Northern Ireland Assembly, 1 April 2014

463 contributions from 41 members. The official report.

Executive Committee Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I call the Minister of the Environment, Mr Durkan, to move the Further Consideration Stage of the Local Government Bill.

Moved. — [Mr Durkan (The Minister of the Environment).]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments, detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in my provisional grouping of amendments selected list.

There are four groups of amendments. We will debate the amendments in each group in turn. The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1 to 4, 18, 23 and 28, which deal with appointments, disqualifications and the code of conduct. The second debate will be on financial and technical issues, and it will address amendment Nos 5, 22, 24 to 27 and 30 to 34. The group 3 debate will be on amendment Nos 6 to 13 and 29, which deal with governance and decision-making. The fourth debate will be on amendment Nos 14 to 17 and 19 to 21, which deal with access to information and good relations. Members will note that a valid petition of concern has been tabled in relation to amendment No 19. Therefore, the vote on that amendment will be on a cross-community basis. Once the debate on each group is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 to 4, 18, 23 and 28, which deal with appointments to committees, disqualifications and appeals relating to a breach of the code of conduct.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I beg to move amendment No 1:In page 2, line 8, at end insert"(d) the House of Lords;".

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: In page 2, line 8, at end insert

"(e) the legislature of any other country,".— [Mr Allister.]

No 3: After clause 3 insert

"Disqualification of councillors for being independent members of policing and community safety partnerships

3A.—(1) The Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 is amended as follows.

(2) In Schedule 1, in paragraph 9 (disqualifications) after sub-paragraph (2) insert—

'(2A) A person is disqualified for being an independent member of a PCSP if that person is a councillor.'.

(3) In Schedule 2, in paragraph 9 (disqualifications), after sub-paragraph (2) insert—

'(2A) A person is disqualified for being an independent member of a DPCSP if that person is a councillor.'."— [Mr Elliott.]

No 4: In clause 4, page 2, line 14, at end insert

"(2) In section 4 of that Act, after subsection (1) insert

'(1A) The Department must by 30 September 2014 make an order under subsection (1)(a).'."— [Mr B McCrea.]

No 18: In clause 59, page 35, line 39, at end insert

"(10) An appeal under subsection (9) may be made

(a) against the suspension (or partial suspension);

(b) against the length of the suspension (or partial suspension).".— [Mr Durkan (The Minister of the Environment).]

No 23: After clause 117 insert

"Public bodies to support employees seeking election to council

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

In what is said to be a new start in local government, it is appropriate that we look at the qualifications required to sit as a councillor in the new arrangements. The Bill already makes a conscious and deliberate effort to deal with what has long been termed double-jobbing. It deals with it on the basis of prohibiting someone who is a Member of this House, the House of Commons or the European Parliament from also sitting as a councillor. I agree with that. I think that that is right. Whether double-jobbing actually created problems from time to time or whether it was indefensible in perception as well as reality, it is right that the House moved to deal with it. Of course, it is also in a wider context of dealing with double-jobbing in other fora.

The common denominator of the current exclusions in the Bill — MLAs, MPs and MEPs — is that all are members of a legislature. If that is the common justifying denominator, it raises the question of why we are not being all-inclusive in respect of the legislatures to which people can belong. That is why amendment No 1 raises the issue of extending the exclusion to the part of the legislature that is the House of Lords and why amendment No 2, on the same premise that it is undesirable to be part of a legislature and part of local government, would extend it to someone who might be or could be a member of a legislature outside of this country.

I do not think that there will or would be any great rush for peers to wish to enter local government, although we have had some notable peers who have given long service. One is Lord Morrow, who is not just a Member of this House and the House of Lords but a member of his council for many, many years. In truth, I do not think that there is likely to be a great rush of people wishing to be councillors and peers, but, if there is a principle involved, it is right to legislate consistently on that principle.

There may not be any great rush of, for example, members of the Southern Parliament who might be eligible to be councillors in Northern Ireland wishing to be councillors in Northern Ireland, but who can say? Theoretically, the TD for Louth Mr Adams, if he owns property in west Belfast — one appreciates that, on a working man's wage, it is, no doubt, difficult; it seems easier to own property in Donegal, but it might be difficult also to own property in west Belfast, who knows? — and was thereby eligible to be a councillor on Belfast City Council or was eligible by virtue of continuing to live in west Belfast, it would seem rather incongruous and, indeed, wrong that we would say to Members of this House, "You cannot be a member of your local council; you are prohibited from being a councillor", while someone who is a TD in another place in another country could be a councillor in the city of Belfast, for example. Therefore, it seems right and necessary that that anomaly is dealt with on the consistent and principled basis of disallowing dual mandates wherever they might be. If it is wrong that someone can be a Member of Parliament and a councillor, it equally would be wrong for them to be a TD and a councillor in Northern Ireland. You cannot logically rationalise all that, other than primarily on the basis that one should not have dual membership of a legislature and a local council. The same logic applies to the House of Lords, and that is the essential thrust that lies behind these two amendments.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. I completely agree with him on the logic of comparing the MP with the TD, for instance. There would be a bizarre loophole if you had a situation where one could be a Member of Parliament and be barred from being a councillor but that was allowable if you were a TD. I want to ask his opinion on what could be one slight flaw with the logic of including the House of Lords. Rightly, he talks about dual mandates, but membership of the House of Lords is not a mandate. Members are not elected by anybody, and membership is through appointment. Similarly, from the point of view of double-jobbing, in the strictest sense, it is not a salaried position; only expenses are given. Does that mean that there is a slight difference between membership of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons, in respect of which there is, rightly, a bar?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I do not think that, in truth, there is anything other than a marginal difference. The key issue is membership of a legislature and membership of a district council. Whether you are paid for the privilege of being a Member of the legislature or whether, as some might have said in times past, you have paid for the privilege of being a Member of the legislature, I do not think that it really matters. I think that what matters it is the fact that you are a Member of a legislature. That then throws up the spectre of the impossibility of being in two places at the one time. Yes, of course, there are dormant Members of the House of Lords, but there are some very active Members of the House of Lords. You cannot, on the one hand, say of a Member who appears only by name and does not go there, "Why can't they be a councillor?" and, on the other hand, say of an active Member of the House of the Lords, "They do not appear to have the time, and it would throw up a conflict". There has to be one rule for all. I do not think that the fact that they are not elected makes any difference. The fact that they are a Member of a legislature with time demands and other demands throws up the difficulty that the whole essence of the argument about double-jobbing was addressing. I do not think that it matters whether they are paid or unpaid. The common thread of all these propositions is that they are a Member, somewhere, of another legislature.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for giving way. I invite him to perhaps take an even stronger line than that which he has taken. That is because the sole source of legitimacy for people who were considering double-jobbing at one stage was that they had received a mandate from the people. So, had you been elected to a council, the Assembly or as a Member of Parliament, you could have said that the people had spoken and that that was the case. That argument does not hold for the House of Lords, where people are appointed, so they do not even have that legitimacy to fall back on. However, perhaps the Member might consider that they are part of the entire legislative framework in which they have oversight or different positions. That is a key point: we do not want the same person to have multiple roles. I will finish by saying that there is deep disquiet among the population about people who are apparently paid twice for doing the same job. That would be the case if you were in the House of Lords. I invite the Member to respond to that. My position, which I will put on record, is that I am strongly of the opinion that being in the House of Lords and being a councillor is not an acceptable proposition.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I suspect that he and I — certainly I — will never have to make that choice, but there we are.

I think that we have moved on from the argument about "Oh, I'm mandated to be in both". I think that that phoney argument has been put to bed. We have now arrived at a position that it is a matter for the House to examine whether the current position of banning MLAs, MEPs and MPs from holding dual mandates is sufficient and logically compatible with them being able to continue to be a member of a legislature in another guise, be it the House of Lords or a legislature in another country. If you define the principle as preventing dual membership of a legislature and local government, you will have drawn the right conclusion, and the ultimate outworking of that conclusion is these two amendments, which will copper-fasten that position. It is on that basis that I bring the amendments to the House.

I want to apologise to the House, in case this eventuality arises: for some time, I have had a meeting arranged with the roads Minister and some constituents at 12.00 noon today. It may be that I will not be able to stay until the end of the debate or will not be present for the anticipated winding-up speech. I apologise for that, but I feel that I have to fulfil the other obligation, given that people are travelling some distance to meet the Minister. Subject to that, I look forward to hearing out the debate.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

As Chair of the Environment Committee, I welcome the Further Consideration Stage of the Local Government Bill. I wish to comment on only two of the amendments in this group — amendment Nos 18 and 28 — as those were the only two policy areas where the Committee expressed a view in its report.

Amendment No 18 to clause 59 introduces grounds for a High Court appeal on interim decisions made by the Commissioner for Complaints. The Committee tabled an amendment on the issue, which was agreed by the Assembly at Consideration Stage, to introduce a provision for such an appeal. The Department has now advised the Committee that our original amendment did not specify the grounds for appeal, and amendment No 18 has been tabled to provide an appropriate level of consistency in that part of the Bill. On behalf of the Committee, I welcome the clarification provided by amendment No 18.

The Minister has written to the Committee to indicate his intention of revisiting the constitutional position of the Commissioner for Complaints. As he has stated in the House, no other ombudsman or commissioner for complaints in these islands is subject to appeal by the High Court, and, at Consideration Stage, he suggested that the adjudication function might be removed from the Commissioner for Complaints and become the responsibility of another body. The Committee accepts that it has not been possible to develop an alternative adjudication method in the period between Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage, but I ask the Minister to give that due consideration as early as possible and to keep the Committee informed of progress on the issue.

I now wish to comment on amendment No 28. The Committee tabled an amendment, which was carried at Consideration Stage, to ensure that the formula for appointment to committees may be run for all committee positions at once for the duration of the council term, on the basis of the number of seats that each party has immediately after an election. That amendment aimed to enable a fairer allocation of seats on committees to smaller parties and independent councillors, who otherwise might be excluded by the use of the quota greatest remainder process for each committee on an annual basis only. The Committee originally proposed to move an amendment to include the mechanism for implementing that in the Bill in the previous schedule 4 but agreed that it was content for the details to be included in subordinate legislation. The Department has now indicated to the Committee that it believes that amendment No 28 will provide greater flexibility to address issues connected with such an approach and that the arrangements would be specified as a mandatory element of a council’s standing orders in regulations using the enabling power provided by clause 37.

On behalf of the Committee, I ask the Minister to clarify what type of issues he envisages will require flexibility in determining how committee places in a council are allocated, particularly since he has not proposed that for dealing with joint committees, and why he does not support the greater control provided by subordinate legislation. Without a full and detailed explanation, I do not feel that the Committee can support the amendment, and members may prefer to proceed with the requirement for regulations, as specified by our original amendment.

With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I will speak briefly as a member of the Alliance Party. Alliance opposes double-jobbing and is content to support the amendments in the group, which are sensible extensions to Parliaments otherwise excluded. It is correct that it would not be appropriate to ban MPs from being councillors while allowing Members of the House of Lords and even TDs to double-job. The amendments, therefore, are sensible.

I will oppose amendment Nos 23 and 28. Amendment No 23 places a burden on the public sector that I do not think is reasonable and is open to abuse, such as paper candidates standing so that they can get the time off suggested in the amendment to help out other candidates from their party or to do general party work. I also feel that it places an unfair disadvantage on candidates who work in the private sector and would not have access to the same protections. Amendment No 28 —

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Yes, of course.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I will pick up a point about amendment No 23, which the Member has just mentioned. Is she aware of the Supreme Court's ruling on article 3 of the first protocol of the European Convention, which states that the phrasing of that article:

"was intended to give greater solemnity to the Contracting States’ commitment and to emphasise that this was an area where they were required to take positive measures as opposed to merely refraining from interference".

That is a ruling from the Supreme Court, based on the European Convention on Human Rights, so I am surprised that the Member will oppose such a clause.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for his intervention. We know that the Department is already considering allowing staff at certain grades in a council to stand for council elections, but we think that that may have gone too far. Amendment No 28 —

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

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Amendment No 23 deals with public bodies. It says:

"Public bodies to support employees seeking election to council".

