Northern Ireland Assembly, 10 June 2014

374 contributions from 63 members. The official report.

Executive Committee Business

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I beg to move

That the Employment Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 be approved.

I am seeking the Assembly's approval to confirm the Employment Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014.

The regulations make it unlawful to compile, use, sell or supply blacklists that contain details of people who are, or who have been, trade union members or who are taking part, or who have taken part, in trade union activities, where the blacklist may be used by employers to discriminate in recruitment or in the treatment of existing workers. Under the regulations, current and former trade union members may complain to an industrial tribunal if they are refused employment, subjected to a detriment or unfairly dismissed for a reason relating to a blacklist. Also under the regulations, employment agencies are unable to refuse to provide a service because a worker appears on a blacklist.

The regulations are subject to the confirmatory procedure as laid down in the parent legislation, which is in article 5 of the Employment Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1999. Article 5 provides the necessary powers to introduce regulations to outlaw the blacklisting of trade unionists.

The regulations were made on 19 March 2014 and came into operation on 6 April 2014. To continue to have effect, they must be approved by a resolution of the Assembly on or before 5 October 2014.

The Department originally consulted on the issue back in 2003, but, as there was no hard evidence of blacklisting taking place at the time, regulations were not implemented. However, in March 2009, the Information Commissioner announced that he had uncovered a vetting service operated by the Consulting Association, an organisation for companies in the UK construction sector. The Information Commissioner proceeded to prosecute the chief operating officer of the Consulting Association for breaching a provision of the Data Protection Act 1998.

It was noted that the Consulting Association had collected information on the trade union membership and activities of many individuals and that that information had in effect been used to blacklist them. Following that announcement, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) in Great Britain brought in regulations to prohibit the blacklisting of trade unionists. The regulations have been in force in Great Britain since March 2010.

Given that some of the construction companies identified in the Information Commissioner’s investigation were linked to operations in Northern Ireland, my Department, as the Department responsible for employment law in Northern Ireland, decided to investigate and consult on the need for similar regulations. This consultation ran for 12 weeks from 28 July 2010 until 20 October 2010.

Following agreement from the Executive and the Committee for Employment and Learning, I now intend to enact these regulations formally to prohibit blacklisting in Northern Ireland. This will ensure that all trade union members working in Northern Ireland will have similar safeguards and protections to those working in the rest of the UK.

The Department does not wish to deter employers from vetting prospective employees, provided such vetting is proportionate and complies with employment law and data protection principles. The regulations have been specifically designed to target only listing activity that involves trade union membership and activities and to enable affected individuals to seek redress from this type of discrimination.

The very specific focus of the regulations should ensure that virtually all vetting activity that has nothing to do with trade union matters is left unaffected. I emphasise that good employers really have nothing to fear from the regulations.

I am grateful to the Committee for Employment and Learning and the Executive for their detailed scrutiny of the policy proposals and the regulations. I hope that I have provided the House with sufficient explanation of the purpose of the regulations and will, of course, respond to Members' points in my closing remarks.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I welcome the opportunity to outline the Employment and Learning Committee’s views on this statutory rule. This is important legislation. As well as the detail of the statutory rule, it sends out an important message to employers and employment agencies that, while the Assembly supports them in their efforts to develop the economy, it will not allow them to discriminate against individuals whom they decide have been vocal in their opposition to some of their employer practices.

On 29 February 2012, the Committee received a briefing from departmental officials on the results of the Department's consultation on regulations to prohibit blacklisting. During the briefing, the officials advised that, in 2009, an investigation by the Information Commissioner discovered that an organisation held a database containing the details of more than 3,000 construction workers that included personal information on relationships, trade union activity and employment history. That database had been used by more than 40 construction companies. The owner was prosecuted for breach of the Data Protection Act and fined £5,000.

During that briefing, the Committee noted that there was consensus on introducing regulations on the issue. The Committee was content with the Department’s proposal to bring forward the legislation as long as it would not be overly burdensome on the vast majority of companies that have never been engaged in such activity but would ensure that something was on the statute book to deal with any company found to be participating in such practices.

The statutory rule prohibits the compilation, distribution and use of blacklists to facilitate discrimination against trade union members and activists. Making it illegal for an organisation to refuse employment or dismiss an employee for a reason related to a blacklist is necessary to protect employees’ rights.

The Committee considered the proposal to make the statutory rule at its meeting on 11 December 2013 and agreed that it was content with the need for the rule. It agreed, however, to write to the Department of Finance and Personnel seeking clarification on what action will be taken against companies that are found to have operated blacklists.

At its meeting on 15 January, the Committee considered the responses from the Department of Finance and Personnel advising that, should the legislation become law in Northern Ireland, it will mean that companies could have a formal court or tribunal decision or ruling against them for such practices. That would make it possible for contracting authorities to exercise their discretion clearly, under the Public Contracts Regulations 2006, as to whether individual contractors should be excluded from any procurement process. The Department of Finance and Personnel also pointed out that the contracting authority would still be required to carry out an assessment in every case.

The Department laid the statutory rule on 25 March, and it was considered by the Committee on 9 April. There was no change to the policy content since the proposal was considered by the Committee, and the Examiner of Statutory Rules raised no issues. The Committee for Employment and Learning supports the statutory rule and commends it to the House.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

I welcome the fact that the Minister has brought this issue to the House today. It will ensure that workers who have been involved in trade unions or been activists in previous employment will not be discriminated against in future employment because of their involvement in these types of organisations. Employers, by placing activists' names on blacklists, may inadvertently discriminate against those employees when they go for future employment, simply because of their prior involvement. The implementation of this statutory rule will prohibit the compiling, distribution and use of lists to discriminate against workers involved in trade unions and activists, and it will reinforce workers' employment rights.

The rule will make it against the law to refuse employment on the grounds of the details of an employee appearing on a blacklist. It is important that workers have free access to involvement in trade unions without fear of future recriminations that would discriminate against them should they apply for work or try to get a job in other organisations. Any document compiled to treat some employees in any way less favourably than others is of grave concern to us. Discrimination on any ground is wrong, and I am happy that this legislation is being brought forward to outlaw such practices.

The blacklisting of employees because of trade union involvement is not widespread in Northern Ireland. However, despite it being a relatively minor problem here, putting in place legislation is a matter of principle to safeguard against it becoming a problem in the future. The legislation will guard against such practices creeping into different industries here. As a principle, we want to ensure that legal measures are put in place to guard against such discriminatory practices in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I welcome the implementation of the legislation and commend it to the House.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I very strongly welcome Minister Farry's bringing this very important legislation to the House. The SDLP welcomes this Executive business today. As the only Assembly party to vote against the increase in pension age for public servants and the reduction of redundancy pay for civil servants, many of whom are low paid, we have demonstrated our commitment to protecting the interests of hard-pressed households and trade union members.

The fact that the Information Commissioner in England named companies operating in Northern Ireland in a report on blacklisting is deeply and distinctly worrying. In the past fortnight, Northern Ireland has again witnessed at first hand the damage done when discrimination is permitted. The choice to join a trade union is a right under law. No employer is allowed to try to make you change your decision on trade union membership or to threaten to penalise you if you do not. Therefore, it is important to ensure that employers are prohibited from compiling lists of individuals who are members of unions or who have taken part in the activities of the trade union movement. We do not want those employees to be discriminated against when employers are recruiting or allocating work.

This is of specific importance in the current economic climate, when work is scarce and employees have less employment security. It is particularly important to bring in such legislation to protect workers: for example, those on zero-hours contracts. I know that Minister Farry is painstakingly going through consultation on this, and our Committee has met officials. Industries should be more flexible. There should be more fluid employment practices, particularly in the construction industry, to ensure that employees are well protected.

The SDLP is committed to protecting and extending the rights of, and opportunities for, workers across Northern Ireland. We will continue to advocate that other parties follow the SDLP's lead and insert meaningful social clauses into Department contracts so that the successful contractors make a reasonable contribution to providing work experience for young people and opportunities for the unemployed. We will continue to highlight the need to remedy and stop zero-hours contracts. In that vein, we are very happy to support this very meaningful and important legislation.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I welcome the comments made by the three Members who contributed. In reference to comments made by Robin Swann as the Chair of the Committee, I welcome its scrutiny of the regulations and the support that it has provided. I also note the importance of the regulations being enforceable through tribunals and our courts system.

Tom Buchanan's comments neatly dovetailed with those of the Chair of the Committee. That gives me the opportunity to stress, once again, that the practice of blacklisting is rare in Northern Ireland. It is also important to stress that the vast majority of employers are responsible and do not engage in this destructive behaviour. However, whenever they do, the consequences are serious and, as Mr Ramsey outlined, amount to discrimination and denial of opportunities. When people are found to be operating blacklists or engaging in other behaviour that will now be made illegal, it is appropriate, therefore, that we send a strong message.

Mr Ramsey ventured slightly beyond the immediate topic of blacklisting and chose to place the regulations in the wider context of other debates that are alive in society. Members will have their own views on that wider context and the measures that we may or may not wish to take. However, in response to Mr Ramsey's comments, I agree on the importance of people having the freedom to engage in trade union activity. Trade unions can be a very constructive voice, both in the workplace and in wider society. They have been proactive in leadership in standing up against sectarianism and racism in society over past weeks.

The Finance Minister will no doubt be happy to respond on the use of social clauses in Government procurement, but they are routinely used and deployed by Departments and they make a real difference. My officials will brief the Committee for Employment and Learning on zero-hour contracts tomorrow and will discuss the advanced stage of the preparation of a consultation document. Subject to the outcome of those discussions, it is my hope that we will launch a public consultation on zero-hours contracts in Northern Ireland some time next week. We will seek people's views over the next number of weeks with a view to taking decisions on what regulations we may wish to put in place in Northern Ireland. That will be a decision for the Executive and, in turn, the Assembly to shape, but it is a debate that is required, and I am sure that there will be considerable interest from MLAs and members of the public in the outcome.

I thank those Members who contributed today as well as the Members of the Executive who agreed to the regulations and the Committee for its scrutiny and support of the regulations. I commend them to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Employment Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 be approved.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Budget (No.2) Bill 2014 be agreed.

The Second Stage debate today follows the approval of the Supply resolution yesterday by the Assembly for the expenditure plans of Departments and other public bodies as detailed in the 2014-15 Main Estimates.

