allows unlimited switching, there are no restrictions on the number of customers who can switch electricity supplier.

Work is under way with the regulator to look at cost-effective smart metering solutions, in which I take a particular interest. Working with the regulator and our counterpart Departments and regulatory authorities in London and Dublin, we are progressing arrangements for the redesign of the single electricity market to achieve full market integration. I understand that the regulator has offered to brief the Committee on the consultation paper options for the new market design.

We are starting to see the contribution that renewables can make to the energy mix. In the 12-month period to the end of January this year, for example, renewables accounted for approximately 18% of all electricity consumed. On 17 December — that date is fixed in my mind now — the amount of wind energy on the electricity system surpassed 500 megawatts for the first time, contributing almost 40% of the electricity provided.

I hear the arguments made against wind, such as its cost, and I will look at those very closely when I get the full papers, but I am very conscious that we should not lose sight of the wider economic benefits when we debate the pros and cons of renewables. It is not just all about wind. Look at Evermore's new £80 million biomass power plant in Londonderry — the first of its kind. We are also starting to see increasing interest in Northern Ireland as a location for solar farms, and I look forward to hearing the Committee's deliberations on that in particular.

All of this takes place against the backdrop of further regulation and direction from Europe. Interestingly, this debate is one that is being played out elsewhere as well. Within the past few weeks, the Commission published a comprehensive analysis of prices across member states. Some of its findings are relevant to the work in which my Department is involved.

Let us look at some very specific issues. I welcome the Committee’s call for an early date to be set to reconvene the inquiry into the planning application for the North/South interconnector. I have made that point many times. The application submitted by Northern Ireland Electricity proposes a specific route for the interconnector and a particular solution based on the overheading of lines.

As the Committee recognised the importance of the interconnector from a pricing, security of supply and renewables integration perspective, I assume that it will support its delivery without further delay. I would welcome confirmation of that from the Deputy Chair of the Committee in his closing comments.

Completion of the interconnector would offer savings of £7 million a year to Northern Ireland consumers. That cost is incurred because we pay more than we should as a result of inefficiency in dispatch arrangements and associated constraint payments. So I again call for support in giving this issue the absolute priority that it needs at this time.

I welcome the Committee’s support for prioritising work to deliver a permanent solution to faults on the Moyle interconnector. As the Committee rightly identified, current constraints on capacities mean that revenues are being lost, and that, in turn, leads to costs that pass through to consumer bills. We are being proactive in that area, as we are in promoting new technologies to improve the performance of energy systems and give us more options for developing renewable energy.

The MATRIX panel is doing a lot of work on, for example, smart/intelligent energy systems, and we hope that we can push ahead with smart metering in the future.

We have commented on proposals for energy storage solutions put forward under projects of common interest arrangements. I am aware that one similar proposal has been designated such a project, so we hope that we are successful in that.

My Department works closely with the Utility Regulator in a lot of areas, but particularly on smart metering. So I invite Members to consider that we are already progressing that issue, and I hope that they recognise that.

In June last year, I launched the Consumer Council’s report, 'Power to Switch', which outlined the extent to which consumers are aware of switching opportunities. The Assembly will be interested to hear that one of the key findings was that 96% of electricity customers knew that they could switch. The report also found that after implementation of the Enduring Solution project, the average increase in consumer switches rose from 6,000 a month in the period January-May 2012 to 10,000 in June-December 2012. By the end of September 2012, the Consumer Council reported that 135,000 domestic electricity customers had switched supplier, and I take good comfort from that.

The development of the strategic energy framework involved comprehensive consultation, and its delivery very much requires collaboration. One of the principal aspects of collaboration is the single electricity market (SEM), which, as the House knows, has been in place since 2007. The Committee seems to be recommending decoupling aspects of price arrangements in the SEM. That will have implications for generators, not just in Northern Ireland but in the Republic of Ireland. Policy has been developed in that jurisdiction, as it has in Northern Ireland, around SEM, and commercial investments are being made within the structures that are in place.

If we decouple price arrangements for generators participating in Northern Ireland, that will send a very negative message from an investment point of view to investors and, in all likelihood, drive investment out of this jurisdiction. For any Northern Ireland generators continuing to bid into the single electricity market, it would also mean disadvantage in revenues. In fact, work is already under way on the next stage of the single electricity market. When we look at issues like capacity payments, which the Committee raised, we need to recognise this context.

Markets are being redesigned across Europe to meet the European Union target model, and a number of member states are either looking to continue to incorporate capacity mechanisms in their markets or to make the case to the Commission that they should be accommodated. In all of this, we have to look at the European context because of the state aid regime and the need for state aid approval. So, whilst I recognise the calls that have been made in and around decoupling, we have to look at it in the wider context.

We do, of course, engage on a North/South and east-west basis. I recently had a very informal meeting with Pat Rabbitte to talk about the North/South interconnector and other related matters. We have extensive engagement with counterpart Departments, official to official. The inclusion of energy under the auspices of the North/South Ministerial Council is a matter that is neither within my gift, nor one that I will support. Where any specific requests for briefings are made, my Department responds accordingly.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Minister give way?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

No, I am not going to give way. We have heard enough of you today.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Minister draw her remarks to a close, please?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Before concluding, I want to mention two further pieces of work in which my Department is involved. The first is an examination of network charges and how they are allocated across consumer groups. In its report, the Committee supports the work that we have already begun, and I very much welcome that. I have noted that the Committee wants to see something brought forward to the benefit of large industrial and commercial consumers in particular, but that has to be put in the context of all other consumers.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Minister's time is up.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I think that they need to take that into consideration when they call on us to do something for the large energy users. However, this is an ongoing issue, and I am happy to have further discussions with the Committee when we get the full amount of papers.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 1.54 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions

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

1. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether they will be attending any events in Washington as part of this year’s St Patrick’s Day celebrations. (AQO 5657/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

We will begin our upcoming trip to the United States on the west coast with a number of investment engagements including meetings with existing investors such as HBO and Seagate. We will also meet a range of potential investors, as well as attending the closing of the Cinemagic festival. As part of the programme, we will officiate at the opening of Invest Northern Ireland's new office in San Francisco, which is further evidence of our sustained success in engaging positively with US business.