It does not name the public bodies; it is public bodies at large. It is my view that that is over and beyond the remit of the Bill and certainly over and beyond the reach of the Department of the Environment, which is sponsoring the Bill. Therefore, it goes against the power of the Department in relation to this. If it was specifying bodies that came under the remit of the Department of the Environment, it might be different, but it is public bodies at large. Therefore, I submit that this is inappropriate in the context of the Bill.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you clarify that the legislation before us is not legislation pertaining to the Department of the Environment but legislation in general that the Northern Ireland Assembly is considering and that there should be no restriction to the detail that we put in the Bill?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

As the Member will know, there is limited scope to any Bill. However, it is up to the House to decide this morning, this afternoon or whenever what positions parties may take towards any amendment to the Bill. Yes, let us work within the scope of the Bill, but this is actually a local government Bill.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just for clarification, I agree that this is the Local Government Bill and that matters pertaining to local government and the appointment of councillors are within its remit.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The answer to that is yes. The Member is correct.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Yes.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Thank you.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Anna Lo. Sorry —

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

She has given way, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Yes, sorry.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Apologies, Mr Speaker. In presenting the opposition to this argument, would Ms Lo agree with me, however, that the law deals generously with those who are elected? Whether you are an employee of a public body or any employee in the United Kingdom, you have a legal right to time off to conduct public duties. In fact, those in the public sector are at a distinct advantage in that the trade unions have negotiated regularly that those in the public sector not only have the appropriate time off, which is generally more than what is set down in law, but in many circumstances have time off with pay. We are approaching this from a perspective where public sector employees are at quite an advantage once they are elected. There is no reason to suggest that we should create an uneven playing field as between the public and private sectors when standing for election.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank Mr Alban Maginness and my colleague Mr Dickson for further clarification on the issue.

Amendment No 28 from the Minister tries to place the method for nominating more than one committee into the standing orders of a council rather than regulation from the Minister. As much of the Bill is dedicated to the nomination and appointments procedure, it seems incongruous that the Minister should now seek to place responsibility for some procedures into councils' standing orders. We feel that it would be more appropriate to keep this in the hands of the Minister acting as a supervisor rather than of the councils themselves, so we will oppose it.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to speak in the Further Consideration Stage of the Local Government Bill. I will be brief and will get directly to the points.

Sinn Féin supports amendment Nos 1 and 2, as outlined by their proposer. As a party, we have had a long-standing view that there should be no double-jobbing, and these amendments close a gap in the legislation.

Amendment No 3 introduces a new clause to disqualify councillors from being independent members of the PCSPs. Given that PCSPs were constituted on the basis of elected and independent groupings that were distinct and separate, I believe that, if we were to examine the make-up of some existing PCSPs, we could find potential conflicts of interest. The amendment will ensure that the independent integrity of such bodies is protected, so we support it.

We are also happy to support amendment Nos 4 and 18. We have some reservations about amendment No 23. I understand the rationale of the sponsors of this amendment, but its introduction could create inequalities by giving preferential treatment to those who work in the public sector, which would lead to unfair advantage. For that reason, we do not support the amendment.

We are still in listening mode about the amendments that I have not touched on.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am glad to be able to take part in the debate, and I am glad to see us at this stage. Some of the speeches so far bode well for the length of time it will take us to get through this stage. Harmony has broken out, although I am not sure how long it will last. We can get through this a lot more quickly than the last time and with a bit less blood on the floor.

This is a very important piece of legislation, and I intend to focus my remarks on amendment Nos 1 and 2 from Mr Allister in this group. I am happy to support both amendments. There is good reason for the House of Lords not being included, and the arguments about its members not being elected or paid were made. However, I am convinced that there is no good reason to exclude the House of Lords from the effort to end double-jobbing. It has to be said that Mr Attwood, when he was Minister of the Environment, moved quickly to end any financial reward for people who sit as councillors and MLAs. That was the right thing to do. We in this House all have enough to do, and, if we were councillors, would have to do two jobs at the same time. I think that the public very clearly understand that we are put here to do a job and should be fully focused on it. Minister Durkan has moved in this Bill to enshrine the principle that we should end double-jobbing. By 2015, we will be fully there. Therefore, the amendment makes a lot of sense to me. Some people will say that people in the Lords are not paid. However, we found out recently that some of them travel quite a distance, go into work for two minutes and then go home again, with their expenses in their pocket. Clearly, people are gaining financial benefit and reward from being a Member of the House of Lords. Being a councillor is a difficult enough job, as anyone who has been a councillor understands. If you are doing your job properly, it is more than a full-time job. Those responsibilities will increase in the coming months, with the new legislation. We want to ensure that councillors, many of whom will have other jobs as well, are focused as much as possible on their job as a local representative.

Equally, I see no reason why we would oppose amendment No 2. Although we have, in the past, had members of local councils in the North sit as Members of Seanad Éireann, the authorities in the Republic have moved to ensure that Members of the Oireachtas can no longer be members of a local authority. Therefore, it makes perfect sense for us to bring in the same legislation. However, as part of us accepting that, we are very glad to see that the Irish people in the Twenty-six Counties have rejected the referendum proposal that Seanad Éireann be abolished. We would far rather see it be reformed. We would far rather see the people on this side of the border who regard themselves as Irish citizens have an opportunity to play a fuller role in the democratic life of the island. We would love to see a situation where there was a more democratic and open opportunity for Northern Irish citizens to play their part, at least in the Seanad. That is a position that we continue to hold. We would love those people to play their full part in Seanad Éireann, and not have a role as a councillor in a Northern council at the same time. The argument has been well made by Mr Allister. It is not often that we agree on many amendments — sometimes — but this makes perfect sense, and we are happy to support it.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I suppose that Mr Eastwood set the scene by saying that we do not want to get into any serious conflict, and I would dare any of us to do that.

The first two amendments, from Mr Allister, are on an issue that has exercised Members, not only of this House but of other places. The issue is not just dual mandates but, at times, multiple mandates. We have discussed that on several occasions, and I fully support the principle and ethos behind those proposed amendments. It is important that elected representatives to any House or Chamber give it their full commitment. People often question the commitment of some people in this House and some people in the Houses of Parliament at Westminster, whether it is the Commons or the Lords. They question whether they are giving their full commitment or whether they have too many other attractions that divert them from giving that commitment. A realisation is coming quickly, particularly in this House, that people need to give their full commitment.

It would be remiss of me not to point out to the proposer of the amendment that amendment No 1 would mark a significant move away from the rest of the United Kingdom. There is no harm in that; I do not disagree with that, but it is right to point out that in no other area in the United Kingdom will a Member of the House of Lords be banned from being a councillor; therefore, we are moving away. The NIO recently rejected the opportunity to stop Members of the House of Lords also being Members of the Assembly. Indeed, Members of the House of Lords can be Members of the European Parliament, but, if this goes through, they will not be permitted to be members of a local council in Northern Ireland. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with that, but we just need to be mindful of it. Maybe there is a responsibility on us in the Assembly to bring forward further legislation to stop that happening between the Lords and the Assembly. I do not know whether that is within our remit, but it is an issue that we can look at further.

Turning to amendment No 3, the Ulster Unionist Party's amendment, we have witnessed in recent months that a number of independent members of policing and community safety partnerships have become councillors. I believe that that is a significant issue. Mr Milne indicated that, if you dig down into the independent members, there may be a number who have a conflict of interest. That not only applies to independent members but elected members. We need to be mindful of that. You are never going to mitigate that totally, but we need to move as far away as possible from that conflict of interest. We want to provide separation so that independent members are, as far as possible, independent. I welcome the support that we have had for that proposal.

I move to amendment No 28 from the Minister and the Department, which changes "Regulations" to "Standing orders" on the appointment of more committees. Obviously, we are attracted to that to some degree, simply because we feel that each council may want to put forward its own committees and it allows the flexibility to do that without having to make regulations and do it for all councils. However, we are still open and will listen to the debate on that. I heard other Members discuss the issue. Therefore, we will judge that as it comes forward. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say on it.

Turning to amendment No 23 from NI21, we have concerns about it giving a distinct advantage to people who run for office and who work in the public sector. I have some concerns with the wording of the amendment, which states:

"A public body, other than a council, must to the extent that it is reasonably practicable, support and facilitate any employee".

I am concerned that it would give those employees support, whereas others who are running for office may not have that support.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. I intend to listen to the debate on this amendment, although I certainly support the spirit of it and would be minded to support it. Does the Member recognise that, currently, the disadvantage lies with workers in the public sector and that this is a positive action to try to overcome that? At this point, there is not the same barrier to standing for election in the private sector as exists in the public sector. Therefore, positive action is required.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for that intervention. However, I am sure that he will appreciate that I do not accept his argument. Indeed, some in the private sector do not allow their employees to run for local councils or any elected office, sometimes because there is a conflict of interest.

Obviously, I do not accept that argument per se. I understand the spirit of the proposal, but I am concerned that it would give a distinct advantage to people in the public sector. I know a number of councillors who work in the public sector, and they certainly do not say to me that they feel at a disadvantage at any stage, either when contesting an election or when elected. They just do not feel that they are at any disadvantage. Indeed, I know that, in some areas of the public sector, there is quite a bit of flexibility and time off to allow them to carry out their duties. I do not feel that there is such a disadvantage.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. It is slightly strange that people are responding to our amendment before we have had a chance to make the case for it. Does Mr Elliott think that it is a good idea, in principle, that all who wish to put themselves forward for local council should be permitted to do so? That is my first question.

My second question relates to the point brought up by Mr Agnew. Surely, given the significant number of councillors and others looking to stand for council in the forthcoming elections, there will be some, to his knowledge, with whom someone has had a word and said that there are potential conflicts of interest because they are in the public sector. Surely, there will have been some instances when people have been advised, "I would not do that if I were you." Surely that is reprehensible, and that is the disadvantage that, I believe, Mr Agnew is talking about, and I concur with him. I will develop that point later in my contribution. Does Mr Elliott recognise that there is some potential in that argument?

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank Mr McCrea for that. There is disadvantage in both the private and public sectors at times. I have been aware — more so in the private sector than the public sector — of when there has been a whisper in somebody's ear, "We would prefer that you did not run for council or indeed for the Assembly because there may be a conflict of interest." I have not been as aware of it in the public sector, but I will take his word that it happens.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. I take on board what has been said by Mr McCrea and others. I agree with Mr Elliott that, at times, there appear to be conflicts of interest and indeed barriers. Sometimes, they are higher in the private sector than in the public sector. Say, for example, someone works for a firm that has a contractual relationship with the council or hopes to become, at some stage, a supplier to the council. There would be a lot of pressure in that firm for that person not to sit on the council because it could be seen as a conflict of interest or even a bar.

In a previous life, the Enterprise Minister would have been ruled out automatically. Also, a former chairman of the Ulster Unionist Party, Mr Cooper, would have been completely ruled out of being a member of Fermanagh District Council because his private firm was the council solicitors. That direct conflict of interest meant that he was barred from even running for council. In many ways, therefore, the barriers of conflicts of interest are for private firms. Certainly, the opportunity for an employee to have additional time off is, if anything, much greater in the private sector than in the public sector.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I accept the points made by Mr Weir. What we are trying to do is get a balance. I am sure that Mr McCrea is trying to do so as well, but I do not believe that the amendment provides that balance. I welcome the debate and discussion because I think that it is important that, where possible, people should be allowed the freedom to exercise their right to run for elected office. However, we must realise that we live in a very close-knit society, and it must be accepted that there will be conflicts of interest. On some occasions, it will not be possible for people to run for office. I hope that those occasions will be very limited. In some cases, in the private and public sectors, that opportunity will not be there for some people. That is very unfortunate, but it is just a part of life.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I appreciate the Member's giving way. I will talk about the issue in more detail later, but I want to put it to Mr Elliott, and on the record, that I am aware of an employee of Invest NI who would like to stand for council. He has told his superiors in the line of command that he would like to stand. He has been advised not to stand — not that they could stop him — because, the minute that he puts his name forward, there will be all sorts of conflicts of interest. He has said, "I am quite happy to manage conflicts of interest, because conflicts of interest are something that I have", but he has been spoken to. Surely that is not a good idea, given that his role does not in any way impinge on local government and would be below the threshold of what is proscribed. That is but one example, and I will quote several more. Surely that situation goes against the Supreme Court ruling that you can stop people's democratic right to stand for election. I just wondered how we might deal with that.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Clearly, I appreciate the information that Mr McCrea gave, but he will understand that I will not comment without knowing the exact case. What I will say, however, is that I am aware of people who have been told or advised, or to whom it has been suggested, that they should not stand. In some cases, they accepted that advice, but, in other cases, they did not, and, after going ahead with standing for council, they got elected. I know that it has not been any inhibitor whatsoever to one person in particular. I am not saying that they defied the suggestions, because they were only suggestions. They said that, on balance, they were going to contest the election, which they did, and they won a seat. I have never heard of it being an inhibitor to them. In fact, what they bring to the table is, quite often, very helpful and useful. There does not appear to be a huge conflict of interest. On occasion, those people will have to sit out of meetings, but that is accepted by us all. Indeed, from being on a council, I know, as will anybody else here who has been on a council, that, on occasion, such people had to sit out of meetings.