As Members will undoubtedly be aware, accelerated passage of the Bill is necessary in order to ensure Royal Assent prior to the end of July. If the Bill did not proceed by accelerated passage and receive Assembly approval before the summer recess, Departments and other public bodies might have legislative difficulty accessing cash, which would threaten the effective delivery of public services prior to our return to the Chamber in September. However, the Committee for Finance and Personnel has confirmed that, in line with Standing Order 42, it is satisfied that there has been appropriate consultation with it on the public expenditure proposals contained in the Bill.

I thank the Committee for its work in agreeing to accelerated passage. It is often unheralded work, but the Committee has been involved in the setting of the 2014-15 Budget right from its inception in the 2011-15 Budget back in March 2011, through each exercise approved by the Executive, up until the finalisation and publication of the Estimates volume a few weeks ago. The work of the Committee in that respect is vital and, whilst much of it takes place in the background, so to speak, its importance cannot be underestimated.

The Estimates and associated Budget Bill are complex documents, and the review of the financial process that my predecessor and I have often called for would help to clarify the Estimates process. In fact, it is a review that the Committee has long sought. Any future review would be an opportunity for the Executive and Assembly to deliver a significant, positive reform of the financial process inherited under direct rule.

The Assembly’s Standing Order 32 directs that the Second Stage debate should be confined to the general principles of the Bill, and I shall endeavour to keep to that direction. The main purpose of the Bill is to make further provision of cash and resources for use on services, in addition to the Vote on Account provided in the Budget Act in March, up to the requirements of Departments and other public bodies set out in the Main Estimates for 2014-15. Copies of the Budget Bill and the explanatory and financial memorandum have been made available to Members today, and the 2014-15 Main Estimates were laid in the Assembly on 28th May.

The Bill will authorise the issue of a further £8,411,921,000 from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund and the further use of resources totalling £9,168,609,000 by the Departments and certain other bodies listed in schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill. The cash and resources are to be spent and used on the services listed in column 1 of each schedule. Of course, those amounts are in addition to the Vote on Account passed by the Assembly in March, bringing the total amount of cash provided for 2014-15 to over £15·4 billion pounds.

In addition, the Bill sets for the current financial year a limit for each Department on the use of accruing resources. Accruing resources are current and capital receipts totalling £2,299,191,000. Therefore, the resources authorised in the Vote on Account in March and the resources and accruing resources now provided in this Bill bring the total resources for use by Departments in 2014-15 to over £19 billion. Of course, those amounts of resources include not only the departmental expenditure limits (DEL) on which our Budget process mainly focuses but the departmental, demand-led annually managed expenditure (AME).

Clause 2 of the Bill provides for the temporary borrowing by my Department of £4,205,960,000. That is approximately half the sum authorised by clause 1(1) for issue out of the Consolidated Fund. I must stress to the House that clause 2 does not provide for the issue of any additional cash out of the Consolidated Fund or convey any additional spending power, but it does enable my Department to run an effective and efficient cash management regime and ensure minimum drawdown of the Northern Ireland block grant on a daily basis — something that is very important when contemplating the daily borrowing by our Departments.

Finally, clause 5 removes from the statute book two Budget Acts from 2011 that are no longer operative.

The numbers contained within the Budget Bill are significant, and I am sure that Members will agree that it is not an easy task to translate those figures into the delivery of public services on the ground, but the reality is that this legislation is required for every public service, whether it is a schoolteacher or a police officer, the building of a new road or the training required for gaining a new job. All public services need this legislation to operate in this financial year. So, whilst it may appear dry and seemingly detached from day-to-day life, it is in fact a crucial piece of legislation underpinning our public services.

I will conclude on that note, and I will be happy to deal with any points of principle or detail of the Budget Bill that Members may wish to raise.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. As outlined, the Bill makes provision for the balance of cash and resources that are required to reflect the departmental spending plans in the 2014-15 Main Estimates. They are based on year 4 of the former Executive’s Budget, which was approved in the previous mandate of the Assembly. As on previous occasions, DFP has highlighted the potential consequences for the authorisation of departmental spending should the Bill not progress through the Assembly before the summer recess.

The Committee took evidence from departmental officials, and I wish to reiterate the Committee’s appreciation for their helpfulness in explaining the detail of the series of allocations, reductions, technical adjustments and transfers that have been made since the allocations were initially set out in the Budget 2011-15. The Committee also examined DFP’s June monitoring round return. I shall refer to that briefly as it is relevant in highlighting how the allocations in the Budget Bill can and will change through the monitoring process as we progress further into the financial year.

As a Department, DFP has the relatively small capital allocation of £21·7 million for 2014-15. However, in the June monitoring round, it has included bids for the asset management strategy that would provide £40 million in capital, in addition to £3·5 million in resource, with the aim of realising savings by rationalising public sector accommodation. While the Committee sought further detail on the anticipated savings and risks attached to the projects involved, the size of the capital bid is significant. If agreed by the Executive, it would result in an increase of over 184% in the Department’s capital allocation in the Bill. I highlight that as an example of the extent to which departmental budgets and finances present a constantly moving picture. That is all the more reason why Assembly Committees should continue to undertake robust in-year scrutiny and oversight, and are facilitated by their Departments in doing so.

On a separate issue at departmental level, the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development wrote to the Finance Committee to establish what relevant provision has been made in the Bill for the Reservoirs Bill, which it is at Committee Stage. The Finance Committee sought an urgent response from the Department on the specific detail of any provisions, including any conditions that might be attached, in advance of today's debate. While the Committee has not yet received a response to that request, I understand that the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development has also pursued the issue directly with its Department.

As I indicated during yesterday’s Supply resolution debate, the Committee agreed to grant accelerated passage to the Budget Bill under Standing Order 42(2) on the basis of having been consulted appropriately on the expenditure provisions in the Bill.

In terms of the contribution of Assembly Committees to the Budget and financial process, I also highlighted during yesterday’s debate the importance of facilitating effective scrutiny of departmental financial forecasting and out-turn data by all Statutory Committees. Detailed and regular monitoring of the financial performance of Departments will enable Committees to identify issues in real time and obtain assurances that the necessary corrective or preventative action will be taken. On that point, DFP provided prior-year forecast out-turn figures for all Departments to the Finance Committee on Tuesday 3 June. However, if that information were made available slightly earlier the Committee would be in a position to share the figures with the other Statutory Committees in time to further inform their contributions to the plenary debates on the Main Estimates and the Budget (No. 2) Bill. Perhaps that is something that can be addressed for next year.

At a strategic level, more effective Assembly input to and scrutiny of the Executive’s Budget and expenditure will help to further demonstrate that devolution is making a difference in delivering accountable, responsive and efficient governance in the North. That would represent positive steps forward, but on the immediate business before us, and on behalf of the Committee, I support the general principles of the Bill.

I will make a few comments from a party perspective. Like a number of other Members, I have come from an event on air connectivity, which was hosted by George Best Belfast City Airport. Air connectivity is an issue that the Finance Committee has looked at.

The Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee has also looked at it, and, obviously, we need to continue to oversee the work that those respective Departments are doing in regard to air connectivity.

Air passenger duty is a major issue and has been flagged up by a number of commentators, including PricewaterhouseCoopers. It said that, in its opinion, APD could be more important than corporation tax as an economic game changer. There is a lot of frustration, not only among the airports but from many involved in the tourist industry and many in business circles in general, that APD is not moving as an issue at Westminster.

Of course, my party believes that the power should be devolved so that we can set a rate that is fair to allow competition on an all-island basis. Currently, our constituents have a choice about where they fly to and from, but that will always be dictated by a number of factors, primarily price. At the moment, because of the excessive charges in the North, most consumers and most of our constituents decide to fly from Dublin airport. I want to see a fair and level playing field across the island with the same rate of air passenger duty as its equivalent in the South, where it has been abolished. The only way to do that, in our opinion, is to have the measure devolved and then to abolish it. Obviously, that will come at a price, but everything comes at a price. Once the power is devolved, the Executive can decide not to change the rate of air passenger duty, but they can decide to lower it at least to make things easier for businesses and to try to ensure that we open up some new routes to places such as Germany and France and connect airports in Belfast and Derry to those hub airports in Europe. That would ensure that we are more open to the world and that we are more open to all those tourists who are willing to come here but who, too often, arrive in the South rather than the North and so are less likely, obviously, to come North, and therefore the tourist operators and the businesses throughout all our constituencies are less likely to gain revenue or economic benefits.

Credit is due to the tourist organisations and the Departments that were involved in the organisation of the Giro d'Italia in north Antrim, Belfast, south Armagh and elsewhere and, indeed, down to Dublin. The fact of the matter is that that was a great marketing opportunity, and the island has been marketed for one of the largest sporting events in the world. The problem is that the connectivity is not there to facilitate whatever demand will come out of that. My fear, which is shared by others in the industry, is that those tourists will arrive in Dublin and will do the usual circuit of Kerry, Galway and Dublin but might not come to Belfast, the Causeway Coast, Derry and Donegal.

If we were to have a mature debate about air passenger duty and a report from the Finance Minister and the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment on air connectivity, we could make a decision on this sooner. I get the sense that the economic Ministers in the Executive want to kick this issue down the road. We need to deal with this now because, as I said yesterday, growing the economy is one of the main pillars in our Programme for Government, and tourism needs to be front and foremost in that, as should agrifood and other sectors.

Unless you are going to grasp the opportunity to have the power for things like APD devolved, you will not realise the full potential for tourism. Obviously, there is a debate in Scotland about devolution there and, ultimately, independence. Hopefully, regardless of what the decision is in Scotland, we can have a mature debate here about the devolution of further financial powers. I heard what Members on the opposite side of the House said about waiting until Westminster gets round to abolishing air passenger duty. You could be waiting for decades until Westminster makes a decision. The only way that we are going to improve our economic outcomes is by taking economic decisions ourselves. After Scotland concludes its debate and has its vote on independence, all the parties around the Executive table need to have a mature debate about what powers we need to have devolved in the short to medium term. Air passenger duty is relatively small in comparison with something like corporation tax. We have heard some positive soundings from the Executive and the Minister about the devolution of corporation tax in the time ahead, and that needs to be prioritised as well. However, given the fact that APD —

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Yes.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Does the Member not see an inconsistency in calling for the devolution of corporation tax and his party's position on welfare reform?