Our visit to Washington DC continues to be an important part of the calendar of overseas events that we undertake each year. I can think of no other devolved Administration that enjoys the access that we get to the White House or the Speaker of the House of Representatives. This will be the seventh year that Northern Ireland's First Minister and deputy First Minister have represented the Executive in Washington.

On Friday 14 March, we will host the Northern Ireland Bureau breakfast for 250 contacts from the greater Washington area. That audience will include Members of Congress, members of the Obama Administration and business executives. Later that morning, we will have a private meeting at the White House. Of course, that will be before travelling, as we have in previous years, to Capitol Hill for the Speaker's St Patrick's Day lunch.

As with all our overseas visits, the deputy First Minister and I will ensure that our time outside Northern Ireland is used to maximum benefit.

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

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad-Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the First Minister for his response. I ask the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether there will be dialogue concerning the Haass process with political representatives in America or, indeed, the American Administration, given the added impetus and focus on it in recent times, particularly in respect of victims.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

When we speak to political representatives in the United States, I would be very surprised if they did not have an interest in the current circumstances in Northern Ireland. We will be ready to share with them our views of what progress has been made to date and the difficulties that we now face. We have always had a good relationship with those in the Republican and Democratic parties in the United States, and we have always been very happy to meet and talk with them. I do not think that either of us will be reluctant to give an update, because there is a genuine interest in the United States that Northern Ireland should continue to make progress.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

Given that the new Invest Northern Ireland office is opening in San Francisco, is the west coast now a key target area for increased investment in Northern Ireland?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Yes. Obviously, we feel that there is much more that can be done on the west coast of the United States. We have always been pushing our case and have had a presence on the west coast, but we now see that there would be real value in upping our game there. We already have a relationship there with one of our major employers, Seagate. We have built up a very considerable relationship with HBO and, indeed, a number of film companies on the west coast of the United States. One of the agreed pushes in our Programme for Government concerns the creative industries, the heart of which is on the west coast of the United States. That vindicates the decision of Invest Northern Ireland and the Executive of pushing for more investment on the west coast. Literally hundreds — we hope, before long, thousands — of jobs in Northern Ireland will be created through that process.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The First Minister's partner, the deputy First Minister, set 17 March as the deadline for agreeing to his demands on Haass. The Minister's colleague Mrs Foster has, rightly, said that Haass was built on deceit. If it has been built upon deceit, what future has that process and what, now, is the point of it?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I think that we have already superseded the Haass process; we are into a set of leaders' meetings. I do not think that anybody in the House will be satisfied with the status quo on the three issues that were discussed during the Haass process: the past, parades and flags. I am certainly not satisfied that the status quo is satisfactory in any of those three areas, and I agree with many Members who indicated during Friday's debate that, no matter what happens, those issues have to be addressed. If we do not address them now, they will have to be addressed at some stage. Whether or not you do it under the aegis of the Haass talks, which, in my view, are completed, the issues will not away and are being taken up in the leaders' process. I believe that the outcome of that process must be satisfactory to the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland and not just to one political party in the House.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

3. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister how many of the 89 social investment fund projects submitted by the steering groups were located in the North Down constituency. (AQO 5659/11-15)

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

7. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister when the new directions project in the southern zone of the social investment fund will commence. (AQO 5663/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will answers 3 and 7 together.

On 10 February, we announced that £33 million will be invested in 23 projects aimed at tackling poverty and deprivation through improved community-based services and facilities. Those first 23 projects had been identified as priorities by steering groups in each local area covered by the nine social investment zones. Draft letters of offer have issued to the successful projects, including the New Directions project in the southern zone. Those offers will be finalised following completion of verification and governance checks that are now taking place in agreement with lead partners on the conditions of offer. Lead partners will then take forward the procurement to deliver the outcomes described in the project proposals that had been approved. At this point, it is not possible to estimate precisely how long the process will take and, therefore, it is not possible to give a commencement date for any project. We are keen to ensure that projects are fully established and under way as soon as possible, and our officials will provide support to the lead partners to ensure that that is the case. To that end, a conference for all lead partners has been arranged for 10 March. We anticipate significant progress towards delivery after that event.

Five of the projects under consideration will be based in or serve the North Down constituency. In the south-eastern social investment zone, the early intervention project, the youth intervention project and the community-led employability project will operate on a zone-wide basis and therefore take in the North Down constituency area. Two of the capital projects — the community sports cluster and the community housing cluster — will include capital works in the constituency. Funding of all projects is subject to all necessary approvals being made.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I thank the First Minister for his response. Can he clarify when all the projects will be approved? Is there a date by which the money must be spent?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I will take those questions in reverse. No, we have ring-fenced the funding, so the overall £80 million will be available when the projects come forward to deal with it. The zones know the quantum within which they will work. In the case of North Down, an indicative fund of about £8 million is available. The zone itself has put forward the projects that it wants to move forward with in that area.