That is where we are on those amendments.

First, I will deal with Mr Allister's amendment, which absolutely amazes me, to say the least. For a long, long time, Sinn Féin has agitated that Northern Ireland must be a different place from any other region of the United Kingdom and that, if you sit in a House in the United Kingdom, you cannot sit on a council. They did not table such an amendment, so I suspect that they will be ever grateful to Mr Allister, because he has done that for them.

It is strange that the House wants to ensure that the legislation that we put through to govern our councils is different from the legislation in England, Scotland and Wales. In England, Scotland and Wales, you can be a member of a council, but if you are in the one other region of the United Kingdom, you are different, and you will not be allowed to sit on a council.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yes.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Does the Member accept that we are already different from England, Scotland and Wales? I have here Electoral Commission guidance for candidates and agents in local elections in Scotland. The guidance outlines that the second disqualification concerns politically restricted posts. So, Scotland, Wales and England have politically restricted posts, yet Northern Ireland has no such thing. So, we are already different from other parts of the United Kingdom.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yes, but the point that I am trying to make is that you can become a member of a council in England, Scotland and Wales, but, if this is passed today, you could not do so in Northern Ireland.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Thanks for giving way. Without having the particular guidance that Mr McCrea has in front of him, I do not know whether there is going to be a swathe of NI21councillors across Scotland to look forward to — perhaps Mr McCrea aims to get the boat from Larne to stand there — but he referred to the issue of politically sensitive posts. That is one of the things where we have a difference, as mentioned in this legislation, which is that we have a blanket ban on any council employees becoming councillors. As part of the legislation, we are adjusting that to allow for a change to take place. However, there will, in effect, still be a ban on those in what may be described as "politically sensitive" posts becoming councillors, ie those at a high enough level in the council. So, on that point, we are, arguably, moving towards the rest of the United Kingdom. As the Member indicated, though, on the issue of disqualification of the House of Lords, we are actually moving away from the practice in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Member makes an excellent point, and for me to say anything further on it might just detract from it. So, I thank him for making that point.

I ask the House to give due consideration before following Mr Allister's line on this and give some thought as to why. I know that Sinn Féin — and the SDLP, maybe to a lesser extent, but certainly Sinn Féin — will be absolutely delighted with this amendment. Is it any wonder that they were full of praise for it? I suppose that, in a way, they are kicking themselves for missing it, but they depended on Mr Allister picking it up and he has succeeded in doing so.

In relation to amendment No 2, I understand where he is coming from. I certainly feel that we, as a party, will and should support it.

Let me be very clear in relation to Mr Eastwood. The DUP has led on the phasing out of what has now become known as double-jobbing. I have never heard as subtle an attack on a party leader. He attacked his own party leader in the most subtle way. We always were told that Mr Eastwood had aspirations to one day be the SDLP leader. It may be that he is making his bid early and saying, "Look, this is the time to get rid of Dr Alasdair McDonnell".

He was very critical — absolutely scathing — of those who are double-jobbing, and he obviously had his own leader in mind when he was doing that. Who else could he have had in mind? However, that is an internal fight that the SDLP has to sort out at its next party conference or something, and maybe it will put Mr Eastwood in as leader now that he has taken on that mantle.

In relation to the other clause that —

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for giving way before he leaves amendment Nos 1 and 2. Given that he also sits in the House of Lords, has the Member any indication as to why the NIO did not take on the matter of Members of the House of Lords not being allowed to sit in other Parliaments and, for example, in the Assembly here? I understand that it was raised but the Government indicated that, for some reason, it was not appropriate to do it. I wonder whether he has any information.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

No, I am sorry that I cannot assist the Member on that because the NIO works in mysterious ways its wonders sometimes to perform. Anyone who can get to the bottom of the NIO will be an absolute genius, because the mandarins in the NIO work in a way that is totally alien to what any of the rest of us does. So, I am sorry, Mr Elliott; I do not say it disrespectfully to you but respectfully that you should go direct to them and ask for an answer in relation to that.

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

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Member give way again?

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Right, OK.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his patience. As a follow-up, is the Member aware of councillors of other jurisdictions who sit in the House of Lords? If so, can he give us any indication of how many?

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

No. I think that the House of Lords has almost 1,000 Members or thereabouts. It is a disparate House. Your colleagues may have the time to go into all of that and size that out for you, Mr Elliott. However, in relation to this amendment that has been put down today, I am not appealing from a selfish point of view. I no longer sit on a council, although I did so for nearly 40 years.

Who put me there? We were elected. Some of us still believe in the democratic process. Some of us believe that people being elected should not be dictated by legislation. Let the people have their say. Let democracy reign. Let it run. We have had enough of democracy being stifled in Northern Ireland. Here is another attempt to do it, which is regrettable. That is why my party will oppose the amendment, not because I am a member of the House of Lords. I am not now a member of any local council, but, given its position, the House of Lords is an unpaid, unsalaried position, and it is ironic that —

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

Will the Member give way?

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I will in a moment or two.

It is ironic that this matter should now be the subject of an amendment by no less a person than Mr Allister.

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

I do not know what happened in Armagh, but when the Member's party colleague spoke earlier, she indicated that the DUP would not cause a Division on this amendment.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am sorry, I did not hear the Member say that, but our party will oppose this amendment. We have made that quite clear from day one.

Mr McCrea and Mr McCallister tabled amendment No 23, and there is an inequality in it. We hear much about equality. Everybody has become possessed and obsessed with equality, and here is an amendment that runs contrary to that. However, I am sure that Mr McCrea will, in his own lucid way, explain it in great detail so that nobody will be in any doubt that it should not be adopted. His proposed amendment No 23 suggests a new clause 117A:

"(a) offering unpaid leave for the three-week period prior to local government elections;

(b) actively seeking to overcome perceived conflicts of interest."

Will Mr McCrea clarify whether he would extend that to everybody, or whether it is just for the privileged few who will, on one day, be gamekeeper and, on the next day, be poacher? As a party, we have a problem with that, and it needs to be thought out very clearly.

I was in council for a number of years, and, for some of those years, I was also self-employed, I was a Member of this House, and I was a member of the House of Lords. I know, to some extent, the stresses and strains that that can put on you. However, I want Mr McCrea to be explicit: why is he singling out those who are to be offered unpaid leave for the three-week period prior to local government elections? Would that extend to others who are in paid employment and are employees? Will that regulation also apply to them? I do not think that that will be helpful. I believe that that will act as a deterrent as to who would go forward for local government elections because employers will have a problem and will say, "This will cost me money, interfere with and interrupt my business, and it may be difficult".

I think that what should happen is what does happen. Most people in public life — I am talking particularly about councillors — were there in their spare time, and, for many years, it was an unpaid position. I recognise that there are calls on your time that are not always possible to manage, but the greater percentage of councillors — I am talking about people from all the political parties and not singling out or leaving out any one party — were there for one motive and reason, which was to provide a service to the community that they represented.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Right, OK.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Is the Member aware of the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Ahmed and others, which deals with people who were councillors in other areas who wanted to challenge the law? The outcome — this is the scope of the matter — was that Mr Ahmed was unable to stand for elected office. Mr Perrin and Mr Bentley had to resign their respective positions and could no longer canvass for their wives in local elections, and Mr Brough could no longer act as chairman of his political party. The issue is not that it is a simple thing; it is about the knock-on effects on people who stand for election. Surely that requires some form of protection in that you may say that the individual has some responsibility, but we all have families and we would all like to support them.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I think that the Member is missing the point that I am trying to make. Does he not understand that this will be a deterrent to people standing for local government elections rather than an encouragement to them? That is the point that I am trying to make, and it is one of the reasons why we will not support this amendment. We cannot because we want people in local government who are there for the right reason: to serve their communities. I have said before that I believe that most, if not all, parties are doing that. Their members put themselves forward to serve their local communities, to work on community issues and to drive forward their communities and make them better.

No one will take the chance if the legislation says that their employee must do x, y and z. That is fine, Mr McCrea, but the real world tells us something different. People are not going to go into an environment or scenario where, potentially, their job is at stake and they cannot give their full commitment to their job. I will reinforce the point: council members worked mostly in their spare time. It was never envisaged, I believe, that being a councillor would be a full-time job. That is what brought very good people forward who represented their communities for many years.

I will be interested to hear what Mr McCrea has to say. As I have given way to him, I am sure that he will be gracious enough to me as he normally is, in fairness to him.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Today's debate will, hopefully, be a little bit shorter than the two days that we spent on the Bill's Consideration Stage. There are seven amendments in this group, three of which have some level of controversy. I will deal with the other four amendments first.

The Minister's amendment, amendment No 18, seems to be a relatively sensible consequential amendment off the back of the amendments that were proposed by the Committee and accepted by the House. Therefore, I have no problem with amendment No 18.

Similarly, with amendment No 2, which was tabled by Mr Allister, I can see the logic in what he is saying about creating a certain level of level playing field between nations. It would seem a little odd, to use his example, that if Mr Adams was to become a councillor here he could not do so in the Republic of Ireland. Indeed, while he was an MLA he could not become a councillor. The analogy slightly breaks down because Mr Adams did not show a great deal of interest in this House when he was an MLA; I cannot imagine that he would be particularly keen on lowering himself to being a councillor. Nevertheless, the general principle of amendment No 2 is one that we would find acceptable.

I will wait to hear what will be said about amendment No 4, which was tabled by NI21, but it seems, on the face of it, to be a reasonably sensible amendment. I will wait until Mr McCrea has spoken because I may well change my mind and go against it on that basis. Certainly, however, on the basis of what has been put forward, which is to do with producing an order, it is a follow-through on intentions indicated by the Department, which seems to be relatively sensible.

Similarly, although there has been a little bit of discussion on it, amendment No 3, tabled by the Ulster Unionists, seems to be a reasonably sensible amendment. We have seen in a number of places, even in my constituency and council area — and the individuals have done no wrong — people who have been members of district policing partnerships (DPPs) and PCSPs who then, because a vacancy has arisen, have become a councillor. There should not be any bar on that person becoming a councillor. However, it does slightly undermine the principle that an independent can be somebody who is linked with a political party but has no links at all, but that there is a differentiation when that person becomes a councillor. With applications, that happened in the past, but I am not sure if anybody actually held the post.

Previously, in DPPs, there was nothing to stop a councillor who had not been selected by their council as a council representative from applying as an independent, and, on at least one occasion, that person was appointed. So, it actually happened the other way round. That seems to me to very much go against the spirit of the intention of setting up a mixture —

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for giving way. He is absolutely right in the points that he is making. The guidance for application to the policing and community safety partnerships goes some way, but not the entire way, to prohibiting this. The spirit is there but the rules are not there to stop it, and that is what we are trying to do.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Possibly in light of what has happened in the past, the door is starting to be closed but has been left ajar at present. That clearly is an anomaly, and, for example, if someone who is a member of a PCSP becomes a councillor because of a vacancy, it seems to me reasonably sensible for that person to then vacate their post as a member of the PCSP.