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I know that this particular issue is a hobby horse for the Member, and we heard him talk at length about it yesterday. At the end of the day, Sinn Féin's position on this is well known. We would like to have all powers devolved to this side of the Irish Sea so that we can make decisions for ourselves. Any change to the rate of corporation tax obviously comes at a cost, and welfare reform comes at a cost as well. However, we need to look at the costs in the round. Yesterday, I mentioned the impact that welfare reform proposals will have on the Tory agenda and the fact that the impact on the most vulnerable in our communities has not been thought through fully. There is always the reference to the estimates coming from Treasury, and everybody has to bow down to what the Treasury says. This would have a huge impact on public health; the more people you push under the breadline, the more people you will have accessing the health service because of their mental health, in particular, and their physical health. That has not been assessed. I have not heard any estimates of the added pressure that that would have on the health service. I have not heard any estimates from the Department or the British Treasury about the economic impact that the withdrawal of millions of pounds would have in our town and city centres. It has not been thought out and that debate has not been had. Indeed, that debate has been avoided by many of the players who are willing to push forward welfare reform as soon as they possibly can.

Our position is quite clear; we want to see a fair outcome and a fair deal for everybody that we represent. We recognise that our level of deprivation is quite starkly different from that in communities in Scotland, England and Wales, and, therefore, we need to have different policies in place to deal with that and to ensure that we have better social outcomes for the people whom we represent. All the parties need to get round the table to deal with that and present a robust case to the British Government and Westminster to ensure that we do get a fair deal on welfare reform.

As I said, the Giro was a great success for tourism. In the coming weeks, we will see the Tour de France in Yorkshire, and that will obviously bring huge economic benefit to the communities in that part of England and in France. We need to aim for that as well. I speak to many who are involved in cycling clubs throughout my constituency of North Antrim, and they want to see that as well. Why should we not be more ambitious? Why should we just set the bar at the Giro? The Tour de France is being hosted just across the water, and I believe that we could do it better over here. Therefore, the case should be presented for it in the years ahead, as it should be for other major events, including the Rugby World Cup. Work is under way to try to attract that event to our shores as well.

Tourism majored in the Programme for Government, and we are not punching at or above our weight. Throughout the rest of the island, tourism is more mainstream. Communities recognise its economic impact on job creation, and so on, because it is more developed. We in the North need to match that level of development. The way in which to do that is by through improving access and by effective marketing of major events, such as the Giro d'Italia. The Executive and their economic Ministers need to get serious about that, because the cost of APD is relatively minor in comparison with corporation tax. It is something that Ministers need to get to grips with to improve our economic outcomes and our image.

We referred to this yesterday: the image of the North, and of the island as a whole, is clearly linked to attracting tourists to these shores. I reiterate the point that we cannot afford to have a loose word here or there from our politicians that lead to major headlines across the world that paint this place — particularly this city — in a negative light. I say that conscious of —

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

Order, please. I am going to diplomatically encourage the Member to focus on the Budget Bill.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I thank the Deputy Speaker for his intervention. Of course, I am speaking about budgets that are in place for the respective Departments for tourism and those for community relations through OFMDFM. That is my tenuous link.

To conclude, a LeasCheann Comhairle, as I said yesterday, we in the North have to major on tourism more than we do already. As politicians, we need to be more conscious of the image that we portray to the world. That is because a lot of the good work that has been carried out by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and by other Ministers to attract inward investment — foreign direct investment — week in and week out, can be undermined by the stroke of a pen or a loose word from a politician. Members need to very mindful of that in the time ahead.

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

I call Mr Paul Girvan, who will be mindful of what I have just said.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I am in favour of the Budget Bill and its progress. Hopefully, we can get there today. However, in doing so, I want to comment on what happens in Committee. I also put on record my thanks to the Committee staff and to the departmental officials who come along to brief us and keep us up to speed with what is going on. A word of thanks has to go to them, because it is not always that easy to understand exactly what we have in front of us. They have made the process very easy.

One thing that needs to be improved urgently is early intervention during monitoring rounds to ensure that money that cannot be spent is brought forward early enough so that it can be reallocated. That needs to be done so that we do not have to send back money because it was brought back far too late to allow it to be spent. In this mandate, to date, no moneys have been returned. That is good. On many occasions in the past, tens of millions of pounds had to be handed back to the Exchequer because of a lack of funding commitments.

Some benefits have been brought forward. As a region, from a business perspective, we probably benefit from some of the lowest rates in the United Kingdom.

The average business rate in Northern Ireland is £10,554. I cannot give you an exact figure for Wales and Scotland, but the payment in England is about £15,000 — 50% more than in Northern Ireland — plus an average water bill of between £334 and £388 a year. So, there have been major benefits for the Northern Ireland economy, and businesses have been able to avail themselves of that.

One commitment in the early stages of this mandate was to grow our economy. In doing so, we have probably boxed well above our weight on inward investment and attracting new business. The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is not here, but I congratulate her and her Department for their work in encouraging and bringing forward new business through Invest NI, which has turned its game around in recent years from being a business promotion organisation to delivering numbers. In recent months, its predictions have gone far beyond expectations.

There will be a decision on the devolution of corporation tax, which will impact on us in future years. A decision will be made this autumn, and hopefully we can use that as another tool in the box to grow our economy and ultimately ensure that we benefit from it.

Invest-to-save schemes have been helpful in Departments, although each Department seems to have a slightly different interpretation of a saving. It is not a cut. It is sometimes about ensuring that better use is made of resources, thereby increasing efficiency in those Departments. Some Departments have been very good at that and others have not. I encourage each Committee to scrutinise invest-to-save schemes to see where they can be of benefit to make more money available for delivery on the ground.

Much has been made of how we can influence the way forward. There are a number of variables. The previous Member who spoke mentioned welfare reform and the difficulties of not having everything pinned down. We got concessions with provisions that have been implemented in GB, but we must focus on moving forward and resolving the matter before it has a very major impact on the delivery of services to the wider public. The Executive will also have to focus on that to ensure that we progress the matter to a good conclusion.

There has been much positive media spin on the tourism aspect of the Giro, and we can take advantage of that. That will probably not happen this year, but, for years to come, there will be benefits from the people who watched the shots filmed from helicopters of the wonderful scenery. People will want to come to see the wonderful sights of Northern Ireland. We probably have some of the greatest scenery that the world has to offer, and we should be selling that as a positive as opposed to not selling our Province. Some people ask, "Why would you want to go there?", and I have heard people say, "There is nothing to see here", but, when you start to focus on where they live, you see that there is a lot more to see there than in many other places in the world that claim to be tourist attractions.

Everything is right on our doorstep, and we should be taking full advantage of that. Northern Ireland is a very small country, and you could go from one end of it to the other in two hours — depending on what you are driving, but that is beside the point. It is vital that we get the benefit from selling Northern Ireland as somewhere that you can get around relatively quickly to see what you need to.

I have a real interest in air passenger duty (APD) because Belfast International Airport is in my constituency. It is vital to have air links to encourage tourists from other areas and so that we have business links that we can develop. That has to be looked at. I believe that the British Government implemented APD as a green tax to deal with carbon offsetting. I do not see that they have not done very much with it. Under a European directive, doing away with the duty, if we decide to do that, could be classed as state aid. That is among the arguments that could be brought forward. However, the Republic of Ireland seems to do what it wants and ask for forgiveness later. We are unique in that we compete directly with an airport that is two hours down the road and can offer flights with zero APD. I see the uniqueness of us having to look at addressing some of those areas.

We have been successful in dealing with the band of APD for long-haul flights, which ensured that we retained our only link to North America. It is vital that we encourage more long-haul flights. Conversations are ongoing to deal with the matter, and Northern Ireland could benefit greatly from it.

I have spoken with many business owners over the last year who said that we have got many things right. Fifty per cent of all businesses in Northern Ireland are availing themselves of a 20% reduction in their business rate. Many of them are asking, "Can we be sure that this will continue?" It is good that we have been able to facilitate that until now, and there is work ongoing to ensure that we can extend the business rate relief programme. It is vital that we do that, especially in this time of economic austerity and given the difficulties that many businesses are having.

It is also encouraging that we are using some of our major capital investment to deliver projects that are creating employment and ensuring that we can bolster and support our construction industry. Major schemes are under way, and I appreciate that many things have been happening in certain areas to ensure that we move forward in a better way. That includes reviewing how we deal with planning and ensuring that the planning process is more streamlined. Some of the benefits of that work are coming through, and we are finding that applications get through the system more quickly.

Under RPA, there will be more of an opportunity for those who are involved at a local level to have some influence in the development of area plans, which will mean that there is some opportunity to ensure economic development in those areas. The Deputy Speaker is smiling. I appreciate that we have enterprise zones, and Coleraine happens to be one of the areas that has benefited from having an enterprise zone. We now need to focus on setting those up in areas where there are difficulties in attracting business to ensure that that happens across the board.

I put on record my thanks to the Minister and his predecessor for the good work that they have done in ensuring that we have our voice heard in Westminster, have a lobby in Whitehall and get our message across. We do not necessarily get all the money that we would like, but I would like to ensure that we get everything that we can. I appreciate that our Ministers and the Executive do that to the best of their ability. I know that we receive a lot more back than we pay in. Some people think that we should be getting a lot more, but I believe that, when the Barnett formula is calculated, we do not come out too badly.

I appreciate that people have mentioned how welfare reform might have an impact. A lot of people say that it will cost this or that, but we will actually receive more moneys; our welfare budget will increase, as opposed to reduce. Some people are not willing even to look at that matter. I appreciate that we need to ensure that we get the best deal for those who require the benefits, who are probably the most vulnerable and needy in our society. That is what we are doing.

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

Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle, as an deis cainte sa díospóireacht seo ar an Bhuiséad. Thanks very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in this debate on the Budget.

As I mentioned in yesterday's debate, for the SDLP, using other means of levering further expenditure to invest in the local economy and in sectors that could improve the life of people here is the whole purpose of devolution. However, in Northern Ireland, we are again looking at one section of the Budget in isolation and neglecting the opportunity to be more holistic and strategic.

A yearly Budget, as opposed to the current four-year Budget that we discuss in part today, would provide the opportunity for our economy to be more flexible. It would give us better opportunities to provide solutions for childcare funding, assist small businesses and reprioritise capital spending to boost our economy; all things that the SDLP has been highlighting the necessity of for some time. An annual Budget process, which the SDLP has continually proposed, is nothing new; it is the case, largely, in most countries.

As I said, an annual Budget process would enable us to adjust policy priorities, where required, to best support our population. It is all the more necessary, given the holes in the Budget. The Minister did respond to the points that I made on this issue yesterday, but I was not convinced by his answers. He said that an annual Budget would involve his officials working on a Budget for most of the year. One would assume that it was the job and the responsibility of the officials of a finance Department to work on budgetary matters constantly. I believe that an annual Budget would provide much more accountability and ensure that projects are moved forward much more rapidly than they are, in many cases, at the moment.