That takes me to the first question. The Department has to go through the economic appraisals. It has been the view of many in the Chamber that consideration of those matters has to be robust. We have to make sure that we are getting value for money and that the business cases stand up to scrutiny. It is proper that we make sure that we get those issues right. The answer has to be, "As soon as is practical and possible".

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

Is the Minister aware of the local concerns about the consequential impact on the Kilcluney community hub and Lurgan YMCA should the Youth Justice Agency not lease accommodation from Lurgan YMCA?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am not sure that everybody in the House will be aware of the precise details to which the Member refers, but I understand that there is wide support for the scheme. There is some concern locally about the arrangements, and there may be some delay locally because of questions arising from it. We are keen to make progress on the scheme, and if my Department can give any assistance, we would be happy to do so. Indeed, we would be very happy to talk to the Member if he thinks that there is some way we could usefully help.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Question 4 has been withdrawn.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

5. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the independent assessment of the Victims and Survivors Service. (AQO 5661/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

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

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Following our request for an independent assessment of the Victims and Survivors Service, the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors appointed a multidisciplinary team of independent experts to progress that work. The independent assessment focused on the individual needs review process along with the policy framework and any wider issues around service delivery, such as communication, including interactions with clients and groups.

On 14 February, Commissioner Stone presented us with the full assessment reports along with her advice on the four main areas of work of the Victims and Survivors Service. We welcomed that advice and the 55 recommendations in the reports, which will help to shape what we do and how we do it. We remain committed to progressing work on the implementation of the recommendations over the coming months. The reports have been published on the OFMDFM website.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the junior Minister for his response. I am sure that he will agree that last week was a particularly traumatic time for victims and survivors. Will he inform us of the timescale for the implementation of the 55 recommendations?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I certainly do agree, and our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and survivors, particularly as many were re-traumatised by the information that we received last week.

We moved very swiftly to put the review in place and asked for a short turnaround time for the report. In other words, we got the report in a couple of months and intend to turn it around in a couple of months. We want action to be taken swiftly and urgently to address the concerns of victims and survivors.

The 55-plus recommendations are very welcome, and I believe that they will significantly improve the service that we give to victims and survivors. Some of the issues had already been identified to us, and those have been addressed through the programme board that we set up immediately on hearing the concerns that had been raised.

We obtained the report in a matter of months and are working closely with the Victims and Survivors Service board and our team in OFMDFM. We want the recommendations to be implemented as quickly as possible over the next couple of months.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

6. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister when they will bring forward their plans to assist people who were in Magdalene laundry-type institutions. (AQO 5662/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

In light of the McAleese report into Magdalene laundries and representations that were made to us, we appointed a senior civil servant to research and draft a scoping paper on Magdalene laundry-type institutions that operated in Northern Ireland to inform us of the potential actions that we might be able to take. We continue to consider the options that the paper set out.

Under the terms of reference for the inquiry into historical institutional abuse, any woman who entered a laundry before she was 18 years of age may contribute to the inquiry, including recounting her childhood experiences to the inquiry's acknowledgement forum and having those experiences acknowledged. However, we recognise that there were women who were over 18 years of age when they entered Magdalene laundry-type institutions and that there is a need to provide them with a forum at which those issues can be addressed and their experiences acknowledged.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the First Minister for his response. I also want to acknowledge the good work on those matters and the fact that the issues are complex and difficult for many victims and survivors.

Is the First Minister in a position to elaborate further on the type of forum that may be envisaged?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

To the best of my knowledge, some women who were under the age of 18 at the time have already made contact with the historical institutional abuse inquiry (HIAI), because it was institutional abuse. No doubt, they will be able to have acknowledgement and recognition as part of that process.

We have not as a Department, as best I understand it, had anyone over the age of 18 at the time come to us to give details that we might pursue, although I think that we were informed that Amnesty International has had at least two cases come before it. We are trying to make some assessment of the extent to which it is an issue that needs to have an inquiry. Even if there is not to be an inquiry, a strong argument can be made for some kind of acknowledgement so that people can come forward. That might require us to be more proactive in making a call for people to come forward, because it may not be until that call is publicly put out there that people will come forward to give us the details, which, to date, we have not been given.

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

I note what the First Minister said and the progress that is being made, but has he had discussions with the Southern Government on the Magdalene laundries to see whether there are any schemes there that may be helpful for us in managing the process?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

When we were setting up the HIAI, we had contact with Administrations that had gone through the same kind of process. If we reach the stage at which there is a justification for having an inquiry — this fits into matters that we have dealt with over the past number of days — there are many types of judicial inquiry. They take very different forms depending on the outcome that you want. It depends on whether you want one done quickly or not. In the case of the HIAI, it will be several years down the road. In the case of inquiries set up under the Inquiries Act, it could be many years down the road. If the necessity is to get a quick result, you may have one type of inquiry. If we get to the stage of there being justification for having an inquiry, we can look at the type of inquiry that you would have.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

Will the First Minister clarify the Department's position regarding whether it will support an historical abuse inquiry for all the victims of abuse who do not have access to the current process chaired by Sir Anthony Hart?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I do not believe that there are any cases in which there is no access, except those confined by date, which was agreed in the legislation that we put through the Assembly.