I was involved a long time ago in selections of people for local policing partnerships through the DPP. I assume that the general selection process is the same. Normally, when selections are made in various areas, there are then categories of substitutes that are willing. In north Down, when a couple of vacancies occurred, substitutes were put on to the DPP and, presumably, could also be put on to the PCSP. It would not leave the PCSP at a disadvantage because someone of a similar background can fill that post. So, amendment No 3 seems relatively sensible in closing an anomaly that is there.

I will turn to the other amendments. Lord Morrow has given great detail on amendment No 1, and I do not want to add a great deal to that. The slightly wider issue is Members of the House of Lords being Members of the Assembly, and, to the best of my knowledge, that has happened in Wales and Scotland, where Members of the House of Lords have also been Assembly Members and MSPs. So, a further level of extension would simply take us further away from the United Kingdom.

There is an argument about anomalies with the issue of disqualification on dual mandate, and a certain amount of anomalies are there at present. The argument made some time ago was that, if we are effectively barring people from the idea of getting two wages or salaries, should we almost go to the far end of Basil McCrea's amendment and say that it would also be wrong for anybody who is working for the public sector? There is arguably a direct conflict of interest there.

When I was on North Down Borough Council, because of the somewhat unusual seating arrangements at that stage, I sat with a member from another party who worked for the public sector and was a highly paid consultant. I suspect that that person largely made their money from the private sector but may well have been on a five- or six-figure salary from the public purse. There seemed to be no problem with double wages in that case, yet there was with the idea of a dual mandate. I perfectly accept that, and I think that that is an anomaly.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I will give way in a moment. I see Mr Agnew looking to intervene.

I perfectly accept that there should not be a bar on anybody from the public sector in that regard. Therefore, if you are to have a bar on the basis of dual mandate and somebody being elected to two positions and salaried from that point of view, you have to recognise that that is not the case with the House of Lords. It is a slightly grey area, and I appreciate the logic, from a legislative point of view, that Mr Allister outlined. I am not particularly persuaded by that argument.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I thank Mr Weir for giving way. On his point about sitting beside a member on the council who may have had other interests, does the Member agree that, at least, those interests would be transparent? We could have the situation where a member is sitting on a council judging on a planning decision and his party is receiving donations, and we would not know about that, but, with other job appointments, at least, we have transparency.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

It is good to see that Mr Agnew is sticking to the point on this issue and dragging in a certain level of irrelevancies. The reality is that the interests of the person who was sitting beside me were not necessarily transparent. He was a highly paid consultant, and his wage was, presumably, part private and part public. I did not know what level of wage it was. It is a fair assumption that if someone is a senior consultant, they will be in receipt of a fairly substantial wage, but his wage was not transparent. [Interruption.] I hear references behind me to legal aid barristers. I hope that is not a subtle dig at me, Mr Givan. I will give way to Mr McCrea.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I take the point that Mr Weir has said, but he will be aware that there are provisions for people who have conflicts of interests in a wide area of local government to declare them openly and transparently and to absent themselves if they are dealing with any particular issue. So, I have sympathy with the point that he raises, if there is no transparency.

However, let us say that they could deal with the transparency by ensuring that people had to declare an interest. Could he take the opposite argument that many people would have an interest in government, as is their right as a citizen under article 10, and they would wish to get involved in the democratic process, but because they are seeking to win business from a local authority, the public purse or some other way, they would be deterred from doing that for fear that that might influence the award of such a grant?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I take on board that point, which, to be fair, is a very good argument against amendment No 23, because he is saying that there are strong bars to somebody in the private sector potentially becoming a councillor, and that is to say that we need to shift the playing field to make it a lot easier for those in the public sector to get involved in it while doing nothing about the private sector.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I will give way in a moment. He makes the argument very persuasively against amendment No 23, and I thank him for that contribution. The point that I am making about council representation is that there is a degree of logical inconsistency as to where we draw the line on disqualification. However, there is a logical, defensible position where someone has a mandate that they should not have a dual mandate where, as part of that mandate, they are in receipt of two salaries from the public purse. That is not the case with the House of Lords. That is where there is a flaw.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for giving way. Many people have spoken, including the Member, about the fact that there is an acknowledgement that there are at least some anomalies — I think that was the word that people used — and different levels of disadvantage. The principal argument seems to be, "Well, there is disadvantage, but there is more disadvantage over here." Would the Member be supportive of a proposition to increase the democratic remit of this place and others to have a general encouragement? In other words, if we were able to overcome the issues in the private sector that he raised, would he be supportive of such an amendment?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

No. Putting forward parts of legislation that talk about a general encouragement does not strike me as being the appropriate way to use law. We had a debate yesterday — there can be different views on different aspects of this — on the issue of trying to ensure that there are more females in the Senior Civil Service. One issue raised, which I agreed with and highlighted in my speech — I think that it was Ms Fearon who raised it — was that mentoring is useful for that. Mentoring is a form of encouragement. It is a particular action that can be taken.

General encouragement is not something that you legislate for. We seem to have moved from amendment No 1 to amendment No 23, which strikes me as a poor amendment. It is not particularly sensible to say, "We have a poor amendment aimed at encouraging people from public bodies. If we balance it out with another poor amendment encouraging people from private bodies, it will create some level of balance."

To finish on amendment No 1, the point I am making is that, if you apply a purely logical point of view, it is difficult to draw an entirely logical and consistent position on who should be disqualified in respect of mandates and who should not. If the best logical definition concerns those with a direct dual mandate who have been elected by the people and receive two salaries as a result, and if that is the dividing line, the House of Lords would fall outside it. That is why I am not entirely persuaded by what Mr Allister has said, notwithstanding his eloquent words about the definition of a legislature.

I move to amendment No 23 and the points that Mr Elliott and Lord Morrow made. Mr McCrea mentioned the legal cases and the bar in England. That issue is being dealt with elsewhere. Amendment No 23 is not about a bar on people being elected. There will not be a single person qualified or disqualified from standing for election as a result of this amendment because it does not go to the issue of disqualification. The Minister is tackling those issues in other ways in the Bill and, to some extent, amendment No 4 also deals with it.

There is a point of view that, if this does not pass, it will leave us legally vulnerable. I contest that and take the opposite view, because this does not go to the issue of disqualification. It does not prevent anybody from running. Indeed, one might make the argument that, because it gives particular provision and additional help to those employed by public bodies, but does not afford similar provision to private employers in actively seeking to overcome perceived conflicts of interest or offering three-week periods of leave, it creates a certain level of advantage for somebody in a public body who is running, as opposed to someone from a private body. It accentuates that difference.

If the amendment were equality-proofed, I suspect that it would not pass muster on the grounds that it gives an advantage to a particular group. As has been mentioned, there are already some provisions by which public bodies seek to accommodate their employees, but the idea that the onus is placed on the public sector body to actively seek to overcome perceived conflicts of interest is going a step too far. From that point of view, I am not sure that amendment No 23 is good law.

Finally, I turn to amendment No 28, which proposes to leave out "Regulations" and insert "Standing orders". Essentially, that arose from a Committee amendment. I think that it had been acknowledged that the Department had not really given proper consideration to the grouping of committees to produce a fair result. In effect, the wording of the legislation would have been interpreted to mean that it would be open to councils to simply repeat the exercise again and again, with the result that various parties would be excluded or, in some cases, over-represented. It would not simply have been the case that larger parties would have been over-represented. Because of the quirks of the quota greatest remainder process, you could have a situation in which some smaller parties would be over-represented, with the slightly larger parties not being given their fair share.

I think that it was opposed by the Minister, but the House passed the amendment that provided for regulations. Although quite technical, regulations of a common form could deal with that problem. This is an issue that, from a practical point of view, is dealt with in the Assembly; we have a formula that allows a distribution of Committee seats among the parties. That is, essentially, what is envisaged here. That might run to one or two pages in regulations. It will require a certain level of technical work, but I have to say that that situation is massively preferable to one in which that highly technical work is effectively devolved to 11 individual councils. We would be asking 11 councils to look at the issue separately and try to reinvent the wheel. Indeed, putting slightly different provisions in place runs the risk of having different interpretations of how that is done.

It is accepted that one of the issues with the local government legislation is the balance between what is prescribed by the Assembly and what is left to local government. We always try to strike a balance. However, it strikes me that, on those sorts of issues, we have consistently taken the view that the Assembly should set the rules. In the schedules, for example, we have a specific formula for how the d'Hondt mechanism should be applied across all the councils. I appreciate that, for various reasons, not everyone in the House is a fan of d'Hondt. However, it strikes me as perfectly sensible that, if we have d'Hondt, it is applied consistently and to the same formula across all the councils.

Similarly, even if the quota greatest remainder system in schedule 2 were to be applied to just one committee, it would be done on the basis of an exact formula that is applied across all 11 councils. So, other than simply ensuring that the Department of the Environment is spared a little bit of work, it seems ludicrous that we create a third leg in the tripod by saying that the formula, which distributes across a range of committees how we apply the quota greatest remainder mechanism, should simply be left to the standing orders to be individually drafted by each of the 11 councils. Even if councils were all of the same mind, the same task would be done 11 times by at least 11 different people. That would run the risk of having variations on the formula, which could suit one area or another and could be used for particular purposes, as opposed to having a common formula approved in regulations by the House. That seems to me to be very much in the spirit of what was proposed by the Committee and, indeed, eminently sensible. I see no good reason for amendment No 28, and I urge the House to reject it.

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

I intend to be brief in relation to the first group of amendments.

My colleague Mr Eastwood referred to amendment Nos 1 and 2 and our support for them. We see those amendments as a logical outworking of our previous decisions on double-jobbing in councils and, indeed, consistent with the decision by Dáil Éireann to outlaw it in the Republic. Therefore, supporting amendment Nos 1 and 2 is a consistent political position, and I reiterate what Mr Eastwood said about them.

Amendment No 3 was tabled by the Ulster Unionists. As a party, the SDLP has sympathy for that amendment and supports the aim of that provision. However, as Members may know, there is a review of the membership of the policing and community safety partnerships. I respectfully put forward the view that it is inappropriate for us to be dealing with that proposition in the context of this Bill. It is primarily a justice issue and more properly addressed by the Department of Justice and, incidentally, the Justice Committee.

Therefore, for that reason, we are unable to support the Ulster Unionist amendment, despite the fact that we have sympathy with its aim and objective.

The Minister tabled amendment No 18, and we are happily supportive of it. It is a logical outworking of the amendment that the Justice Committee previously tabled. So, we are supportive of this consequential amendment. However, I repeat the criticisms that I made at Consideration Stage about the amendments of the Justice Committee and other colleagues when I said that the position of the ombudsman is constitutional. It should be recognised in law, and we should be supportive of it. I believe that the way in which the House has chosen to deal with the proposition on the ombudsman undermines the constitutional position of the ombudsman. There may well have to be — I think that the Minister indicated this — a separation of the investigative power of the ombudsman from the adjudication function. That may have to be made by way of regulation or —

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

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

Yes, indeed.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I have some sympathy, although I have expressed the view that, at times, the ombudsman is being a little bit precious. Given the concerns that were raised and that the way of dealing with this was a separation of the powers — this is more directed towards the Minister than to you, Mr Maginness — why were amendments not tabled to separate them at Further Consideration Stage? Presumably, that would have been the neater way of doing it, rather than, at some future date, looking at whether some form of regulations will be needed.

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

With respect to my colleague Mr Weir, I think that that is a matter that is more appropriately addressed by the Minister than me. I claim many things in the House but I do not claim ministerial status. It would be totally inappropriate for me to comment on that interesting point. I am sure that the Minister will address that issue in due course.

We are supportive of the ministerial amendment. It is a logical outworking of the House's decision at Consideration Stage.

Amendment No 23, which NI21's Mr McCrea and his colleague Mr McCallister tabled, is problematical. I think that we are dealing here with public bodies that are outside the remit of the Department of the Environment. I do not think that it is not appropriate for this provision to be in the Bill.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. The Speaker has already ruled that this is the Local Government Bill and that it is entirely appropriate for me to raise these points. So, the Member is not correct in saying that it is outside the remit of the Department of the Environment.