When this Budget was published, the SDLP outlined some key reasons why it was necessary for Northern Ireland and the Executive to be more ambitious in their thinking.

All these reasons are more pressing now than they were in 2011.

When the Executive published this Budget, they did so without an accompanying Programme for Government. As I said at the time, the cart was placed before the horse. Such budgetary management without strategic planning is far from ideal, and perhaps we are now seeing the legacy of that bad planning, particularly in our health service. My colleague Mr McKinney has spoken in detail about the lack of transparency and assessment of the strategic priorities in the health service, and it strikes me that the rot set in when this four-year Budget was signed off without a Programme for Government.

Today, 20% of our young people are still out of work, yet the Budget did little to prioritise job creation. Yes, it is true that some jobs have been announced recently, which I very much welcome, but it is not enough to stem the tide of migration. Quite often, the jobs announced are Belfast-centric.

Again, last week, there was controversy in the Assembly regarding the Education Minister's plans for area planning and the decision not to proceed with the Education and Skills Authority (ESA). This is another demonstration of the problems caused and the money wasted when a strategic government programme, supported by adequate budget lines, is not agreed. The 2011-15 Budget did not truly recognise that public expenditure is the major economic lever here in the North.

Just as the coalition Government are now proposing with their Infrastructure Bill, in 2011 the SDLP proposed a number of options to prioritise capital expenditure to better stimulate the economy. This included increasing capital expenditure for social housing construction. In this context, we should bear in mind the 9,878 households that are accepted as homeless by the Housing Executive.

The final reason why the SDLP voted against the 2011 Budget was its absolute failure to identify any new revenue streams. We published two distinct documents with, potentially, billions in proposed spending alternatives, but those proposals were shouted down. Given the economic climate, and for all the reasons I have just outlined, it is imperative that the Minister and the House look at those proposals again to be imaginative for the future. It is imperative that we properly assess alternative proposals from the SDLP and from other sources.

We can do things differently to benefit the people of the North, and the SDLP will champion the necessity to do so. I fail to understand why the Minister has been so resistant to such an approach. Why not assess, as I and others have suggested, the establishment of a Scottish-style commission, the options to extend devolution and the opportunities to take control of additional fiscal levers? As I said previously, if this were to be done we could get a clear picture on an evidence base of which fiscal levers are available to us and which will add to our economic development.

It is not sufficient to say that we have all the good powers already available and that the rest would be of no benefit. Such an argument does not fly. Only last week, we were debating the air passenger duty levy. As currently set, the levy penalises Northern Ireland business travellers, who are unfairly taxed on every journey to England. We heard earlier from the Chair of the Finance Committee the effect that the duty has on the tourism industry. A reduction of air passenger duty on all flights, international and internal, would help reduce the competitive disadvantage faced by Northern Ireland industry, especially the tourism industry.

Why not provide an evidence-based argument to the London Government? Why not assess all the available options that would allow us to use our small size to be nimble in the global market? We must be bold, brave, ambitious and take reasonable risks in the development of the Budget, including budgeting annually, to benefit industry, business development and, consequently, wider society.

Go raibh míle maith agat as an deis cainte. Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to participate.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

It seems no time since we were talking about budgets yesterday.

The Executive's top priority during the Budget period 2011-15 was to develop the economy. As we are now finalising the figures for the last year of the Budget, it is useful to look at what has been achieved. In 2011-12, the public sector accounted for 36% of all jobs, compared to 28% in Great Britain. Public expenditure in Northern Ireland accounts for 63% of output compared to 39% in Great Britain. As a result of the large public sector, gross value added (GVA) per capita in Northern Ireland has been significantly below that in the rest of the United Kingdom, at around 80%.

What progress has been made over the period? What special measures are included in this Budget to advance the Programme for Government target?

At the start of the Budget period, we were told that up to 30% of existing Northern Ireland Civil Service accommodation was in poor or very poor condition, with substantial investment required or replacement sought within five years. Again, I wonder what the current situation is. The reduced maintenance budget may well have exacerbated the condition of the estate. Perhaps, the Minister can advise us.

Yesterday, I referred to the Hillsborough agreement sites — the Minister will note that I put in the word "agreement" there to make it easier this time — and the cost of £1·3 million that has been included in the Estimates for security and maintenance.

Looking back at the first year, 2011-12, again, we see that Ministers recognised the importance of the regeneration sites which had been gifted by Her Majesty's Government. But what has been done during the intervening three years? Mr Wilson correctly stated yesterday that the outcome of the four-year Budget is before us now and indeed that is the case, but how successful has it been? On the capital side, £547 million was expected in receipts during the four years of the Budget. A further £100 million was anticipated to come from asset sales through the capital assets management unit. Were those moneys realised or is there a balance to be achieved this year?

I will now turn to the reconciliation of the Estimates with the Budget. The Committee for Finance and Personnel was supplied with a table, annex A, which was most helpful. Again, I congratulate the staff for their forthrightness in coming and attempting to answer our questions. It certainly makes life a bit easier. In that table, we could see that the Department of Education was allocated an extra £75 million to increase its budget. What was that sum for and has it indeed been spent? DCAL was given £16·8 million for regional stadia. Is that sum likely to be spent in the remaining Budget period?

Yesterday, I referred to resources that are held in the centre. The Minister advised that the sums would be disbursed shortly. However, on the capital side, there is reinvestment and reform (RRI) borrowing of around £300 million. Included in that figure is £50 million that relates to Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC). I ask the Minister why that is necessary when there was £80 million in the social investment fund last year. There is reference to £44 million of unallocated borrowing from T:BUC which is at risk by the Treasury. Again, can the Minister clarify that situation?

Finally, I note that there is an unallocated sum of £34·8 million that relates to financial transactions capital. This is a fairly new form of investment, and I believe it has a great future. Is that £34·8 million the final figure for the year? Are there projects which that capital can service and have they been identified at this stage?

Colleagues will raise other questions about various Departments later in the debate. I look forward to hearing from the Minister again in due course.

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

Following the Assembly's approval yesterday of the Supply resolution for the expenditure plans of Departments and other public bodies as detailed in the 2014-15 Main Estimates, I welcome the opportunity to now contribute to this stage of the Budget Bill. On the surface, the Budget Bill is quite dry. However, it is crucial legislation for every public service provided for under the authority of the Assembly, and we must ensure that our plans fit within the context of the current economic climate.

The past financial year has seen some economic growth, which has not been seen for some time. That is a testament to our private sector, which continues to innovate and perform in domestic and international markets. However, we should also recognise the role that our public sector has played in providing the conditions that have aided the recovery. The jobs and economy initiative directed resources to areas to help educate young people, upskill workers and resource businesses, whilst, at the same time, ensuring that we continue to care for the vulnerable and the elderly. Unfortunately, however, much of that good work could stop due to the current impasse on welfare reform.

During yesterday's debate on the Main Estimates, concern was expressed about the public expenditure consequences of non-delivery of welfare reform. I, too, share that concern. The forecast penalty for 2014-15 is £87 million, which simply cannot be met through the reduced requirements that usually materialise in the three monitoring rounds. Cuts to all Departments will therefore be required. In some ways, that makes a farce of us debating today a Budget that we know will be reduced in the weeks and months ahead.

We are already seeing Departments retreating into their silos, trying to simply manage their individual budgets and protect themselves from the inevitable cuts that will result from the fines that will be imposed. This is not good for Northern Ireland. Our budgetary process needs to be handled maturely and innovatively, and collaboration between Departments is imperative.

We spent months in the Social Development Committee scrutinising the Welfare Reform Bill for Northern Ireland. A number of variations for Northern Ireland have been secured. Of course I agree that we must do as much as we can to protect those in our society who rely on the benefit system, but I believe that the time has come to implement the Bill and to stop cutting our nose off to spite our face. All that we are doing by delaying the legislation is reducing the money that we have to spend on our public services — the very services that are aimed at helping the most vulnerable to escape from poverty.

It is not just the direct financial penalties that we need to concern ourselves with. There are other adverse impacts upon service delivery and the wider economy that cannot be ignored. For example, the Department for Social Development currently employs 1,400 people to provide child maintenance and social security services to people in England on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). DWP has been very clear that, should Northern Ireland not maintain parity and, consequently, no longer have staff experienced in using the IT systems, it will have no option but to relocate those jobs elsewhere. The loss of those jobs would be a huge blow to the local economy.

We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland to maximise the outcomes from our Budget. Therefore, we need leadership from all parties on this issue so that we can focus on service delivery, protect our most vulnerable and bring people out of poverty. We need to continue to reform our public services to ensure that we have the right components in place to continue on the path to economic recovery. I know that party colleagues will raise some other issues in the Budget today, but I think that this is one of the main things that we really need to focus on.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to today's debate as the Chair of the Regional Development Committee.

I start by thanking my colleague the Finance Minister for bringing this motion to the House today. I noted yesterday that the level of the Main Estimates for the Department has reduced by a mere 0·43% from last year, so it is positive that, despite continued pressures, the amount of investment available to the Department has, to all intent and purposes, remained static.

Colleagues on the Committee for Finance and Personnel received a briefing on the Main Estimates from DFP officials on 28 May 2014, during which they summarised the Regional Development allocations. There is a revised asset management unit capital receipts allocation of £17 million; £30 million for the A8 Belfast to Larne project; £2 million for land and compensation costs; £13·6 million for the Magherafelt bypass; £11 million for road structural maintenance; £8·1 million for the Glarryford A26 project; £5 million for the local transport safety measures and road safety improvements; £2·5 million for bus procurement and the completion of the 2013-14 orders.

On the resource side, I note that there is £7·6 million for the moratorium on increasing car parking charges, which was a result of the economy and jobs initiative and is welcomed by the Committee. However, I will lay down a bit of a marker for the Minister. The Committee was briefed on 4 June about the proposed legislation for the transfer of off-street car parks and was quite rightly shocked to hear that there were no proposals to introduce safeguards to provide for the future sales of those assets. Officials were not in a position to indicate the value of the assets and have been asked to forward that information to the Committee. I have since been advised that, based on 2010 figures, the total asset being transferred is £233 million or £256 million at today's prices following inflation. The Committee will not allow those assets to be transferred unless there are substantial safeguards in the legislation to ensure that the public purse does not lose out in the event of any future sale of part or all of those assets, and I hope that the Minister for Regional Development will take note of that position.