The big issue in the terms of reference for the Magdalene laundries case is that, legally, anyone who was over the age of 18 was not forced to be in the laundries. Therefore, there is a different set of circumstances. If people were under the age of 18, they can go through the existing HIAI procedures. Again, I point out that, to the best of my knowledge, we have had no one from the over-18 category approach the Department, although Amnesty has indicated that it has two such cases.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Question 7 has already been answered.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

8. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister when they will publish the sexual orientation strategy. (AQO 5664/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

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

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

We have regularly stated our commitment to producing a sexual orientation strategy in the Assembly and in the text of the good relations strategy, Together: Building a United Community. To achieve that commitment, we have asked officials to commence public consultation. The strategy will be published once the consultation process is completed and will aim to promote an environment free from harassment and bullying, to tackle homophobia in all forms, including violence and abuse, and to promote equality of opportunity for lesbian, gay and bisexual people.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the junior Minister for his answer. As you are aware, there was a debate and a motion passed in the Assembly in December. Can the Minister assure us that the consultation will be wide-ranging and inclusive of all the relevant stakeholders?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Yes, I can. I can do so on the basis that I have had a number of discussions with our officials in OFMDFM, who have communicated with all the groups right across the board. I am very pleased that the information that I have is that all the groups are responding. I like the fact that our officials have done this with sensitivity, tailored questions and provided means for groups to answer over the web in order to get the full amount of consultation and feedback to inform the strategy.

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

Mr Speaker, you will be well aware that this matter has been on the agenda since you entered office in 2007. There have been repeated questions with the same answers that it will be shortly, next year or in a few months. Yet, there is still no sexual orientation strategy. Will the junior Minister confirm or deny that the hold-up in publishing the strategy is because of religious beliefs among some of his own party members?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

The important thing is that we have a strategy that addresses the needs that I outlined. It should ensure that people — whatever their background, sexual orientation, ethnic minority, political belief or religious belief — all have equality of opportunity. I have spoken out a number of times against anybody being subjected to violence, intimidation or bullying, not only in this job but in previous jobs on the Policing Board.

I am getting a lot of very positive feedback from the groups responsible, which is important. OFMDFM has responded to those groups and, as I said in my previous answer, tailored the consultation to get the maximum input from them. When we have that, we will publish. As I said, it is important that everyone — regardless of their skin colour, their status in respect of religious belief or sexual orientation — has equality of opportunity and that no one is subjected in any way to abuse, violence or bullying.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

9. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the liaison arrangements between their Department and its statutory committee. (AQO 5665/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am a little surprised that the Member, as Chair of the OFMDFM Committee, felt it either necessary or appropriate to use a question for oral answer to ask us about liaison arrangements between his Committee and our Department. Liaison between the Committee Clerk and our Assembly liaison officer takes place on an almost daily basis to schedule business in a way that reflects the Committee's requirements and our need to ensure that the information that we provide is accurate, relevant and reflects a shared view on the subject.

We are aware, through publicity that the Committee has given to the matter, that the Member, in his role as Chairperson, has concerns about the effectiveness of the arrangements. The Member will be aware that the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, in his position as permanent secretary of OFMDFM, will be meeting him and his Committee colleagues on Wednesday this week to discuss these matters further.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the First Minister. He will be aware that I am trying every avenue to try to resolve issues that are highlighted by the fact that, since the summer recess, there have been 38 occasions, across 20 minutes, of either cancelled briefings or late papers and that, over a longer period, the Department's average response rate to queries is 58·8 days —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Member to come to his question.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

— with the record standing at 299 working days. Is the Minister satisfied? If not, what actions is he taking?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

First, I think that the Committee is doing the right thing by meeting the head of the Civil Service, who is the permanent secretary of OFMDFM, to look at these issues and how they might be resolved more efficiently and effectively. There needs to be some understanding that there is a requirement on departmental officials to ensure that, when they give answers, those answers are full and accurate. On many occasions, it takes them time to establish that.

Let us be absolutely honest about it: there is always a further difficulty in a Department that has two Ministers who are required to give approval. Any request for information goes through two sieves as opposed to one. Clearly, if OFMDFM was a one-Minister Department, there could be quicker answers. We need to look at those issues to see whether they can be resolved more speedily. Let me say to the Member, who is the Chairman of the Committee, that I am happy to meet him about those issues. I am pretty sure that the deputy First Minister would also be happy to meet him to see whether, in particular cases, we can resolve them more expeditiously.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

I welcome the fact that Ministers regularly attend the Committee and that junior Ministers have attended on a number of occasions recently. Will the First Minister confirm that he and the junior Ministers will continue to make themselves available to the Committee?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Of course we will. Although there are formal processes, which, in many cases, would be the most satisfactory way of dealing with issues, I am sure that we can also talk informally about those that may be of concern. However, I think that the thrust of the Chairman's question was about information being supplied to the Committee. The flow of that information is his concern, and we want to look at ways in which that can be dealt with more expeditiously.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

10. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the appointment of an Attorney General. (AQO 5666/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I think that it is something of a record to get this far down the list of questions. I confirm that, as the deputy First Minister informed the Assembly on 27 January, consideration is under way of the options for filling the position of Attorney General after the current term ends in May 2014.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The First Minister has answered my question and my supplementary.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Mr Attwood, you caught my eye this time.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I apologise that I did not get on my feet as quickly as I should have done earlier. Will the First Minister explain why his answer today is, essentially, the answer that the deputy First Minister gave in January and that he gave in October 2013? The Attorney General is the chief legal adviser to the Executive. We were told in October that a decision would be taken within a few weeks. Can you reconcile all of that?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I take it as a compliment that the Member indicates the Department's consistency in the answers that he gets from the deputy First Minister and me. Of course, there comes a time when the issue has to be resolved, but that has to be done on foot of our consideration of a report on the role of the Attorney General for Northern Ireland — not the person, the office — and what changes, if any, we will make to it. We have had discussions in the Executive on what changes there should be in the role of the office, and anyone likely to hold the role of Attorney General needs to know the conditions that might apply to the post. I think that only fair.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Will the First Minister confirm that, in establishing who the next Attorney General will be, consideration will be given to ensuring that the person and their office will examine the legality of any administrative scheme, such as the one we discussed on Friday, and whether it should be established and run through the NIO or the Justice Department of the Assembly?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The office of the Attorney General is independent. It is not for us to determine how the Attorney General approaches those issues. However, the Executive have the role of drawing to the attention of the Attorney General issues on which they may need his advice. Indeed, I assume that any Minister of the Executive can do that, and some may already have been asking those questions.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