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

I hear Mr McCrea's point. I, as a Member of the House, do not believe that it is appropriate. I accept Mr McCrea's point, but my personal opinion is that it is not appropriate for us to deal with this issue in the context of the Bill when it applies to public bodies at large. Quite apart from that, there is evident disagreement in the House on the merits of this proposition. I am not saying whether I agree with this or not, but one of the arguments put forward is that it creates inequality for people who are not employed in the public sector.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for giving way. On Mr McCrea's point, far be it from me to speak for the Speaker, but I think that the Speaker said that Members are, of course, entitled to put down any amendment in the House and Members are then entitled to vote on it. That does not equate to meaning that this is the best place for that amendment. That is the difference between the Speaker and Mr McCrea on this matter.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you need to rule on this. The Speaker has already given an indication that this is the Local Government Bill. When I asked him, he responded with clarity that I was, in fact, correct, as the official record will show.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Let me say this: I do not think that either your first point or the latter point were new points of order. The Speaker stated the situation as it is. The Member who is currently speaking has made it clear that he was expressing his own perspective, and, within that, there is no valid cause for concern for any Member. Let us stick to the debate. There was no challenge or anyone stepping outside the guidance given by the Speaker in the first instance. Any Member, as the Member who is currently speaking is doing, is free to express their own views about what is more suitable or more applicable in these matters.

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

I emphasise the point that I am not saying that it is unconstitutional in some way. Of course it is a matter that can be brought to the House and dealt with by the House. What I am saying is that that is not the appropriate manner in which to deal with it, particularly when it deals with public bodies at large rather than public bodies that come under the remit of the Department of the Environment. I repeat that point, and I simply disagree with Mr McCrea's point.

My other point is that there is, in fact, a division of opinion here on the actual merits of this amendment. In the minds of some Members, it would create an inequality between those employed in the public sector and those employed in the private sector. I was employed in the private sector for many years, so I know the problems and difficulties for a self-employed person. I did not enjoy the support of the working environment of the public sector. The public sector gives more support to workers than self-employed people or other people in the private sector get. We have to look at the issues of equality, particularly in relation to elections. That is a very important point to bear in mind.

I am not giving a definitive view on the merits of this proposition. All I am saying is that it needs careful consideration and that, because it goes over and beyond public bodies within the remit of the Department of the Environment, it should, in fact, be more appropriately dealt with elsewhere in a legislative process.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that, wherever the legislative base for it is, it needs to be fair and equal, that we cannot give an advantage to one sector above the other, and that, in particular, we cannot be seen to give an unfair advantage to people just because they work in the public sector?

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

That is a very reasonable point. Mr Stewart Dickson's point was about elections at large and people's right to obtain leave from their employers. He quite properly raised that issue, and perhaps it would have been better to look at all that rather than singling out one aspect and dealing with it separately. The provision lacks symmetry. I am not saying that it is not well intentioned — of course it is. I am not saying that I do not have sympathy with the ideas that are being proposed, but we have to be very careful about how we enact provisions in the House. That is all that I am saying. You have to apply a precautionary principle to the provision.

Mr Weir spoke about the final amendment in this group and the argument between regulations and standing orders. With amendment No 28, the Minister is attempting to devolve to councils, through the mechanism of standing orders, an opportunity to create a bespoke approach to the problem.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

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

Yes.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

On the creation of a bespoke solution, that seems to be inconsistent with the way in which we dealt with similar situations in the same legislation. I appreciate that the Member may be getting a briefing from someone sitting to his right. We prescribed how d’Hondt will be used and the range of offices on which it will be used. We prescribed the timescale, which is over the duration of the Assembly, because d’Hondt has been used in councils in different ways. We prescribed the formula for quota greatest remainder and how that would operate if there were a single committee. Why is there an exception that this suddenly becomes an opportunity for it to be bespoke in councils when it is simply being grouped together? That seems to run against another five or six decisions that we made on this area.

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

I repeat: I am not the Minister. It is probably more appropriate for the Minister to deal specifically with the matter. The intention is to be flexible on what can be difficult issues at local council level. In any event, I assume that these matters will be set out in the regulations as mandatory elements of standing orders. In a sense, there is a synthesis between the regulations and standing orders.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will certainly.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

You are saying that the regulations will spell out what will be in standing orders but that we cannot have that in the regulations. That seems to be a fairly weak logical position. I appreciate that it is for the Minister to respond to many of these matters. By the same token, you are advocating amendment No 28, so one would hope that you can make a good argument, independent of the Minister.

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

I say again that I am not the Minister, but I am presenting a view that I hope sheds light on the amendment.

The amendment provides the necessary flexibility. Yes, there will be a framework established in the context of the regulations that will inform how standing orders will be made by councils. I know that the Member is amused by my interpretation, but the amendment will permit councils a flexibility that I think is desirable. One size does not fit all, as we well know from our political experience, particularly in councils. Flexibility is necessary and desirable, and I would have thought that the Member would see it as desirable.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way, again?

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

Well, yes. I will.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Time is unlimited, so, to be fair, at least my intervention will not eat into the Member's time. Beyond what sounds a little bit like a cliché of flexibility being desirable, will you give us any level of a worked example of how a difference between councils could be applied in practice?

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

Let me say this to you: I will not give you concrete examples, but we are dealing with the principles that surround the amendment, which has been created to provide flexibility. We discussed those matters ad nauseam in the Committee and came to a collective view that it is better to have flexibility, and this is one way of importing flexibility in order to resolve what can be difficult problems for councils.

We should be sympathetic to the amendment that the Minister has tabled. He presents a bona fide approach to resolve difficult problems. He deserves our support on that, and I am sure that the Member recognises the fact that the Minister has gone out of his way to try to reflect, as much as possible, the political consensus that exists on those matters.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way again. I am not in any way questioning the Minister's bona fides. However, precisely in the same way as with your and Mr McCrea's good intentions, I think that they are equally wrong in their actions. When discussing bona fides, one remembers what Dante said about the road to hell being paved with good intentions or, in this case, ministerial bona fides.

There appears to have been a desire by the Department to shuffle the issue out of its remit and kick the can down the road. You mentioned the consensus that was reached in the Committee, but the Committee saw that there was a problem with the grouping together of committees not being considered in the legislation and raised it with the Department several weeks before we reached Consideration Stage. Indeed, I and, I suspect, most Committee members would have been more than happy if there had been a departmental amendment to deal with that, but none was tabled, and the Committee was forced to table an amendment that linked it to regulations.

For whatever reason, there seems to have been a reluctance to tackle the issue. That was maybe because of its complexity or for some other reason, such as the Department being so enamoured with the idea of flexibility on this one occasion. However, we have a situation in which no amendment was tabled despite the fact that the issue was raised. The Committee's amendment was then opposed by the Minister in the House and, when it passed, there was an attempt to water it down and shove it outside the remit of the Department by putting it in standing orders. While I do not doubt the Minister's bona fides, the willingness to take action in this area has been somewhat weak.

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

I take the Member's point. However, the one thing that I am certain of is that the Minister does not avoid or evade political responsibilities. I know that there would be no attempt on the part of the Minister — he would certainly not encourage the Department — to evade or avoid dealing with difficult political issues. I think that that particular interpretation of what has happened is incorrect. I am quite happy to say that the Minister is dealing with it in a forthright and, I think, appropriate manner. I make that point to you and the House at large. That concludes my contribution on the amendments that I wanted to address.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

The two Members who previously spoke are, I believe, barristers, and therefore have some cognisance of the legal profession, I suspect. I want to address the two amendments in my name and that of Mr McCallister. Amendment No 4 deals with a date that we want to put into the regulations. I will explain to the Assembly why it is important that we do so. The link between our two amendments is this: the very reason why we need to bring in amendment No 4 is that the principles in that amendment actually pertain to the second amendment.

Just for clarity, because I think Mr Weir mentioned that it was a UK judgement, it was not a UK judgement but a judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Ahmed and others v the United Kingdom. There are a couple of legal points that my learned friends may wish to consider.

The applicants in that case relied on article 10 of the convention, which provides that everybody has the right to freedom of expression. I will not go through the details, because they are in the judgement, but the Commission agreed with the applicants' arguments. The UK Government did not dispute that the applicants could rely on the guarantees contained in article 10, nor did they deny that the application of the regulations interfered with the exercise of their rights under that article.

People say that this gives the public sector an unfair advantage over the private sector. Let me make it quite clear that the Bill is subject to challenge under article 10 of the human rights convention. The court, for its part — not just the Commission — considered that there had been interference with the applicants' rights to freedom of expression and it accepted the Commission's summary of the situation.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I will give way in a moment. I just want to set out the points, and then I will be interested to hear what the Member has to say. One of the key points in the judgement is that the court observed that:

"the local government system of the ... State has long rested on a bond of trust between elected members and a permanent corps of local government officers who both advise them on policy and assume responsibility for the implementation of the policies adopted."

However, here is the real issue:

"The Commission agreed with the applicants that the Regulations imposed far-reaching, inflexible and disproportionate restrictions on senior officers such as the applicants, even allowing for the duties and responsibilities which they owed to their respective local authorities and the margin of appreciation of the respondent State in the sector at issue."

The Government responded that:

"the proportionality of the restrictions had to be assessed in the light of the following considerations: firstly, they only applied to at most 2% of an estimated 2,300,000 officers; secondly, the categories of officers subject to the restrictions were clearly defined in accordance with the duties which they performed and where both the fact and appearance of political impartiality were of paramount importance; thirdly, the duties-based approach meant that the restrictions were applied as narrowly as possible"

— that is a key point —

"and exemptions given on as wide a basis as possible."

I see none of these issues in the amendment. I will go through the legal judgement to show why the Bill is at risk, but, if Mr Weir wants to come in at this point, I am happy for him to do so.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I do not disagree with anything said about the judgement. However, the problem is that amendment No 23 misses the point. The judgement essentially stated that there cannot be a blanket ban on council employees becoming councillors. That part of the legislation, albeit that it is coming a little late in the day, is being addressed. The judgement was that you can have disqualification provided that it is very limited and specific.

I have no problem with amendment No 4, which deals specifically with the situation of council employees. If amendment No 23 had addressed the issue of disqualification, I would have had no problem supporting it, but it does not. It addresses the ease or otherwise with which people can take up post. It is, more or less, about the removal of hurdles, which is not the same as disqualification.

Consequently, the law being proposed is compatible with European law. Amendment No 23 is largely an irrelevance. If anything, because it places additional provisions on the public sector that do not apply to the private sector, it is potentially discriminatory against people in the private sector and could be challenged on equality grounds.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his contribution. I have not yet moved on to amendment No 4, and I will deal with the issues raised in that. I accept that he has indicated a level of support for that amendment.

Let me just make the point to the Minister, and, through him, to the Department, that here is where I have an issue with the Bill as it stands: at Consideration Stage, we amended the Bill to say that a person shall be disqualified from being elected or being a councillor if he holds any paid office or other employment:

"appointments to which are made by a council if it is a prescribed office or employment".

The issue is that there is no definition of prescribed. Furthermore, the court in its judgement accepted there was interference under article 10 but states that such interference must be "prescribed by law". I am not sure whether putting one such line in the Bill prescribes it by law.

Time will beat me, I suspect, but I will look at the next point in the judgement, which is about the legitimate aim of any interference. I see nothing stating what legitimate aim you are trying to achieve by prescribing certain people. So the Bill, as it stands, is subject to challenge under article 10.

Look also at whether interference is necessary in a democratic society. The court looked at general principles, and stated:

"Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress".

The amendment that we tabled seeks to ensure that we deal with a deficiency. As drafted, the Bill is deficient, and this clause will not stand. I accept, because the Minister mentioned it previously, that even if we got Royal Assent, we would not be able to deal with the elections on 22 May. However, I will deal with the issue by looking at the court's general principles. This is where we look to see what we are trying to do with the Bill. This is important, and it is why we need to place immediacy on amendment No 4: if we do not get these regulations in place, we will lose the Bill.