The total additional allocation to the Department in the financial year is £96 million, and that is a welcome bonus to a very tight budget. Obviously, we are not in a position to see outcome figures, but I am confident that the Minister for Regional Development and his officials will achieve their spend targets, as has been the experience in recent years.

Investment in the strategic roads infrastructure has a significant impact on our economy and in contributing to confidence in the construction and ancillary industries. For every £1 million invested in our roads, some 28 jobs are sustained. The economic knock-on that those works have in our construction industry and to the suppliers in the industry is immense. Every £1 invested in construction generates £2·84 in total economic activity, and, of course, completion of those roads will allow for faster and more efficient freight operations and for more and better tourism infrastructure and will help to link our most remote communities.

The Committee continues to be concerned, however, about the huge backlog that is accruing in the road structural maintenance programme and is sitting at £830 million. The current departmental budget for the programme is £56 million whilst the independently assessed structural maintenance funding plan (SMFP) level is £133 million, leaving a shortfall of £77 million.

While my colleague the Minister of Finance and Personnel and his Executive colleagues have been very generous in recent years, it would be wholly inappropriate to expect the SMFP level to be continually maintained through future monitoring rounds. Additionally, that method of topping up the pot at monitoring rounds is not necessarily the most efficient, given that the report 'Maintaining strategic infrastructure: roads', issued by the National Audit Office at the end of last week, stated that because the Department for Transport had to bid in year for additional moneys, that resulted in most maintenance being carried out:

"in the autumn and winter, which is less efficient because materials can be more difficult to handle in cold and wet conditions and daylight hours are shorter. As a result of the additional funding for emergency repairs, which is made available at the end of the financial year, almost all highways authorities need extra capacity from the market at the same time, which makes it less likely that they will get value for money".

That was supported by departmental officials presenting to the Committee on the June monitoring round. They stated in their briefing papers:

"The early allocation of additional funding would provide best value for money by allowing more resurfacing work to be done in the summer months during longer hours of daylight leading to traffic management and safety benefits."

It is our opinion that the Minister for Regional Development and his officials need to argue for greater funding certainty for capital projects and maintenance budgets, thereby increasing the potential to achieve better value for money.

It is not all about the roads infrastructure. Importantly, it is also about the sewer and waste water infrastructure. We are all aware of the seriousness of the governance issues and arrangements in Northern Ireland Water, and I thank the Minister of Finance for his continuing discussions with Treasury to try to bring about greater governance and financial flexibility for Northern Ireland Water. However, the Committee has concerns about Northern Ireland Water's long-term budgets, particularly as a number of waste water treatment plants are either at or approaching capacity, increasing the risk to the Northern Ireland economy of infraction proceedings from Europe, which would see significant penalties applied.

We have only to look at the Department of Agriculture and the penalties that it had to pay because of the farm maps issue. Of huge significance to our economy is the overspill into Belfast lough. That not only brings the potential for more infractions but could result in businesses that want to locate in Belfast being refused because its systems cannot take any more capacity. Only yesterday, we heard about future developments planned for Belfast harbour and the positive benefits that that new investment will have on our economy. We cannot and must not jeopardise such investment.

Those are matters that the Minister for Regional Development and his Department need to address urgently in order to protect and grow our economy in order to bring about meaningful and strategic investment in our construction and service industries and to put a plug firmly into the very real potential flow of infraction penalties away from investment in our economy and into the black hole of Brussels. I can assure the Minister and his officials that he will have the support of the Committee if he does so.

I expect that other Committee members will contribute to the debate and may cover areas that I have not touched on. I again thank my colleague the Finance Minister for bringing the motion to the Chamber, and I assure him and the House that the Committee for Regional Development will continue to hold the Department to account for its use of moneys granted to it.

Before I draw to a close, Mr Deputy Speaker, as a Member of the House, I will raise an issue that was spoken about yesterday, when the Deputy Chair of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister spoke on behalf of that Committee. I want to put it on the record for clarity. At last Wednesday's meeting, the Chair told the Committee that the June monitoring papers had arrived only a couple of hours before the meeting. It was quite apparent that he and the Deputy Chair, Mr Lyttle, who spoke yesterday, had done a side deal and decided that neither of them would chair the meeting. Initially, nine members of the Committee were present, including the Chair and Deputy Chair when they were there. I have to say, for the record, that, although other members had not seen the papers —

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

Order, please. I hope that the Member will be able to tie this in with the Budget Bill.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

This is to do with the Budget, Mr Deputy Speaker, because it shows how the Budget could have been held back or stymied in some way as a result of it. I want to put it on record that I was elected as Acting Chair after the Chair and Deputy Chair had left, and the officials who were waiting to speak on the June monitoring round were questioned very effectively by the seven members from the three parties who were left, including the Chair's colleague Mr Cree, who remained and asked very effective questions. So business was done, stunt politics failed to work, and we were able to continue, today and yesterday, with the Budget debates.

I hope that that ties in, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is important to put on record what happened last Wednesday at the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I will try to follow that.

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

Please do not.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

As a — hopefully — reasonably responsible MLA, I will try my best not to stymie the Budget, the Budget process or the debate.

Arguably, one of the pitfalls of being a member of the Finance and Personnel Committee is that, although we have a certain level of additional insight and involvement with the budgetary process, each year we rise on the Budget and try our best to find something novel to say about it. I assure Members that I will not burden them with anything novel but will keep to the same well-trodden script of previous years.

The budgetary process has been criticised, and it has been said that it should be every year. All of us, from the youngest Member to the oldest, can remember days when Budgets, particularly those written across the water, were delivered amid high levels of fear or expectation.

I have just spotted the honourable Member for West Belfast coming into the Chamber, so I hope that that does not mean that we are soon to have an hour or two of his dissection of the Budget. We shall see.

With traditional Budgets, there was fear and expectation. It was almost a roller-coaster feeling: would it be a giveaway budget or one that was more geared towards austerity? From an economic perspective, the end result, whether in Northern Ireland or across the UK as a whole, was that there was a roller-coaster quality to it. It meant that it was very difficult for organisations and Departments to effectively plan in a more strategic manner over time.

Over the last 10 to 15 years, an important development, although it is criticised for dullness or inflexibility, is that we have been able to set longer-term Budgets. That is an advantage, and I welcome the Bill as part of the process. An encouraging element in the economy is that we have seen a certain level of economic revival and confidence that we can move forward.

However, there is no doubt, as I will say later, that there is a great shadow hanging over the Budget. It has been touched on by others, and it is the shadow of the failure of some parties to deal effectively with welfare reform and the major implications that that will have.

There is also a wider challenge. It is one that the Minister is embracing very effectively but to which our government system is perhaps a little slow to react. There is a challenge to ensure that there is stability, but there is also a need for innovation and fresh thinking on public expenditure. Take, for example, the delivery of services. Ultimately, people care about is ensuring that they get the best possible service at the best possible value. That is not simply a matter of saving money. There are issues with opportunity costs. If you fail to save money in one bid, it means that fewer resources are available in another section. The innovative work on public sector reform — the Minister pioneered that as part of the budgetary process and as part of the priority of delivering high-quality and efficient public services in the Programme for Government, which is fed into the Budget — and the creation of the public sector reform division are a step forward. As part of looking at reform, we should consistently look at how we can better deliver.

I remember, going back to a previous Finance Minister who is now the First Minister, one of the criticisms. I am paraphrasing, but, at times, one of the problems was that Departments tended to look at the 3% of new money available or the changes required and, effectively, take for granted 97% of their budget and not examine it. A positive aspect of Departments' savings delivery plans is a much more critical examination of their own budget. I join others in expressing regret that one Department, namely the Department of Education, has not embraced that. Constantly looking at innovation is very valuable in trying to deliver through the Budget. To that extent, the move largely precipitated by actions across the water on a new attitude to financial transaction capital is to be welcomed, but it is an area in which we, collectively as an Assembly, need to do better.

We should realise that whatever the position of the economy as a whole and whichever party wins next year's general election at Westminster, regardless of whether it is dependent on help from outside, we will still be in a situation of tightened financial circumstances for Northern Ireland. I think that, if anything, as there is further work to clear the Budget deficit, we will find that that will get tighter. Despite that, it is good to see the projected figures for capital spend. The Chair of the Committee for Regional Development mentioned the benefits of capital spend. He mentioned the multiplier effect and the impact on our economy, particularly the construction sector. Even with all the constraints, we still project a capital spend for next year of around £1·1 billion. That will be of benefit, and we can supplement it with financial transactions capital. It is, perhaps, a little disappointing that, although good projects have come forward, there is still a large pot of money that could be spent through that route. It is a question of the right projects coming forward. I appreciate that that deals much more with partnership with the private sector, but it is a key challenge that needs to be put in place.

I turn now to one other aspect, which is an area that I have been involved in for some time. I certainly welcome the provisions made in the Budget for the implementation of RPA. It is important that, as we move towards a more efficient system of 11 councils, which will better deliver for all our citizens, we do not have the unfortunate, unforeseen circumstances of some citizens being left with a steep rise in their rates bill. Consequently, in addition to the support given, there was provision for rates smoothing and an allocation to ratepayers to ensure that they would not lose out. The £30 million set aside by the Executive is very useful. Of course, we always look at the negative side of the coin. However, there is a realisation that, for quite a large number of people across Northern Ireland, rates convergence will mean that they go from a higher rates level to a lower rate; that is to be welcomed. In the priority of the Executive, particularly the Finance Minister, to aid the economy, ensuring that people have money in their pockets to spend is very helpful.

There is also a realisation, which, again, is encompassed in the Budget, the issue of support for businesses. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but approximately 50% of businesses now have some relief support. That is important as we face a much more global market in which businesses face pressure not simply from downturns in spending but from the greater availability of capital and movement of trade and the consistently increasing opportunities for both exports and imports. It is not said often enough that efforts to provide that support for businesses, particularly new businesses — small business rates relief, industrial de-rating, empty shop rates concessions and empty property rate relief — have helped to spread the burden of rates a lot better, with the end result that, on both the domestic and non-domestic side, ratepayers in Northern Ireland pay an awful lot less than their equivalents across the water. In difficult economic circumstances, that can only help our businesses and enterprise, and it can only help people to retain money to spend on those services.