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

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

1. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether they accept that, at no point, was the Policing Board made aware that letters were being issued to those who were on-the-run or that subsequent use could be made of them, given that, over the past few days, there have been allegations that the Policing Board was made aware of the on-the-runs administrative scheme. (AQT 801/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

As he is a member of the Policing Board, I think the Member is probably in the best position. I assume from his question that he is making it very clear that the Policing Board was not made aware of the details of the administrative scheme. The accusation essentially came from Mr Denis Bradley, and it soon became known that Mr Bradley himself had not been made aware of the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy in some of those cases and therefore had to publicly acknowledge that he had been kept in the dark about some aspects of on-the-runs and how they were being dealt with.

The bottom line in this matter is that everyone in the community was aware that there were on-the-runs; everybody was aware of the fact that Sinn Féin was pushing for something to be done on the issue; and everyone was aware of the fact that the Government had acknowledged that there was an anomaly. However, the documentation available includes the minutes of the Policing Board meetings and the comment in Jonathan Powell's book where he indicated, wrongly but only technically wrongly, that there were references made in the joint declaration — in fact, there was no reference in the joint declaration, but there was in a separate paper on on-the-runs. The reference in the separate paper was to legislative proposals coming forward. Indeed, I have a copy of a letter from the Prime Minister to the leader of the party, Dr Paisley, at that time — I am happy to place it in the Library of the House — that makes it clear that the references in the Jonathan Powell book, which he was right to make and which are accurate, relate to legislation being brought forward that we indicated we would oppose. In fact, in the House of Commons, we tabled something like 50 amendments, and we opposed that legislation at every stage.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Minister's time is gone.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the First Minister for his response. How does he respond to Peter Hain who, over the weekend, suggested that senior politicians in Northern Ireland should have been aware that the scheme existed, on the basis that everyone knew that the on-the-runs issue needed to be resolved?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

He is right, of course. Everyone knew that the Government had indicated that the issue had to be resolved. Of greater concern is the fact that, if one looks through Hansard, one finds that on 11 October 2006 I asked Mr Hain:

"Is the Secretary of State aware... Although we welcome the earlier answer from the Minister of State that no legislation is to be brought before the House, will the Secretary of State reassure the House ... that no other procedure will be used to allow on-the-run terrorists to return?"

Mr Hain replied: "There is no other procedure". That is a clear indicator.

Later, in March 2007, Lady Hermon asked almost precisely the same question about whether there was any other consideration, and Mr Hain says, "None." Those are, in my view, are contrary to the facts laid down in the Downey judgement, where it shows that, even back in September 2002, some four or five years before the two questions were asked, 174 such applications under the scheme had been brought forward and that, in 2002, at least 61 people had been told that they could return. The process was clearly under way in 2002, never mind 2006 or 2007, and therefore the answers given in the House of Commons were inaccurate.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

2. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether they believe that there was any authority for the Northern Ireland Office to continue to operate the administrative scheme for on-the-runs after the devolution of policing and justice in April 2010. (AQT 802/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

This touches on the issue raised by my friend the Member for East Londonderry. I do not claim to be a lawyer, but, even with the fact that I have been a law-maker for probably the best part of 35 years, when I look at the negotiations that were held on policing and justice it seems clear to me that matters relating to the PSNI, to prosecutions and to other matters suggest that responsibility for this issue should have been transferred in 2010. If that is the case, there is no legal authority for the PSNI to respond in the way that it did and certainly no authority for the NIO to issue letters. I think that that is a matter that the inquiry judge will want to look at, and it may well be that the Attorney General will want to look at it. We will certainly take the matter up with the PSNI, and arrangements have been made to have meetings with the PSNI and with the Secretary of State on these issues. The authority to take up an issue does not lie somewhere out there to float around between the NIO and the devolved Administration as to who wants to take it out; authority is laid down in law on whose responsibility it is.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

If, in fact, the powers were devolved, will the First Minister detail what he believes the implications could be for any letters issued by the Northern Ireland Office at that time?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I very much understand the view expressed by the Justice Minister — it is a healthy position for him to take — that he certainly would not want to be dealing with these matters and would not give any approval. Of course, it would not be up to the Justice Minister whether his Department had responsibility for those matters. If it had that responsibility, the Justice Minister would certainly have my support and that of my colleagues and, I believe, of the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP, in that he would not continue with such a scheme. That would call into question the immediate invalidation of the 38 letters that were dealt with in the post-devolution issues, although they may well be dealt with anyway under the new arrangements as set out in the Secretary of State's statement.