The court's assessment was that article 3 of protocol 1:

"guarantees individual rights, including the right to vote and to stand for election. Indeed, it was considered that the unique phrasing was intended to give greater solemnity to the Contracting States’ commitment and to emphasise that this was an area where they were required to take positive measures as opposed to merely refraining from interference."

It is at that point that, in linking the two amendments together, people have made arguments in the House that we have to do down one side because the public sector will get more rights than the private sector. Actually, we need to ensure that we all get sufficient rights. It is an article 10 obligation that people are permitted to stand for election. The Bill, in its current form, does not deal with that.

When I was looking at words in the Bill —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I will.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Does the Member not find some contradiction between what he is saying now and what he has said on other occasions in the Assembly? For example, in the past he has argued that the more regulations we introduce to allow flexibility in the labour market etc, the more damage and disruption there is to employers. If he is saying that yet another introduction should be the right to three weeks off work for someone who decides to stand for election, how does he think that will go down with the private sector? Or, is he saying that only the public sector can afford to do that and that it should, therefore, be allowed to?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Before you respond, let me say that I was very reluctant to interrupt the continuity of your argument, so can you indicate whether you are about to bring it to a close, because we are now infringing on the time that is allocated for the Business Committee?

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

I have more to say, so please do whatever you have to.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

You will be the first Member to speak when we resume the debate.

The Business Committee has arranged to meet immediately on the lunchtime suspension. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The first item of business when we return will be Question Time.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.31 pm.

On resuming —

Oral Answers to Questions

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

It is time for Question Time, and the Minister of the Environment is just on time. I inform Members that questions 2 and 8 have been withdrawn.

Bronwyn McGahan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

1. asked the Minister of the Environment how the rights of minorities will be protected in the 11 new councils following the implementation of the Local Government Bill (NIA 28/11-15). (AQO 5903/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle.

As I have stated on a number of occasions in the Assembly, I am committed to ensuring that the 11 new councils will work within a governance framework that provides for fair, transparent and efficient decision-making and protects the rights and interests of all people. Members will know from the Consideration Stage debate on the Local Government Bill on 18 and 19 March that the Bill includes the provisions required to give legislative effect to my commitment. Proportionality in the allocation of positions of responsibility across all the political parties represented on a council will be ensured through the council’s use of one of the methods specified in the Bill. The Member will be aware that the methods that I am making available are the d’Hondt or Sainte-Laguë divisor methods or the single transferable voting system. As agreed by the Assembly at Consideration Stage, the d’Hondt method is specified as the default approach if a council is unable to agree the method to be used.

Provision is also made in the Bill to ensure that the membership of committees reflects, as far as is practicable, the political balance on the council. I have also introduced a call-in procedure to allow a number of councillors to join together to request that a decision under executive arrangements or a recommendation for ratification by the council under a committee system is reviewed. The call-in procedure would enable 15% of the membership of a council to request the review of a decision in specified circumstances. A further protection for the interests of minority communities in council decision-making is the introduction of qualified majority voting for a range of strategic council decisions that will be specified in regulations and in response to a valid call-in request on the grounds of a disproportionate adverse impact on a section of the community in the council’s district. The support of 80% of members present and voting will be required for such decisions to be agreed.

Bronwyn McGahan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for his response. He has touched on my supplementary question. Will the Minister give assurances that the issue will be monitored very closely?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat as an cheist. Gabh mo leithscéal, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle; bhí mé mall. Excuse me, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker; I am sorry for being late.

I certainly assure the Member that it will be monitored very closely, not just by my Department but, one would imagine, by the Assembly as a whole. It is evident through the debates today and at Consideration Stage that the House is receptive to the measures that have been brought forward and the safeguards that come with them to ensure that what is here to protect minorities is not then used to block progress unnecessarily in the work of councils. It will be closely monitored and subject to close scrutiny.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The Minister talked about the default position and minority protection. How will he safeguard issues, particularly around the border, where some communities may feel that they could be disadvantaged because they are in a minority position? They may find that d'Hondt is actually not the preferred method to safeguard their position but will find themselves being blocked by others who insist on trying to go another route, knowing that they will have the default position of d'Hondt to fall back on.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for that supplementary question. The Bill contains safeguards, one of which we are talking about and another about which the Member raises a valid question. It is incumbent on all of us, as elected representatives and leaders, if you like, to allay the concerns of communities and to work with councillors from our own parties and from all parties to ensure that they operate as fairly as possible so that the views not just of their citizens but of their elected representatives of all hues are reflected in the make-up of committees and in positions of responsibility in the new councils.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

With regard to d’Hondt and the mathematical formula, what protection is in the Bill to ensure that power sharing is enshrined for responsibilities and positions in each council?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The importance of sharing power and giving smaller parties and independent members the opportunity to hold positions of responsibility that they are not, unfortunately, afforded in the current system was the subject of some debate at Consideration Stage. One method of doing that, which is enshrined in the Bill, is to allocate positions of special responsibility at the start of a council's four-year term. D'Hondt is the default for the allocation of those positions, and it will be run for the four years. That will give opportunities to smaller parties and independents that they do not currently have.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

As the Minister knows, at Consideration Stage, the Alliance Party put forward STV as the default position rather than d'Hondt. Does he not agree that STV is a better mechanism for sharing power?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Chair of the Committee for her question. Unfortunately, I do not agree with her, as I did not agree with her and as the Assembly did not agree with her at Consideration Stage. As, I think, Mr Weir clearly illustrated, d'Hondt is the method that is more favourable to smaller parties as the new mechanism to allocate positions of responsibility at the start of the four-year term.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Minister, given the potential for gridlock with the call-in and qualified majority processes, how do you feel that both of those will impact on the day-to-day running and decision-making of councils?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Local government reform is about making local government more effective and efficient, so the last thing that we want to do is create a tool that will lead to gridlock, as the Member puts it. Regulations will be made under clause 37 to specify mandatory elements that must be in a council's standing orders. One of those elements will be the process to be followed for the practical operation of the call-in procedure. The regulations will also specify the decisions of a council that will not be subject to the call-in procedure. Those will be decisions connected with the regulatory or quasi-judicial functions and responsibilities of a council — for example, licensing decisions or decisions relating to development control. My officials have worked in partnership with senior officers from local government to develop the detail of the proposed process, including details on the time frames for receipt of a call-in request after a decision or a recommendation has been notified to the councillors, the administrative procedures to be followed by officers and the role of councillors in that process. The draft standing orders regulations will be issued for consultation later this week.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

3. asked the Minister of the Environment for his assessment of the risks of hydraulic fracturing to the environment. (AQO 5905/11-15)

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

6. asked the Minister of the Environment to outline his position on hydraulic fracturing. (AQO 5908/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

With your permission, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle, I will take questions 3 and 6 together. As I am doing so, I would be grateful to get a wee bit of extra time.

As the Northern Ireland Minister responsible for the environment, I have made my position clear. Granting permissions relating to fracking operations will take place only when it has been supported by very strong evidence that indicates that fracking is safe for public health and the environment. Given the scale of ongoing worldwide research, it would be reckless and irresponsible to do otherwise.

I have directed my officials in the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) to work with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Ireland to take forward a major programme of research to help to establish the facts and safety issues associated with fracking. This programme of research is at the tender evaluation stage.

I want to highlight that no decisions have been taken in relation to permitting fracking. No planning applications or applications for environmental permissions have yet been received by my Department. My Department will consider any applications that may come forward in future very robustly.

The hydraulic fracturing process has generated much debate here and around the world because of the potential detriment to the environment, particularly with regard to water quality, air emission issues and seismic impacts, as well as the general personal and public health concerns raised by communities. In an attempt to allay those concerns, specific divisions in my Department, primarily Planning NI and NIEA, are actively working to enhance their knowledge of the fracking process by assessing emerging research, which includes case studies from other parts of the world, and liaising with colleagues in other environment agencies in Britain and Ireland and other countries where fracking is proposed or is taking place.

I emphasise to the Member that I have a longer answer here. I am conscious that I have been given a wee bit more time, but I would need a lot more time to get through the answer. I emphasise my position to the Member once again: in the absence of evidence that fracking is safe and sustainable, I would not approve any application to do it.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister. Surely, there is enough evidence now to allow him to make a decision that fracking is not in our best interests, either economically or environmentally. The report that he talks about from the EPA does not even look at the health aspects of fracking. If he were to give financial advice to people around the world who are considering investing in Tamboran, does he think that investing money in that company would be a prudent financial investment or would those people be better to keep their money in their pocket?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I think you would be better asking the Finance Minister that question; he might be better placed to give financial advice than I am. I also have to inform the Member that I cannot predetermine the outcome of any application, so I am not in a position today to say that any fracking application will be refused point-blank. It will, however, be refused in the absence of the evidence to which I referred. As yet, that evidence does not exist. You believe that there is sufficient evidence to the contrary to allow me to make a decision on fracking now, but it is up to the applicant in such an application, as with any application, to demonstrate that it is safe.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Given that fracking has been of huge interest across the world, particularly in America, can the Minister outline what meetings he has had with groups here and in the States?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for the question. The issue has generated massive public interest and quite a degree of controversy. I have had several meetings and requests for meetings. I have done my best to meet anyone who has requested to meet me on the issue. Many of them have been constituents of Mr Flanagan, although not solely. This stirs passion in people and not just in the immediate area that is being mooted as a potential site for fracking. I have had meetings with constituents of Mr Flanagan, such as Dr. Carroll O'Dolan and a representative group from the area — a cross-section of the community, I have to say, and a cross-section of interests. More recently, I met a group of six ladies, including Marilyn Trimble, from different areas and constituencies right across the North, all of whom had a common concern: fracking.

The Member referred to the United States. When I was in America a fortnight ago, I met the EPA there about the issue. It has spent millions upon millions of dollars on research, but its evidence is, in my opinion, inconclusive. I am not sure that the evidence will ever be conclusive or that the EPA wishes it to be conclusive. I have also spoken to quite a number of politicians from different areas, some of whom have different views. I am always open to hearing other points of view. I have heard from those who believe that fracking is a good thing. It is important that we take on board all views in any consideration or when making any decision.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I listened with interested to what the Minister had to say in reply to Mr Flanagan's question. If it transpires, after all these reports — I suspect there will be many — that this is a cheaper and safer source of energy, what would your position be then, Minister?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

If.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

The Minister referred to what would happen if evidence came forward that fracking was safe. I ask him to outline what he means by "safe". Given the recent IPCC report and the research from the University of Ulster that says that, if we are to avoid the most serious consequences of climate change, gas must stay in the ground, does he agree that, in respect of climate impact, fracking can never be safe?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

When I refer to "safe", "safety" or "safeness", I refer to a range of issues, including personal and public health and, obviously, the danger or risk to the planet and the environment to which Mr Agnew referred. Those are all issues that I consider when I speak of safety and the need to ensure that any application for any such venture demonstrates that it is safe.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

The Minister will be aware of all the anecdotal information and misinformation. He mentioned that his officials were looking at this. When do you think you will have best international practice on fracking?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. Yes, my officials are looking at this. They are doing so in partnership with the EPA in the Republic. When will we be in a position to make a judgement? I am not entirely sure. Next year, I or whoever is Environment Minister will get a report on that. As I outlined in answer to Mr Flanagan and Mr Eastwood, I recently met the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States. It has spent many years and many millions carrying out research on the subject and, in my opinion, still seems far from a conclusion.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

4. asked the Minister of the Environment what assistance and advice is available to organisations in coastal communities seeking to apply for the third round of the coastal communities fund. (AQO 5906/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

On 7 March 2014, I announced the launch of round 3 of the coastal communities fund. The Big Lottery Fund administers the fund on behalf of my Department. Organisations seeking to apply are advised to check the coastal communities fund page on the Big Lottery Fund website, where they will be able to access stage 1 and stage 2 application forms, help notes, questions and answers, as well as various other guidance documents, such as guidance on measuring economic outcomes and state aid guidance. Applicants can also contact the Big Lottery Fund by telephone or email to find out if their project is eligible. In addition, in the case of capital projects, applicants can arrange a telephone interview before applying.