There is no doubt that, despite all the good work that is being done, a major challenge lies ahead. It is one that, I have to say, two of the parties in the Chamber have effectively ducked so far: welfare reform. I agreed very much with Mrs Cochrane when she spoke about the direct cost to services and the long-term implications for jobs and the parity issue. The potential impact on the Budget is estimated at about £100 million. We cannot simply pretend that we can take that sort of hit without it impacting on front line services for vulnerable people. Those at lower levels in the Civil Service may ultimately not get the pay rise that they were hoping for. There may have to be cuts to vital services. I suspect that there will not be a great deal of sympathy for saying, "We wanted to ensure that we did not have a cap on welfare spending so that someone who is on the equivalent of £35,000 gross is capped at that point". There are some decisions that have to be made. I await someone making the case and saying, "We will spend all that money on welfare and make the cuts in Departments", but there is not that level of honesty or transparency among those who oppose this. There seems to be a belief that the welfare reforms can simply be ignored and that there will be no consequences whatsoever. There are clear consequences. I would have more admiration if someone were to say, "Actually, to preserve this level of welfare spending, I am prepared to make the following sacrifices and cuts in other Departments". At least that would be an honest position. I am not sure that it would be a particularly wise or financially prudent position, but at least it would be honest.

In yesterday's Supply resolution debate, it was mentioned that the current subvention was calculated at something in the region of £9·6 billion. I know that there are arguments that it could be a little bit higher or a little bit lower. However, there is a wider issue beyond simply the implications over the next few years of failure to grasp welfare reform. If we were foolish enough to go down the route of breaking parity on welfare, we would break parity on taxation and, ultimately, the block grant and would face a situation in which any Chancellor would simply say to the Assembly, "Well, if you want x, y and z, raise more money yourself". That would mean either higher taxation or much lower expenditure. The reality is that, as a region of the United Kingdom, we benefit from parity, as other regions do. Going down a line that threatens that parity and that opportunity to protect the lowest paid in our society by having that parity is a very short-sighted approach. If, in doing so, some of the parties opposite find some fig leaf to hide behind and if that provides comfort to them in signing up to what needs to happen, I am happy with whatever fig leaf they get in that regard.

The reality is that there are tough decisions to be made. As an Executive, we need to move forward on the basis of practical realities, such as the very fine Budget in front of us today. No Budget supplies every penny to every project tht all of us around the Chamber would like to see, but, overall, this is a balanced and good Budget. Let us not throw away the good work of that Budget by going into a land of make-believe and pretending that some of the implications of the wider financial bid cannot be faced up to.

I hope that I have not engaged in what the last Member talked about — stunt-ery and taking actions of that nature. We need to send out a responsible message that faces up to reality but also says that we have a good Budget today that the House should back.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I look forward to participating in the debate on the Budget. The SDLP did not support the 2011-15 Budget for important reasons that my colleague Dominic Bradley has already outlined to the House. That, however, is no direct criticism of the present Finance Minister, Simon Hamilton, who is probably one of our more effective Ministers in discharging his duties. His task was made greater because the Department for Employment and Learning — I am a member of the Employment and Learning Committee — was asked to make a resource saving of nearly £400 million across the four Budget years. In that regard, there is no direct criticism of you, Minister, but it is clear that we did not vote for that Budget at that time.

I want to reiterate some of the points that I made earlier about the legislation that Stephen Farry has brought forward on the blacklisting of workers. Our party is very content to support the Department for Employment and Learning's legislation. I hope that we will outlaw, once and for all, the blacklisting that occurs right across Northern Ireland. I reiterate that the SDLP was the only party in the Assembly that voted against the increase in pension age for public servants and the reduction of redundancy payments for civil servants. In doing so, the SDLP clearly demonstrated our commitment to protecting the interests of hard-pressed households and trade union members. It would be welcome if the rest of the Assembly were to do the same.

I reiterate that, in recent times, following on from some of Peter Weir's comments, we have seen an increase in zero-hour contracts in the volatile job market, which has meant that low-paid workers and those on short-term contracts find it harder than ever to pay the family bills. That is clear and obvious. In this budgetary process, we should consider ways to legislate on and provide funds to tackle that most important issue. It is imperative that the issue of zero-hour contracts is adequately addressed to protect workers.

Our students — a most important subject — are now in a worse place than they were in 2011, when the Budget was set without providing clarity on student finance, student fees or the education maintenance allowance. Additionally, we are yet to see a rise in the student cap, which would, undoubtedly, create jobs and limit the brain drain and the emigration from Northern Ireland, to which my colleague Dominic Bradley made clear reference. That is happening more often in this area today.

I will now address some issues relating to my constituency, particularly one that would prove a great boost to Derry and to the north-west region of Ireland. There are plans for a substantial university campus in Derry: the Minister will clearly be aware of the One Plan. The key driver of the One Plan is the delivery of the expansion of the campus at Magee. However, we have not seen any funding for the One Plan. We have seen no long-term goals for achieving it. Nearly every citizen in the city participated in the consultation on the One Plan. The most important infrastructural development that could occur in Derry is the expansion of the Magee campus. Economically, socially and culturally, it would make a huge difference.

I was disappointed to find out recently that a call was made for funding, under Together: Building a United Community, an initiative through the Treasury as part of the economic package for Northern Ireland, that resulted in substantial moneys being allocated to the relocation of University of Ulster from Jordanstown to the centre of Belfast. However, a small project involving a new teaching block at the Magee campus that was to cost £10 million was denied. Who ultimately determined the outcome of that application? Who determined that almost £40 million would go to Belfast when a small project involving a teaching unit, which would have helped Magee evolve and create more classrooms, was denied?

The Magee campus has made a huge expression of interest in lands at the Foyle and Londonderry College. Its plans include the creation of a new institute for sustainable technologies, the expansion of business and professional services, the creation of an institute for health and well-being and the expansion of computing electronic and software courses. That is where the jobs are. Clearly, the new future lies in the creative industries, the IT sector and finance, yet we are denied this in the north-west. Jobs in that sector are those that modern business and industry will require.

Was it the Minister's Department that appraised the business case? Was it the Department for Employment and Learning, the Exchequer or the Northern Ireland Office, which were part of the Together: Building a United Community project? The Minister and the Executive must face up to the fact that, during the intervening period between this debate and the implementation of the massive cuts in the Department for Employment and Learning's resource budget, real people will be unable to take advantage of the services that we, in this House, are trying to allocate every day.

Questions have to be asked about youth unemployment. Why did the Department for Employment and Learning surrender £1 million, when every Member in this House knows the history of increasing youth unemployment and the 44,000 NEETs across Northern Ireland. Why are we surrendering money?

I reiterate to the Minister that my constituency has yet to see any real commitment from the Executive to Magee. Would he be minded to support the One Plan regeneration plan? There have been massive funding injections for the move of the University of Ulster from Jordanstown to Belfast and it is no wonder that the people of Derry in my constituency feel that Stormont is doing nothing for them. I understand the apathy that they have towards Stormont, when time after time, decisions are made that clearly put the city and the young people in my area at a disadvantage. We need to prepare and have a real regional Budget, one that recognises the intrinsic need for deprivation and historical indifference to be given the attention that really addresses the non-existence afforded to my people by the Executive when it comes to providing a fair, regional, balanced Administration that will provide opportunities for all.

That is what we are here for. We all enter politics to try to improve the quality of life, but that is becoming much harder when we represent areas that are continuously deprived of infrastructure, jobs and education. The Budget needs to be looking regionally and subregionally in order to have an impact.

I have met the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Minister for Employment and Learning about an economic inactivity study that they carried out. The study will result in trying to create pilot programmes or projects across Northern Ireland. It came about as a part of a Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) report that it gave to the Employment and Learning Committee in November of last year.

Having the City of Culture brought great things to the north-west. It brought a sense of great worth. People were feeling confident about themselves and very proud of the city. However, even given the City of Culture year and the amount of money — good money — that was invested by a lot of Departments, the level of unemployment rose in Derry. We all thought that the legacy of the City of Culture would be greater employment opportunities. It has failed.

We have an economic inactivity report now. How much money is allocated to it? Again, there are no budget lines. I make it clear that the report has to look at hot spots across Northern Ireland. Those hot spots have been identified as being in parts of west Belfast, wider Belfast and urban areas, but clearly the biggest hot spot is Derry and the north-west, where there are high levels of unemployment and youth unemployment but, most importantly, very high levels of economic inactivity.

We have to prioritise the Budget. Dominic Bradley and our party have consistently said that you cannot provide a four-year Budget plan without renewing it every year when circumstances change and when we are clearly not hitting targets that other places, such as England, are hitting when it comes to creating greater employment opportunities. Even in the media yesterday, the big story was that Northern Ireland is not hitting targets.

The Minister for Employment and Learning recently brought forward legislation in the form of the Work and Families Bill. Again, it is legislation essentially inspired by Westminster. The Bill must dovetail with other key policies and strategies, including those for early years, childcare, play, leisure, and cohesion, sharing and integration. Similar consideration must be given to how it impacts on the work of DETI, the rural development plans and, most importantly, poverty reduction strategies. There are too many people in Northern Ireland on the breadline. The terminology that we are all now using is the "working poor". We have to address that need, so we need to have an injection of investment into science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects.

We had a huge event recently in the Long Gallery promoting science, technology, engineering and maths. That is the future. We need to provide those subjects, and not just in secondary and grammar schools. We have to promote and advocate STEM, but we need to invest in it in primary schools in order to generate interest.

The Committee for Employment and Learning carried out an extensive inquiry into careers. The Careers Service across Northern Ireland has failed, because we are not appropriately addressing future needs, such as what our young people need; what jobs they require; and what third-level education they should undertake. Parents' greatest choice in life is for their son or daughter to become a teacher, but what is the point in promoting that now when we find that so many hundreds, if not thousands, of them are not in work? Future jobs are going to be in the creative industries, and that is why, Minister, there has to be investment in the Careers Service across the board, and collaboratively, so that good money is spent and good investment is made to save money. We must promote and progress them consistently, as they are essential for the development of a strong knowledge-based and skilled workforce. Without such investment, our young people and students will be disadvantaged — they are continually disadvantaged — and our economic growth will be hindered precisely as we prepare to take advantage of the beginnings of what I spoke about: a global financial upturn that we have not yet seen.

The Minister has to respect and value other parties' contributions to the debate. We are meaningfully playing our part in the Executive and in stable Government, but, at times, it becomes so difficult and frustrating when people ignore us and do not listen to points about those regional disadvantages. It is about time that people lived up to the mark. The Executive are there to provide a future for everyone across Northern Ireland.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I am grateful to speak in the debate. Initially, I will speak as the Chair of the Audit Committee and then, if I may, touch on some education matters.