One way or the other, however, it is the purpose of the inquiry and of the undertaking given by the Secretary of State to ensure three things about the on-the-runs letters: that they do not stop anyone being prosecuted; that they cannot be regarded as a means to avoid questioning; and — this has not been given a lot of attention, but it is of massive importance to victims — that the letters do not constitute to the PSNI any reason why the people who have received them should not be pursued, why there should not be active consideration of their cases and why those cases cannot in future be examined to push for new information so that, if there are any further facts, the PSNI can question people and, where they have evidence, prosecute.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

3. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether the Health Minister’s recent one-year consultative delay has made it impossible for the Executive to introduce a soft opt-out organ donation system before the end of this mandate, given that organ donation is an issue that unites the First Minister and deputy First Minister and commands overwhelming public support. (AQT 803/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

As someone who carries a donor card and, having spoken to the professionals, recognises that it is enormously valuable for them to have the maximum number of organs available and that it saves lives, I will support any effort to increase the number of people who might come forward and volunteer to make organs available under the scheme. So, although I have enormous sympathy for her proposal, I do not recognise it to be the only way that we can increase the number of organ donations.

The Minister has a responsibility on the basis of medical advice to inform himself and to have available to him the most up-to-date and best information about the impact of any particular set of proposals. Of course, the Member has a Bill coming before the House that can circumvent any other proposal by the Minister or in any other Bill to get the view of the Assembly. I think that there is wide support for her Bill. I do not know when it will come to the House or whether she has ironed out all the issues relating to it. However, if it comes to the House, I and some of my colleagues will support it, and others will have a view that there is a different and better way of doing it. I, for my part, will support either the alternative Bill or her Bill. I will do anything that I can to increase the numbers.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the First Minister for his answer and welcome his support for soft opt-out. I wrote to the First Minister and deputy First Minister on 20 November last year asking for a meeting with them, given their personal support, but I have not received a response. Will the Minister prioritise a meeting with me on an issue that has so much potential to save lives and, for once, deliver a good news story from the Assembly to the transplant charities and all the members of the public out there who back it?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I see no reason why such a meeting should not be set up and set up quickly. If the Member wants to walk round to my office, I will join her in getting a date set in the diary for such a meeting.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

4. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister how they view the position of the Member for Lagan Valley Mr Basil McCrea who has indicated that he believes that a line should be drawn under the past and there should effectively be an amnesty for offences committed before 1998. (AQT 804/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I have already made my views known on the issue. I think that anyone who is a victim of terrorism-related criminality would feel outraged that somehow there should be a line drawn under the execution and hope of justice in their case. It is all right for those of us who have not faced losing a member of our family, though, in Northern Ireland, there are few who have not been touched in some way by terrorist activity. To suggest that people should have closed off the option of justice is abhorrent to me.

The Member argues it on the basis of what is in the public interest. I agree with one of the Attorneys General, who, in the course of the judgement on the Downey case, indicated that, in his view, it would always be in the public interest that those who, it is believed, have been responsible for terrorist crimes should be prosecuted.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for his answer. Further to that, the Member for Lagan Valley has also argued that victims will not be able to get justice in the future and, essentially, it would be better if they realised that. How does the First Minister regard that argument?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I have never regarded the Member for Lagan Valley as a seer or someone who had some ability to look into the future with any degree of accuracy. The fact is that some people have been brought to the courts on information that has been gathered subsequently. The issue here is whether there always remains the hope for justice on the part of the victims and the fear of justice on the part of the perpetrators.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

5. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, given the smug and insensitive response from Sinn Féin to the on-the-runs issue, with anger from the general public and victims of terrorism in particular at the dirty deal that was struck between Sinn Féin and successive UK Governments on runaway terrorists, what implications this will have on the leaders' talks about flags, the past and parades. (AQT 805/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

First, I will say to my friend that anybody who suggests that the reaction from unionist political leaders was in some way manufactured or synthetic does not understand the feelings in the unionist community. I have to say that I have not had more letters on any other subject over the last number of years than I have had on this issue. People are outraged on a number of levels. They are outraged at the implications of one-sided justice. It damages the whole justice system that particular circumstances are available for one set of those who have been responsible for crimes and not for another. That was drawn into the most bold relief by the fact that the removal by the then Government of the legislation dealing with on-the-runs was on the basis that Sinn Féin had withdrawn its support because it did not want soldiers to enjoy the same privileges as terrorists would have. That is an outrage in any society.

In respect of the second part of the Member's question on the Haass talks, I have indicated that I believe that the issues that are ranged by the Haass talks are issues that have to be dealt with. I do not believe that it is possible to reach conclusions on the issues relating to the past until we have the inquiry outcome, although that does nothing to stop us looking at the issues relating to parades or the commission to deal with flags and identity. The purpose of the matters relating to the past, for us, was to ensure that there was access to justice for those who had not received justice for the loss of their family members. That indicates that we need to be sure that everyone is susceptible to investigation, inquiry and prosecution.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Lord Morrow is not in his place for question 1.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

2. asked the Minister of Education what work his Department has planned for St Louis Grammar School, Ballymena. (AQO 5673/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

During the 2014-15 financial year, the following minor capital works schemes are planned and have been given approval, in principle, to proceed for St Louis Grammar School, Ballymena: the replacement of four mobile classrooms with two double modular classrooms and a basic refurbishment of the canteen to include improvements to ventilation and the application of biocide paint and other health and safety matters. In addition, the following scheme is under consideration: a new canteen, fire-risk and emergency lighting works and home economics accommodation. Under the school enhancement programme, St Louis Grammar School, Ballymena, has applied for the refurbishment and extension of the existing convent building to provide a creative and expressive arts facility, including music, drama, art and moving image and media studies. The scheme is at economic appraisal stage, and no decision has been taken regarding funding.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Question 15 has been withdrawn as well.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I start by thanking the Minister for recently accompanying me to St Louis Grammar School in Ballymena. Further to the Minister's answer, can he indicate when an announcement on the school enhancement programme will take place? Will St Louis Grammar School in Ballymena be included?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I hope, in the next number of weeks, to make a public announcement about all the schemes under the school enhancement programme. I think that there were 51 in total, and I hope to make an announcement on them in the very near future. I cannot be specific about Ballymena, but I assure the Member that we are progressing matters as quickly as possible.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