The Big Lottery Fund organised an application workshop online seminar on 18 March, with a focus on key requirements for capital projects involving land and buildings or other construction-related work. Nine local organisations attended the webinar, and the Big Lottery Fund has so far received 18 queries from 16 organisations seeking information and advice on round 3 of the fund, which closes at midday on 30 April.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his response. He will be aware that we have one of the most beautiful coastlines in western Europe. Not only do we need to defend, improve and promote it but the communities who live there and commute from and to there must be enhanced and promoted in their attempt to defend the coastline and heritage. Will his Department canvas the Big Lottery on the Northern Ireland coastline so that the application that are in stand a good chance of success?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for that supplementary. The Department, along with the Big Lottery Fund, which runs the process with and for us, will, as I outlined, actively engage with coastal communities across the North. I concur with the Member's assessment of our coastline's beauty and the need to preserve, protect and promote it. That is why, in this one year, I have allocated three years' budget to attract bids that will, I hope, display more ambition than would be the case for one year's funding. I hope to get more ambitious projects and give those responsible for them more time to ensure that they are carried out to their full potential.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I welcome the Minister's response, particularly his "preserve, protect and promote" message. My village of Kircubbin is a small coastal community, and its harbour is disappearing into Strangford lough. In the interest of the environment, will the Minister indicate his support for money from the coastal communities fund to protect my village's small harbour?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his question. I have received written correspondence on the issue from Members of this House and, indeed, the House of Commons. Projects aimed at preventing flood risk or at repair after floods are eligible, if they support the coastal communities fund outcome, which is sustainable economic growth through the creation and safeguarding of jobs. So I would certainly not say no. However, any application to carry out such repair and maintenance would need, I believe, to be quite creative about by whom and how it was to be carried out.

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

I do not know whether the Minister is particularly happy with the level of applications. Can he suggest any way to improve awareness of the fund?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for the question. Although I said that we had a bigger budget this time round, we have plenty of applications as well. The door is open for applications until 30 April, and I look forward to a wide and varied selection of applications. In January, I announced that the fund would open. On 7 March, I opened it and referred potential applicants to the coastal communities fund website. In my opinion, there is wide awareness of the fund, as demonstrated by the 65 applications received from all coastal council areas from Derry to Kilkeel since the fund opened in 2012. They include proposals from Limavady, Coleraine, the Causeway Coast, Larne, Carrickfergus, the Ards peninsula — you will be glad to hear — and Newcastle.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

5. asked the Minister of the Environment for the latest estimated costs for the reform of local government. (AQO 5907/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

In 2009, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) estimated that the cost of local government reform would be in the region of £118 million over five years. Further work has been undertaken since then. In 2013, my predecessor secured Executive agreement to provide councils with a reform funding package of £17·8 million over the 2013-15 period. Based on the estimated costs of some elements of the reform programme, the package will cover: £5·2 million for new councils in the shadow period; £4 million for systems convergence; £3·5 million for councillor severance; £3 million for capacity building; £1 million for change management; £0·6 million for staff induction; and £0·5 million for winding up existing councils. A commitment was given for an additional £30 million for rates convergence post 2015.

Over recent months, senior local government officers have undertaken a detailed financial assessment of the additional transitional work streams that are unavoidable and are not covered by the funding package provided by the Executive. The four transitional work streams identified that fall to councils to fund over the 2014-18 period are staff severance; alignment of services; councils operating in shadow form; and other transition costs. A total upper limit for those costs likely to be incurred during the transition period, excluding the Executive funding package, has been estimated at around £33 million. These costs have been calculated at a regional level and are based on the transition cost data capture exercise completed by the local government sector.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer. Given the large investment that is going into reform, is the Minister confident that, when they are established, councils will have the necessary resources available to them? Will he have the resources available to him to invest in councils to ensure that they can enforce the regulations and responsibilities that fall to them, particularly environmental protection, which we talked about earlier? Will he ensure that normal council business will not suffer as a result of such large demands on cash and revenue coming from him and from the ratepayer?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Member rightly identifies that this is a huge investment. The reform of local government is not just about doing things differently; it is about doing things better. I assure the Member that I am committed to ensuring that councils are equipped to do things better and that my Department and the Assembly are equipped to ensure that councils do things better as well.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the DOE allow councils permissible forms of borrowing to fund local government reform?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat as an cheist sin. We have been approached by some of the statutory transition committees about what scope will exist for the new councils when it comes to borrowing and how they can best meet the transition costs. I am determined that we do everything that we can to make this as easy as possible for the councils, and, to that end, we have permitted councils to have any borrowings they make in order to meet the cost of reform capitalised, which is something that was asked for by the local government sector.

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

The Minister has taken some time to tell us about the costs. Bearing it in mind that the 11-council model was not his preferred choice, can he tell the Assembly whether there will be any savings from it?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I would like to think that this is an investment to save. In my original answer I outlined PwC's appraisal, which suggested that the cost of reform would be £118 million over five years. The same study suggested that we can achieve savings of £438 million over 25 years, which is a huge saving indeed. As I said, it is not just about cutting costs and doing things more efficiently; local government reform is about doing things better and bringing power closer to people.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

That ends the period for oral questions. We now move to topical questions.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

1. asked the Minister of the Environment what action his Department has taken to ensure the area plans are brought up to speed in line with the new super-council areas. (AQT 961/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for that question. Area plans are extremely important documents. We usually talk about one in particular in this House, so I will be glad to speak about area plans more generally. Local government reform offers a tremendous opportunity to new councils to sit down with my planning officials to draw up their new area plans.

Indeed, work has already commenced on area plans in the 11 new council clusters. A grade 6 planning manager has been appointed to lead the work programme across the Province, and principal planning officers have also been appointed in each area office. The teams will be supported by five or six staff per council cluster. The Department had hoped the teams would be fully staffed at this stage; there has been some delay, but staff are currently being appointed to take part in this process.

The development plan staff have already met most of the council transition management teams to discuss council priorities and agree a forward work programme for this year. This work, importantly, is being taken forward adopting a collaborative approach with planning staff, local councils and DSD. The preparation of the area plan will provide the future framework for councils to shape their areas and inform their planning decisions in future, so it is an extremely important piece of work.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

I note that the Minister says that the area plans are important documents. Given that the area plan for Omagh has been out of date for the past 14 years, in that it was up in 2002, will the Minister indicate when the new area plan for the Omagh and Fermanagh council will be in place? How many years are we going to have to wait until we get that document?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I would like to think that the dates on the current area plans are "best before" dates rather than "use by" dates. I have assured the House that work is already under way on the preparation of these plans. Obviously, the timescale for the finalisation of these plans will be determined by the new councils and their determination to get them done.

I imagine it is something that the councils will be keen to get done as quickly as possible. Many of them will be commencing work very soon in their shadow period on this very important piece of work, given the importance it has for future housing provision, economic development and retention of areas of special scientific interest and natural beauty. It is extremely important work, and I am sure that the new councils will agree with that and treat it accordingly.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

2. asked the Minister of the Environment, following his earlier answer, to give an assurance that Rathlin Island will be fully engaged with the coastal community fund process, and, given its strategic importance to many elements of the tourist industry, particularly to the people who live on the island, will he give an update on how the fund will be of benefit to that community. (AQT 962/11-15)

I have taken the Minister from the wilds of Fermanagh and Tyrone to the north Antrim coast, but I am sure it is a journey that he would enjoy.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am not entirely sure how Rathlin Island has been engaged in the process, although I imagine that it has been. I will check that as soon as I leave the Chamber tonight, or it may be tomorrow morning by the time we get through the Local Government Bill.

The Member quite rightly outlines the importance of Rathlin to tourism in the North, and, counter to that, I fully appreciate the importance of tourism to Rathlin. I know that there are issues with the construction of new paths there and the fear that that could be detrimental to the ornithological tourism that the island depends on so greatly. I am keen to see an application from the area for the fund.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that. As my colleague Mr Campbell asked earlier, will his Department be actively involved in ensuring that communities such as Rathlin engage in the process? Given the prevailing issues and the concerns of some on the island, will everything be done to ensure that Rathlin maintains its status and is built on as one of the most idyllic parts of the United Kingdom and as somewhere that every Member should visit, including the Minister? I invite him to join me on a visit to Rathlin Island.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I will certainly go to Rathlin. I do not know if I will go with Mervyn. [Laughter.] I assure the Member that my staff will follow up that option with those charged with tourism development on Rathlin. I also assure him that NIEA staff are liaising and working closely with people on Rathlin Island on that very issue, and I have quite a bit of correspondence to prove it.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

3. asked the Minister of the Environment to advise what progress has been made to date to keep Exploris in Portaferry open, given that he, his staff, Ards Borough Council, Friends of Exploris and many other people have been working extremely hard to secure the future of this wonderful regional aquarium. (AQT 963/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for the question and commend him for his determination to see Exploris saved. Like me and, hopefully, many in the House, he recognises the importance of Exploris to our tourism product in the North, particularly in the Member's constituency. Indeed, I referred earlier to the fact that, when I was in the United States a few weeks ago, I came across a brochure promoting Northern Ireland, and Exploris had pride of place on, I think, page 7.

Progress has been made despite people thinking that it has not, and a lot of work has been done. I appreciate that the Member recognises that, although progress has, unfortunately, been slower than we would like. My officials have liaised closely and laboriously with council officials and with Friends of Exploris, particularly on the business case that I have asked for. In turn, I can then take that business case to the Executive to seek financial assistance. There are still a couple of outstanding questions about the business case, and, when I bring it to my colleagues, I want it to be as robust as possible. Following a meeting with the Member and some councillors from the area last week, I am confident that those questions will be answered and that the gaps will be filled in the coming days.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I sincerely thank the Minister for his update and welcome his determination to see Exploris flourish into the future. When the business case comes to the Executive table, will the Minister encourage the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to recognise Exploris as a premier tourist destination and attraction and seek assistance from her Department to promote Exploris well into the future?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Exploris is a tremendous facility; it is tremendous for tourism and education, and it has a fine environmental aspect. That is why, outside the business case process, I have given a commitment to fund all reasonable costs associated with the seal sanctuary at Exploris. When I present the business case, I will raise the points that the Member iterated in the House today. I believe that it has tremendous tourism potential. I believe that the Minister responsible for tourism must believe that as well; otherwise it would not be adorning glossy brochures in other parts of the world promoting Northern Ireland as a tourism destination. Therefore, I believe that it is worthy of her, and other Ministers', support.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Mr Paul Girvan is not in his place for his question.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

5. asked the Minister of the Environment whether he will support Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) staff being given local priority in redeployment within the Northern Ireland Civil Service. (AQT 965/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for the question. I will support DVA staff in any way that I possibly can. I have written to all Executive colleagues asking them to look for any opportunities that might exist for the redeployment of the staff, but, more importantly, the relocation of work to Coleraine, given the immobility of many of the grades employed there. I have also prepared, in advance of our next Executive meeting, a paper with my colleague the Minister of Finance and Personnel, outlining the situation throughout the DVA, most notably in Coleraine, and the need for us as an Executive to take action to assist those affected immediately.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

If the worst comes to the worst, can the Minister let us know what will happen to the DVA building in Coleraine?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am not sure that I am in a position to answer that. What has happened is nearly the worst thus far, but, as yet, I have no future plans for that building. However, I will fight for the workers to stay in that building for as long as possible.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

6. asked the Minister of the Environment whether he has made any preparations for a potential transfer of DVA responsibilities to his Department. (AQT 966/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I will answer that question by saying yes. My predecessor and I both made representations — and have correspondence to prove it — with our counterparts in Westminster. However, it seems that we are hitting a brick wall. There is no appetite there to devolve it, and I am not sure of the appetite here — I am not talking about right here where I am standing — in this Assembly and in Northern Ireland to have it devolved.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas don Aire as ucht an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for his answer. Does the Minister agree that, in order to save the jobs, he must pursue this continually with the British Government? Will he commit to doing that?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

For some time now, my predecessor and I have been trying everything that we can to save those jobs. That has been recognised and applauded by the staff there. It is an option that I will continue to pursue. However, what the staff do not want to see is people playing politics with the issue.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Question 6 has been withdrawn.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

1. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what level of additional resources were allocated to address pressures within the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety as an outturn of the headroom within the 2013-14 budget. (AQO 5918/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety was allocated an additional £57 million in resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) during the 2013-14 monitoring round process. I can confirm that there has been no further allocation to the Department since the January monitoring round. I expect that the Health Minister should be able to manage his financial pressures to ensure that he stays within the budget control totals set by the Executive.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I welcome the belated recognition by the Minister of the considerable financial pressures that exist in our health service. However, the Minister indicated this morning that he might be proposing to remove £68 million from the current year. Have the Minister and the Executive considered what the cost would be to patients if £68 million were removed from the health service?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

If we have to proceed down the route that I have suggested, which is that reductions of 1·5% will have to be made to every Department's budget — every Department having to take a 1·5% cut — that will equate to a reduction of close to £70 million in the health budget. Ultimately, if the Executive agree to go down that route because of non-progress on welfare reform, the exact and precise handling of that would be a matter for the Health Minister.