On behalf of the Audit Committee, I wish to confirm that the provision for the Northern Ireland Audit Office in the Budget (No. 2) Bill corresponds with the amount that was agreed by the Audit Committee and laid before the Assembly earlier this year. Those amounts were also included in the Audit Office's corporate plan for 2014-15 to 2016-17. The plan identifies three key areas in which the Audit Office believes that it can add considerable value to the Northern Ireland public sector. Those are encouraging further improvement in financial management; promoting the proper conduct of public business; and promoting improvement in the efficiency and quality of services that are provided to the taxpayer. The Audit Committee endorses those key areas.

While there have undoubtedly been improvements in the quality of public sector financial management, good governance and propriety, and the delivery of services in recent years, there remains significant scope for improvement. We want the Audit Office to use its influence across the public sector to assist in identifying opportunities for reducing costs and improving productivity, efficiency and service delivery.

The Audit Office's valuable service comes at a cost, and the Committee welcomes the fact that it has been steadily diminishing that cost to the public purse. During a period of prolonged financial pressures, in which securing the maximum benefit for every taxpayer pound has never been more important, the Northern Ireland Audit Office has reduced its net resource requirement year on year, all the while maintaining and even adding to the quality and breadth of service it provides to the Assembly. Specifically, the Audit Office's 2014-15 Estimate provides for a decrease in its net resource requirement of 1·5% in cash terms from its Estimate for 2013-14 — £8·2 million compared with £8·327 million. What is more, that represents a cash terms reduction of 12·7% from its 2010-11 net resource requirement of £9·397 million.

I want everyone to keep it in mind that the Audit Office saves the taxpayer an average of £26 million a year through its work, and that is only the work that can be measured in financial terms. We anticipate further reductions in the Northern Ireland Audit Office's net resource requirement of 1·7% in 2015-16 and a further 2·2% in 2016-17. If realised, those reductions would represent a cash terms reduction of 16·1% from the 2010-11 baseline.

The Audit Committee endorses the provision in the Main Estimates for the Audit Office, commends the Audit Office for the efficiencies it has achieved and looks forward to the continuing valuable support that it provides to the Assembly. I remind everyone that a saving of £26 million a year is not to be sniffed at.

I will move on to education. I keep in mind the words I used in speaking about the Audit Office and highlight the need for value for money. At times such as these, it is essential that we find the most efficient way of spending every penny. Sometimes, I wonder, Minister, whether we are making the effort to do so.

The job of every Committee is to scrutinise all the actions of its Department and Minister, but there are two blocks to this happening. One is that the Department or the Minister does not provide the figures in time and there is a lack of training of Committee members. The other, as the Minister knows, is the lack of transparency because of the jargon that it is all written in. I ask whether the Minister is considering looking at how accounts are presented so that we get them in a way that we and the public can understand, and everything is totally transparent.

I know that the Minister of Education wants flexibility, and there is no harm in that, as long as we know all of the figures and they are fed to us. We have been told in Committee that the Department of Education is the worst at making efficiency savings, yet that seems hard to believe when you compare it with what we get from OFMDFM. Will the Minister consider setting in place guidelines, incentives and maybe even penalties so that total transparency is possible in all Departments, but especially in Education? I am told that this may be going on, and I wonder whether the Minister will update us on whether we are getting to a more transparent system.

I return more specifically to education. Yesterday, the Chair of the Committee for Education said, quite rightly, that the Minister does extremely well on capital spend, but I would like things to be done better in many other areas. While we are on the subject of capital spend, I know that the Minister loathes the term "shovel ready", but I push the point again that every school's plans must be financially sound, properly designed and ready for purpose. When I was in council, you used to see, every quarter, a list of all of the roads and pavements and where they were in the line of priority. If the same thing could happen with schools, they could at least see the future and when their school will be rebuilt, or even that it is on the list. Something like that would give hope to the teachers and pupils.

We have a disastrous system of area planning at the moment. I wonder whether the Minister has taken on board in his budget that, if the Treacy judgement runs the way that it is going, there could be an extra cost from legal challenges to what has already happened in area planning, in which we have seen very little movement towards sharing. As I pointed out the other day, only 16 applications to share came from 1,200 schools. We all need to do a whole lot better, and I hope that the Minister will use the money from his budget to encourage it to happen more and more and in a much better way.

Yesterday, the Chair said that we need to make sure that the controlled sector has its own body and that it will need funding. However, we also need funding for the voluntary grammar sector and, indeed, the integrated sector to give them the same powers and the same bodies. I do not think that anyone is looking at budgeting for that. We need to start moving towards the single shared education system that we want to see.

Another concern is special needs. As we know, legislation is looming, and we have seen in the Estimates from the Minister that an extra £10 million is being spent —

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

Order. Can the Member indicate whether he will conclude in the next couple of minutes, because we need to finish for the Business Committee meeting?

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I have a good bit more to say, so I will not conclude, Deputy Speaker, in the next three or four minutes. If you would like me to conclude now, I will start again later, or are we finished?

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.34 pm.

On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Beggs] in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

1. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for his assessment of the current financial pressures facing the health service. (AQO 6302/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

My Department faces a considerable financial challenge in 2014-15, with some £160 million of additional resources estimated to be required in order to balance the books. Of that £160 million, £115 million of the deficit is rolling forward from 2013-14, much of which was dealt with through the non-recurrent measures in 2013-14, including additional allocations for the in-year monitoring rounds and managed slippage/deferral expenditure.

The remaining deficit relates to new service developments that are essential to sustain current policies and to provide new cost-effective therapies. Together with cost pressures, such as pay and demographic changes, those amount to £305 million in 2014-15 and are offset by £90 million of Executive funding and £170 million of further savings.

Financial deficits are allocated in all five integrated trusts due to front line service pressures in a range of areas, such as unscheduled care, elective care, nursing levels, specialist services, mental health, learning disability and childcare. Unfortunately, despite the additional Executive funding and our demanding savings plans, we still have a funding gap of £160 million, which means that we have submitted a significant number of bids in the June monitoring round. I strongly recommended that the Executive lend their support to this critical investment in health and social care services.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his response. At a recent meeting of the Health Committee, officials from your Department informed the Committee that, if the £160 million of extra funding that you have in for is not provided, waiting times will be compromised, safety and quality of services will be compromised and, indeed, the Programme for Government will be compromised. Surely, Minister, that is a dreadful state of affairs. Do you still maintain that the health service is not in crisis? If you do not get the funding, how will you provide a good, decent service for all our constituents?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I would have thought that the Member would be appropriately saying that the health service needs to get that funding, as opposed to looking at the prospect of not getting it.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

You did not get it last time.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We did get money in each of the monitoring rounds, and I greatly appreciate the support of the Finance Minister in that. However, this is not a matter for the Health Minister and the Finance Minister; this is a matter for the entire Executive. It is important that the Assembly and the Executive recognise that the financial pressures that are faced by health and social care in the coming year will do serious damage to the health service if we cannot go some way to meeting them.

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

Will the Minister outline how the demonstrable underfunding of Transforming Your Care has affected its implementation in terms of initiatives started, not started, held up, completed and time taken?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It is critical that Transforming Your Care happen, because it will ensure that we save money and have a health service that is fit for purpose as we look to the future. To make that happen, however, requires an investment in the first instance. We have invested money in it, but not enough. Therefore, we require further funding for Transforming Your Care, and we require further assistance to ensure that that goes forward.

A gap of £160 million in a budget of over £4·5 billion is significant, and we really need to look at filling it. When, on top of that, I am requested to find a further £50 million to fund welfare reform, that puts us in real difficulty. For example, at this moment in time, the unions are asking me to proceed with the pay rise. I want to proceed with that pay rise, which is very modest, but how can I with a £210 million gap? The remarkable thing is that we have people who are earning considerably less than £20,000 a year to whom I cannot give a 1% uplift. That is because people on the other side of the House want to ensure that no cap is put on welfare, which is the equivalent of £35,000 gross. So, because they are starving us of the funding through welfare reform, they want people who are not working to be receiving over £35,000 and they do not want to give a pay rise to the auxiliaries, the porters, the domestics — those low-paid staff in our health service.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Given this £160 million gap in health funding, was Michael McGimpsey right when he said that there was inadequate funding of health?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I suspect that had he been right, we would have been paying off 4,000 staff three years ago. We would have been moving into chapter 11 three years ago. The health service would have been in crisis day after day, and we would not have been able to do things like the satellite radiotherapy centre at Altnagelvin. We would not have been able to provide the 24/7 cath labs that we are about to. We would not have been able to provide drugs for nine months to people with arthritis. We have reduced that to three months. We have done a whole series of things. We would not have been able to take on the additional nurses, doctors and allied health professionals. So he was not right.

We are in a different situation now. Demographics have moved on. There are new drugs and challenges, and we need to address that. I need the support of the Assembly to address it.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

2. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what action he is taking to promote innovation across the health service. (AQO 6303/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am committed to healthcare innovation, and a number of actions are already well developed. These include the drive to implement Transforming Your Care that has innovation at its core; the clinical research networks across all trusts that to date have enabled some 25,000 people to participate in clinical trials of potentially beneficial new disease-prevention strategies, diagnostics, treatments or care practices, and our continuing support of Health and Social Care (HSC) R&D.

Our memorandum of understanding on connected health and prosperity with Minister Foster’s Department and Invest NI has led to the Northern Ireland Connected Health ecosystem, engaging organisations from health, academia and industry to consider the development and procurement of innovative solutions for the health sector.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his detailed answer. Does he agree with me that research and development are an important aspect of our health service? To what degree is he focusing on this?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Again, we are now part of UK-wide research and development. That involves an investment of some £2 million, but it has already released far greater multiples of funding to Northern Ireland for research to take place here. We have also established an ecosystem that involves health and social care, our universities and business. We identify the issues and problems; the universities identify potential solutions, in conjunction with our clinicians and specialist staff, and business can then go out and make that a viable sales proposition. In that respect, we are moving those ahead in Northern Ireland.

Clinical trials are an important income stream for our trusts, enabling further investment in research and development and innovation activities. Our achievements to date, through HSC R&D support, include Province-wide clinical research networks that enable patients with any of 13 different diseases to participate in clinical trials of potentially beneficial novel prevention strategies, diagnostics, treatments and care practices. Clinical trials are an important magnet for the attraction of investment by government, including the EU, charities and businesses. To date, some 25,000 local people have participated, and this is a major source of evidence for beneficial innovation.