In view of the fact that what the Minister has had to refer to manifests a growth demand for that grammar school, does he acknowledge that his assault on grammar schools, his attempt to put down such schools and the attempt to destroy such an offering of education fly in the face of parental demand, which manifests itself, ultimately, in the need for more buildings at such grammar schools?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Perhaps the Member should do a bit more research before picking a question off the top of his head. I approved an additional grammar school this morning. It is a new, non-selective voluntary grammar school in Lurgan. The title "grammar" has nothing to do with selective education. A grammar school is a management type of school that can charge fees to its pupils and parents, although there is no legal obligation on the pupils or parents to pay the fees.

The accommodation at St Louis is replacement accommodation. The accommodation that is being replaced is not fit for purpose, and I do not believe that any child should be taught in it. That is the programme of work at play. I also understand that, in the Ballymena area, proposals are being discussed on how we move forward, particularly in the Catholic sector, to a system that meets the needs of all the pupils in it. I await the outcome of those discussions.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Following on from the Minister's comment on those discussions, what implication will any proposals that he makes in future announcements have on the proposals regarding the amalgamation of St Louis, St Benedict's and St Paul's? What discussions have those three schools had to ensure that there is maximum benefit, given the fact that there are concerns about the long-term future of grammar school provision in the maintained sector in Ballymena?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It depends on what the Member defines as grammar school provision. I will not repeat my comments to Mr Allister, but you know fine well what "grammar school provision" means.

I am not privy to all the discussions between the three schools, but I assure the Member that any expenditure plan by my Department will take into account future plans on the way forward and will ensure that whatever investment we make, particularly in capital infrastructure, will be there to serve the community going into the future.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

This is a constituency issue, which is why I am keen to call Members from that constituency.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

As we are talking about the planned development of schools in Ballymena, can I ask the Minister for an update on Castle Tower?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I do not have the full details in front of me — this is turning into topical questions — on Castle Tower, but, in my last discussions with officials, it was clear that it was progressing well and that discussions on moving towards building programmes for the school were going in the right direction.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

3. asked the Minister of Education for an update on the work of the advisory group on the strategic development of Irish-medium post-primary education. (AQO 5674/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chomhalta as a cheist. I set up an Irish-medium post-primary advisory group to look in detail at how to deliver viable and sustainable Irish-medium post-primary education that is high-quality, meets the needs of pupils and commands the confidence of parents.

I understand that work is progressing well and that the advisory group has met on 14 occasions since last August. It has met key stakeholders from the sector, including school governors, principals, teachers, other educationalists and Irish-medium cultural and linguistic specialists. I am also pleased to report that it has sought the views of parents in preschools and primary schools through a questionnaire. It has also gathered evidence from the neighbouring jurisdictions of Scotland, Wales and the South of Ireland. I expect the advisory group to submit its final report and recommendations to me in the coming weeks.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he comment on the requirements that the statutory duty to facilitate Irish-medium education places on his Department?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

My Department takes its statutory duties to encourage and facilitate the development of Irish-medium education very seriously and will continue to do so. One of the main ways in which the Department discharges its statutory duty is through the Irish-medium education review. The ongoing implementation of the recommendations of the review continues to contribute greatly to the vibrancy and success of the Irish-medium sector. Although significant progress has been made, I am keen to identify where more needs to be done to develop this important area further and to ensure that the education in the sector is of the highest quality.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Given the relatively small number of pupils who attend post-primary Irish-medium schools, will the Minister be mindful of relativity, proportionality and equity when he looks at capital investment in controlled schools compared with that in Irish-medium schools?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am confident that I can stand over my previous two announcements on capital build. I have ensured that every sector has been treated on the basis of equality and that every sector has been given the resources that I have to deliver. I have significantly reduced capital resources from Westminster, but I assure the Member that I will continue to deliver my functions on the basis of the legislation that governs them, including equality and my legal duty to encourage and facilitate Irish-medium education.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire chomh maith. Iarraim ar an Aire cur síos a dhéanamh ar an dóigh a bhfuil forbairt Gaelscolaíochta á déanamh trí ionaid agus sruthanna i scoltacha iarbhunscolaíochta. Will the Minister tell us the extent to which the development of Irish-medium education is being encouraged through the establishment of units and streams in our post-primary schools?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chomhalta as a cheist. We have a significant number of post-primary Irish-medium units throughout the North. At the end of the day, it is up to schools and the sectors to develop those. It is not the Department's role to establish any school in any sector, but we have a significant number of units in primary and post-primary education. They are very successful and provide good education through the medium of Irish to the young people involved. It is hoped that, in some of those places, numbers will grow to the point at which there will be a stand-alone full-immersion Irish-medium sector. It is one way of growing the Irish-medium sector, and it is a way that I will continue to support.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Can the Minister tell the Assembly why he has a special advisory group on Irish-medium schools — there is nothing wrong with that — when he does not have a similar one for integrated education?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The group looks at a specific area of Irish-medium education, which is its provision in post-primary education. There has been a failure over a number of years to develop post-primary provision, particularly in Derry city and south Derry. I have asked the group to look at that area specifically.