I am pretty sure that, whatever way the Health Minister would deal with in-year reductions of £70 million in a budget that, as the Member acknowledges, is already under pressure, the cuts could be devastating. For patient care, a reduction of £68 million next year is the equivalent of nearly 12,000 knee procedures, the equivalent of just over 10,000 hip procedures and the equivalent of just over 115,000 weeks in nursing home care for the elderly. I could go on and on because, as I am sure the Member will appreciate, whatever way you dice and slice up £68 million of reductions in the health budget, it is vulnerable people who will suffer, be they elderly people, people who are waiting for hip or knee replacements or people who are getting domiciliary care. Whatever the service, there will be an impact of not progressing with welfare reform. If we get those penalties and have to make those adjustments to the health budget, the impact could be devastating for very vulnerable people here in Northern Ireland.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I commend the Minister for going on the radio this morning and outlining the difficulties that will come about as a result of the House not agreeing welfare reform. Will he outline whether he expects any money to be surrendered to Her Majesty's Treasury at the year end?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

In the context of the issue that Mr Beggs raised and which the Member has touched on, we, obviously, lost around £15 million of our ability to spend in the past financial year, which ended yesterday. A new financial year starts today. That is £15 million that could have been spent on services, including health and social care, and right across the Executive's Budget. That has gone; it will be taken off our Budget. Beyond that, however, I do not expect that any other money will be lost to the Treasury. As the Member will appreciate, and as the House will know from previous updates, over the past year, since the introduction of the Budget exchange scheme, which replaced the old in-year flexibility scheme, we have some flexibility in our ability to roll forward 0·6% in resource expenditure and 1·5% of in-year capital expenditure into the following year, and we have not lost any money to the Treasury. Of course, however, the inaction and lack of leadership of others in the House has already seen us lose £15 million and risks us losing close to £100 million next year and, indeed, close to £1 billion over the next five years.

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

2. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to outline any discussions he has had concerning the redeployment of the Coleraine Driver and Vehicle Agency staff within the public sector. (AQO 5919/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

This matter was the subject of discussion at a recent Executive meeting, and I, along with my colleague the Minister of the Environment and the head of the Civil Service, have been asked to prepare a report to the Executive on the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) jobs. I have also discussed the situation on a number of occasions with the MP for the area, Mr Gregory Campbell.

I can also confirm that my officials are working closely with DOE to establish the details of staff affected by the decision and are collaborating with other Departments across the Northern Ireland Civil Service to ensure the effective operation of the policy and procedures to manage staff surpluses, redeploy staff to other duties and avoid the need for compulsory redundancies.

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

Is the Minister confident that all staff will be redeployed within a reasonable travel-to-work area?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I was able to catch some of the responses of my colleague the Minister of the Environment to similar topical questions that he was asked before my questions started. I echo what I heard him say. We need to be exceptionally careful that we do not build up hopes. People who work in Coleraine and right around Northern Ireland — we must not forget that there are other offices from which DVA operates right across Northern Ireland — have had such a bad experience over the past number of weeks that it is important that my colleagues and I do not overhype the situation and build up expectation needlessly.

Every effort will be made to redeploy staff elsewhere in the Department of the Environment or in other Departments where work might be available. As the Minister suggested, perhaps we could move work to Coleraine. The Member makes a very salient point about staff mobility, which will become a crucial issue in dealing with this. He will appreciate that some members of staff are considered mobile within the system, others non-mobile. A survey is being carried out by DOE to examine the attitudes of the staff in Coleraine. However, I understand that the vast majority fall into the non-mobile category. Clearly, that complicates things much more than if they were mobile.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I agree with the Minister about not raising expectations unnecessarily. In the discussions that he will have about what can be done, will he take account of the fact that 70% of the existing staff are female and many of them have caring responsibilities that restrict their mobility? Will he also step up the campaign to try to get other Civil Service jobs relocated to Coleraine?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I agree with the Member. I commend him for the swiftness of the contact that he made with me in the aftermath of the very bad news a couple of weeks ago. Indeed, I commend other representatives from the East Londonderry area for their efforts as well.

The complexion of staff mobility is being analysed by DOE. Even if we consider staff members, officially and technically, to be non-mobile, just exactly how mobile they are is a matter for DOE to take forward in what it considers to be an acceptable travel-to-work area for staff based in Coleraine, in the Member's constituency. As a considerate employer, we have to be mindful of people's caring responsibilities. Without trying to build up expectations or deliver false hope, in the Department of the Environment, my Department and right across the Executive, we will make every effort to see whether there are posts available elsewhere, or whether work that is being done elsewhere in Northern Ireland could be done in Coleraine by DVA staff.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

If it is not possible to redeploy the personnel in the public sector, will he confirm whether the current compensation scheme, which has the highest benefits, would apply?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The compensation scheme is subject to passage through the House. My understanding is that it does not apply until its various regulations go through. However, we should not, at this stage, be contemplating the worst case for redundancies. Every effort will be made on my part, that of the Environment Minister and other Executive colleagues to ensure that we do not get to the situation that the Member talks about, or, at the very least, that we minimise the redundancies that might have to take place.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

In order that it is clear to the House and the workers in Coleraine, Minister, have the Executive given up the battle to save the DVA office in Coleraine? Is that the conclusion that we should reach? If that is so, are there any barriers to giving priority to the Coleraine workers in redeployment in the Civil Service?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

On the first point, we have to be somewhat realistic. I commend the staff, trade union representatives, local political representatives and community representatives in the East Londonderry area and further afield who made very sterling representations to make the case to the Transport Minister that, although the people in Coleraine wanted to centralise and modernise the service — that is something that I have been supportive of in the past — there was a distinction to be made between the service improvement and where the service is carried out. A very robust case was made to the Department for Transport that that work could be carried out in Coleraine. Unfortunately, that argument fell on deaf ears in the Department for Transport. One has to be somewhat realistic in looking at the prospects of it rowing back from the decision that has been made. If I thought that there were a chink of light that would allow the Department for Transport to reexamine the situation and us to make a robust case for work to be redeployed to or kept in Coleraine, I would certainly want to seize that. However, there is no indication at this stage that that is the case.

In giving priority to DVA staff, although we are clearly sympathetic to the situation in which people find themselves, we have to be mindful of the law and procedures in place. At the minute, disabled staff with requirements under the Disability Discrimination Act would be top of any priority list for redeployment. It is then staff who have been declared surplus. That might be a bracket into which the staff in Coleraine and the other offices might fall, but not until DOE takes a decision to declare them surplus. I do not think that that is anticipated for another couple of months.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

3. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to outline the Executive's capital budget for the 2014-15 financial year. (AQO 5920/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I am pleased to say that, for the first time since 2010-11, the Executive will start a financial year with a capital budget in excess of £1 billion. Following the recent Budget announcement by the Chancellor, our capital DEL budget now stands at £1·04 billion. When we take into consideration planned capital receipts and reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) borrowing, the Northern Ireland Departments are now planning to spend nearly £1·6 billion next year. That will provide a huge boost for our construction sector and will mean that we can invest in our economy to promote faster long-term growth.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his response and the good news contained in it. Will he give us some detail of his recent meeting with the European Investment Bank (EIB)? Could its funding assist in our capital spend?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I had a very productive engagement last week with senior officials from the European Investment Bank. It is fair to say that they are incredibly keen to do more business in Northern Ireland to build on the very successful loan that it gave to the University of Ulster to allow it to relocate the bulk of its Jordanstown campus to the centre of Belfast. A loan of some £150 million was given for that. It is very keen to build on that.

There are other opportunities across a range of infrastructure areas for which that we might be able to avail ourselves of funding from the European Investment Bank. A note of caution, however, is required: there may be a perception that we can put that sort of money into road, hospital or schools infrastructure, for example. We certainly could, but there would be ramifications elsewhere in the Budget of getting European Investment Bank funding, such as having to pay back a loan. I think that I have mentioned this in response to Mr Cree in the past: the money that we would raise via a loan would have to score on our Budget. We would see a commensurate drop in our capital budget coming from Treasury, and we would also have interest to repay on any loan. We have to be incredibly careful about where we would deploy any finance we were to get from the European Investment Bank. However, I am very keen to follow up on the positive engagement last week and to scope out what other opportunities might be there.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer, particularly his comments about the European Investment Bank. Does he see anything in the delivery of possible projects coming out of the EIB that will, in the short to medium term, impact on our economic recovery? Also, what opportunities does he see in working with the new councils to try to draw down some of those funds from the EIB?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

There are some. We had a good discussion about some projects that are already working their way through the early stages of the pipeline and that would have a very positive impact on the economy in Northern Ireland. A lot of energy infrastructure projects are already being discussed between network and grid companies and directly with the EIB. That underscores the point that it is not just central government trying to raise money, perhaps using the European Investment Bank. This is money that is also available to the private or non-public sector. I very much encourage the energy companies to try to take up the opportunity that might well be there. Obviously, there is a huge range of experience elsewhere in Ireland and the United Kingdom and right across the European Union. There are opportunities for energy that can be availed of quite quickly through the European Investment Bank.

The Member is right to highlight the opportunity that is presented by our local councils, particularly after reorganisation and the RPA, which will, of course, create much bigger councils with bigger rate bases. There will also be a change towards better borrowing powers and, importantly, more powers, including a power of regeneration. I held a seminar in the Department a couple of weeks ago with senior officials, chief executives and finance directors from a large number of the local councils. I am keen to continue that type of engagement to try to make them aware of the opportunities that EIB funding and financial transactions capital funding potentially present. Into the future, our councils, given their greater powers post-RPA, should be an increasing driver of infrastructure investment in Northern Ireland. I am keen, at these early stages, to use the good offices of the Department of Finance and Personnel to encourage them down that path.

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

I listened carefully to the Minister. One billion pounds is a lot of money — enough to make the Minister as popular as Santa Claus. Does this mean that there might be some additional funding for new schools, which are badly needed?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

To reiterate the point that was made to Mr Weir: we could certainly use the money from the European Investment Bank or other sources in the private markets to invest in schools infrastructure, just as we could use it to invest in roads or health. The complicating factor is that schools projects, for example, are taken forward by our Education Minister. The way that those are treated in our budget means that they would have to be done in a private finance initiative-type format, which is actually quite expensive at the minute and would require the expenditure of current resource expenditure to pay back the interest over 20 or 25 years or whatever the term might be. As the Member will appreciate, our budget is tight because of cuts coming from London that are particularly focused on our expenditure budget. So, given the price and the reducing current expenditure budget, it is not as attractive an option now as it might have been 10, 15 or 20 years ago. That does not mean that it might not come back in vogue in the longer term.

The benefit of accessing funding from the European Investment Bank or others is that, if we can fund some of the projects that we might have done ourselves through central government funds and capital funds, and that is done perhaps through local government — to pick up on the point from the previous Member who spoke — that might release some funds in our conventional capital budget that could instead be spent on new schools, hospitals, healthcare centres or road infrastructure. It might free up resources elsewhere that we could deploy for some of the projects that the Member talks about.

Michael Copeland (UUP, Belfast East)

What provision, if any, has been built into the capital budgets so that, should a major project not be in a position to proceed, a further range of projects are at an advanced stage and may proceed?