The Member will be aware that we have a significant number of post-primary integrated schools scattered across the North, and, as we do in the Irish-medium sector, we support groups to facilitate and promote integrated education. This group was set up specifically to look at the challenges of teaching through a second language. I await the outcome of the report. If the Member believes that I should set up another body to look at the challenges faced by the integrated sector in establishing more post-primary schools or if there is a lobby that believes that, I am more than happy to look at that.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

4. asked the Minister of Education for an update on the newbuild for Dromore Primary School. (AQO 5675/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I announced a newbuild for Dromore Central Primary School in June 2012, and an economic appraisal for a new school at a cost of £10·8m was approved on 23 May 2013. The new school is to be sited at Mossvale Road, and it is for a 20-classbase school to accommodate a projected long-term enrolment of 730 pupils. The new school will also have a further two special needs rooms. The design and construction procurement have advanced, and, on 11 December 2013, an invitation to tender was issued. Unfortunately, following the tender evaluation, the preferred bidder withdrew. The tender assessment for Dromore PS has been rerun, and a new contractor, Tracey Brothers, has been appointed. All parties are working towards the project being on site by the end of March or early April this year.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for confirming that construction will start in the near future. Will he outline whether there has been a successful conclusion to other site issues attached to the project?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

This particular build programme has proven to be quite challenging. I note that Mr Campbell's interest in the controlled sector is so much that he is leaving the room as we discuss a controlled sector school. That suggests that his interest is maybe not that keen.

The site of the new school has presented difficulties and challenges, including contaminated ground at the front of the site, underlying peat, the need to culvert an existing stream and the need for a pumping station owing to the site's topography. That has resulted in above-normal costs for external works associated with the site, including playing fields, flood alleviation works and remedial treatment for the contaminated land. All those issues have been taken into account and now form part of the design work. As I said, I hope that the contractors will be on site by the end of this month and certainly in April.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I welcome the fact that the Minister is continuing with the project of a new primary school in Dromore. As he well knows, it has been an ongoing issue for almost 15 years now, and the existing school is bursting at the seams. Can the Minister comment on the fact that the Southern Board underestimated the difficulties with the proposed site, and can he assure the House that the new contractors will continue with the project despite the difficulties with the site?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I cannot make specific comments about the challenges faced by the site. I understand that the initial tender had underestimated some of the construction required at the site, and that is why it withdrew. I am glad to say that that resulted in only a small delay to the project going on site.

Building programmes can prove to be very difficult; for example, you come across issues in site examinations that you may not have estimated in your initial appraisal of the area. The site has proved to be quite challenging, but I am glad to say that we have now overcome all the hurdles. We just need to get the contractors on site and start the school being built. Whatever lessons have to be learned from the project should be learned to ensure that the next project that we move to is put on site even more quickly.

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

5. asked the Minister of Education, in addition to his Department's advertising programme, what plans he has to involve parents more actively in all aspects of their children's education. (AQO 5676/11-15)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I fully recognise that parental involvement in children’s learning is a key factor in improving children’s academic attainment and achievements as well as their overall behaviour and attendance. That is reflected in the Department’s guide for boards of governors, which highlights the important role that governors have in ensuring that schools engage parents in their children's education and in the work of the school.

My Department has in place and will continue to implement various interventions to support parents to be actively involved in all aspects of their children’s education. Those include £2 million this year and in 2014-15 for a community education initiatives programme, which supports parents in communities with high levels of educational deprivation to get their children ready for school and supports them through all phases of their education; additional annual funding of £1·2 million through the extended-schools initiative for programmes to involve parents in their children’s learning and in school life; and an expansion of the Sure Start programme from the top 20% to the top 25% most disadvantaged wards to enable many more parents to become actively involved in their children’s educational, health and social development. I have also allocated £24·8 million in 2013-14 and £25·7 million in 2014-15 for the programme.

Regarding the nurture units that were recently launched, there is £420,000 this year and £490,000 next year for 10 units. Proposals in the special educational needs (SEN) framework also examine that matter, and the range of programmes and initiatives outlined will directly support parents in becoming and remaining actively involved in their child’s education.

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

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra. Ba mhaith liom ceist a chur air i dtaobh páistí nach bhfuil sé ar a gcumas freastal ar scoil agus ar mhaith leo ceachtanna a fháil tríd an chóras físe.

I thank the Minister for his answer. What progress is being made in respect of the demands of some parents whose children are confined to home and are unable to attend school? What progress is being made with regard to negotiations with the trade unions to ensure that distance learning can be engaged in by those children in their homes?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chomhalta as a cheist. I have established a working group consisting of the unions and the management side to overcome whatever difficulties or perceived difficulties there may be with some of the unions, particularly regarding Elluminate.

I believe that Elluminate is a very good resource. It is there to meet the needs of the children who, for whatever reason, cannot attend school and wish to be kept up to date with their education and, indeed, have a legal entitlement to be kept up to date with their education. I do not want to go into the detail of the discussions, because I believe that they are at a sensitive juncture at this time and that we are close to agreement on the matter. I wish everyone well in those discussions and hope that they come to a speedy resolution to ensure that the young people who require those services receive them in the future.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

Involving parents in children's education is obviously vital. When will the Minister allow the parents of the Newtownbreda and Knockbreda pupils to become involved in their children's education via the South Eastern Education and Library Board through the appointment of public representatives and political representatives to the board?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

That falls into the old equation of when or if the Education and Skills Authority (ESA) ever happens. I was set a Programme for Government target by the Executive to establish ESA. I have done everything within my power to establish it, yet ESA remains as elusive as ever. [Interruption.] There are some comments coming from Mr Storey, which I cannot make out, but I assume that they are not supportive of ESA.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Members should not debate across the Chamber. The Minister has the Floor.