A Northern Ireland public health research network is also in place, driving innovations that involve the HSC and the wider local communities to provide evidence for improved population health.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

What discussions have taken place in the Executive in relation to applying for EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation funds?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We have spent a lot of time developing our European links, specifically with the idea of targeting Horizon 2020 funding and bringing it to Northern Ireland. Therefore, Northern Ireland winning three-star reference region status — and only 13 countries achieved that status — is significant. We now chair the group of premier league countries on that work in Europe.

As a consequence, we have developed relationships with European Commissioners and key people on the potential for Northern Ireland leading the way in many healthcare innovations. I believe that this will deliver significant benefit to our population, bring investment to Northern Ireland and help to ensure that we retain people who have real quality and skills in health and social care.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for his answers thus far. What advances have been made in e-health initiatives in the last couple of years?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

E-health is an area that we in Northern Ireland are leading on. For example, the only place in the United Kingdom to have a robot working effectively at a hospital is at Daisy Hill, in conjunction with Craigavon Hospital, where the intensive care doctor is able to do a ward round in the high-dependency unit in Daisy Hill remotely. That ensures that we can care for and support greater numbers of people in the high-dependency unit in Daisy Hill.

We have set up a programme for 20,000 people who are able to self-monitor, feed that information back into the central data at Fold in Holywood, where there are specialist nurses. If they identify that someone's readings are outside the norm, they will telephone them, talk to them and give them advice. We have found that this is a great means of keeping people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other chronic illnesses in particular out of hospital.

There is a whole series of other things that we are doing. We have virtual clinics so that you do not have to go to the big hospital very often to see the specialist; you can do it from another hospital. Indeed, some people are doing it using Skype at home. We are doing a wide range of things in e-technology and I think that there will be massive opportunities for the health service moving forward in that direction.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Questions 8 and 10 have been withdrawn.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

3. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for his assessment of the findings from the British Association of Social Workers 'A Blueprint for Change' report. (AQO 6304/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I attended the launch of a report by the Northern Ireland Association of Social Workers (NIASW) on 12 May and welcomed the spotlight on good social work practice and the important role of social work in the provision of adult services. The report highlights challenges being faced by social workers, with a particular focus on bureaucracy, and makes 24 recommendations, calling for a reduction in unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy as well as better workload management and support for first-line managers. My officials are meeting the association in the near future to discuss these findings.

Social workers work with some of the most vulnerable and marginalised people in our society, and it is a difficult and often stressful job. I want their skills and knowledge to be deployed where they are best utilised. The report provides information from a practice perspective on the barriers to social workers using their skills and knowledge to best effect. This information will usefully inform work that is being led by the directors of social work from the five trusts on reducing bureaucracy, which is an identified priority in the Department's social work strategy. The NIASW is playing a key role in supporting the implementation of this strategy.

Work is also under way, as part of the social work strategy, to look at the workload management and role of first-line managers in supporting social workers. Again, this report will usefully inform that work.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. Does the Minister agree that the level of bureaucracy and paperwork impedes the face-to-face duty of care for social workers?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am very sympathetic to that idea. When we are taking cases and social workers are taking cases, we have to be very careful that those cases are robust. Therefore, it is not something for the Department of Health to address alone. The Department of Justice and the courts also have a key role to play. We have been having discussions with them, and we want to identify a means by which we can have that robust presentation but reduce social workers' paper workload. It is very important that we do that, because, when social workers are spending a disproportionate amount of their time on paperwork, they are not spending time with the vulnerable people whom they need to be supporting.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answers so far. He will recall that, some time ago, he announced that his Department was commissioning a value-for-money piece of work and an audit. Is he in a position to update the House on the outcomes of the report?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

There are, for example, 800 social workers employed in adult services. The benchmarking shows that social workers in Northern Ireland spend more time on client work than their UK counterparts, with approximately 81% of their time being spent on client-specific work. The majority of social workers have a caseload of fewer than 40 cases, which appears to be higher than that of their UK counterparts. However, owing to ambiguity around the definition of "caseload", it is difficult to draw robust conclusions. Of the social workers surveyed in Northern Ireland, 95% considered the level of supervision that they receive to be adequate, with 72% receiving supervision monthly or more frequently.

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

The report refers to staff morale in the social work profession. You may well be aware that some trusts are using agencies to recruit social workers. Those social workers are getting paid between £6 and £7 an hour, and the agency is getting substantially more than that.

Will the Minister undertake to review the employment of social workers across the trusts to ensure that young recruits and graduates who come out this year will get a full-time job instead of having to suffer the poorly paid agency regime?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

If the Member has evidence of that, she should put it in writing to me so that I can follow it up. We need to be very careful that what we present is accurate, and, if what she says is the case, it is something that we will seek to address.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

4. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety how he is investing in the nursing profession. (AQO 6305/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I recognise the important role that nurses play across the health service, particularly in the context of pressures across the HSC.

In March 2013, over 14,000 whole-time-equivalent qualified nurses were employed in HSC, representing an increase on the previous year of more than 300 nurses.

I have approved the tool Delivering Care: Nurse Staffing Levels in NI, which is being used to determine nurse staffing in general, specialist, adult medical and surgical units. That tool will result in more nurses, reduce the usage of bank and agency nurses and enhance the role of ward sisters or charge nurses to enable them to time to fulfil their ward leadership responsibilities. Furthermore, my Department is reviewing the nursing and midwifery workforce and will provide a workforce plan to ensure that it is fit for purpose over the next five years.

To ensure progress on Transforming Your Care, I have increased the number of health visitors in training from 18 in 2011-12 to 61 for the incoming year. I have also increased the numbers of district nurses in training from nine in 2011-12 to 23 for the incoming year. I held a round-table meeting with representatives of the Royal College of Nursing in June 2013, and I am actively addressing all the concerns that they raised, particularly those on the nursing and midwifery education commissioning budget, which is being transferred to the Chief Nursing Officer.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

In his answer, the Minister mentioned workforce planning. Will he outline the next steps for workforce planning in the framework for nursing and midwifery?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The framework will be further developed in a phased approach in an effort to address all areas of clinical practice, such as emergency departments, district nursing, health visiting, and mental health and learning disability care settings. The range will not prescribe the staff numbers that should be on every ward at every point in time; rather, a normative range will be developed in discussion with staff, managers and commissioners. That is dependent on a range of factors that influences the planning process.

The planning processes will include the triangulation of findings from recognised workforce planning tools, alongside key performance indicators for safe, effective and person-centred care. Normative staff will have a phased implementation when resources become available. It is expected that HSC trusts will take account of the recommended staffing ranges in the framework in developing proposals to meet the objectives in Transforming Your Care, in supporting new proposals for additional resources and when developing efficiency and productivity plans. Commissioners will be able to use the framework, within which they can agree and set consistent ranges for nursing workforce requirements for providers of health and social care in Northern Ireland.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answers thus far. During last year's crisis — for want of a better word — in A&E, you committed to upskilling some nursing staff so that they would be able to take a more leading role and discharge patients if necessary. Will you outline how many of those nurses are in place and whether their pay scales have been re-banded up to that level?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for the question. She was not at the Nurse of the Year awards this year because of ill health, but I made a significant announcement at the event. We are transferring training to the responsibility of the Chief Nursing Officer. That has been very well received and is very positive. Consequently, we are upskilling more staff than before as specialists — for example, as emergency nurse practitioners, in mental health services, in paediatrics, in district nursing and in health visiting. Across the range, we will train more and more nurses to practise at a very specialist level, which makes absolute sense. We will get better results and better value for money, and patients will get better care. It is win-win all round. The nursing staff are up for it. They want to do the job and are ready for the challenge. That is hugely positive. Over the past year, we have seen an increase in our nursing staff of some 316 full-time equivalents. We put our money where our mouth is: when people say that they want more nurses, we deliver more nurses.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

The Minister's flagship policy, Transforming Your Care, points towards empowering GPs and more specialist nurses to treat patients at an earlier stage, away from a hospital setting. I welcome the recent increase in nursing development funding, but will the Minister explain why the funding was cut by about 10% during 2012-13?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We got some additional funding throughout 2012-13, but we also overran our budget that year. That is very significant. We could not live within our means. We did not overrun the budget by a large amount, but, while others believed that it was better not to carry out welfare reform and spend the money there, we were running short of money to provide health and social care. When it comes to that, Members need to look at their conscience. If they think that welfare is a higher priority than health, they need to examine their conscience. I think that health is a higher priority. We need to ensure that we can provide the healthcare that the public expect. We need to support our staff who provide that care, give them reasonable remuneration for the job that they do and ensure that they work in reasonable conditions. None of those expectations is too high. However, if we starve the health budget of funding, those expectations will be unmet.

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

Minister, you just mentioned supporting nursing staff and referred to remuneration in particular. Would you support a 1% pay rise for nurses here, as is being discussed in England and Wales?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am very supportive of it, but I explained earlier that there is a £210 million budget gap: an existing £160 million and an additional £50 million because we did not proceed with welfare reform. That is because your party and Sinn Féin believe that it is more important, for example, to keep resisting the cap of £26,000 that is coming in in England, Scotland and Wales, which is the equivalent of £35,000 for someone who is taxed on their pay, than it is to give a 1% pay rise to workers who earn less than half that. I do not think that that is a justifiable position, and we really need to look at that again. I want to give nurses and other staff a pay rise, and I hope that Sinn Féin and the SDLP will assist us in doing so and stop starving the health service workers of money by ensuring that it goes to welfare instead of health.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

5. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for an assurance that payroll issues within the health service have been resolved. (AQO 6306/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I assure the House that my Department, the Business Services Organisation (BSO) and the trusts are committed to ensuring that the payroll issues affecting Health and Social Care staff are addressed and resolved as a matter of urgency. This means individual staff, managers, payroll departments and the payroll system supplier working together and learning lessons when mistakes are made.

Members will be aware that there have been three key issues: the receipt of enhancements such as overtime, incorrect national insurance deductions and the incorrect application of emergency tax codes. In addressing the issues involving the enhancements to basic pay, I highlight the fact that the new payroll system puts an emphasis on employees and managers submitting claims for additional payments in a timely and appropriate way. The BSO and the trusts therefore continue to re-emphasise the importance of adhering to these protocols and providing further training and support. In addition, we have recently approved further expert support for the HSC payroll functions over the coming months. All employees affected by incorrect national insurance contributions have received payments to address the issue, and a corrective fix has been applied to the system to prevent the issue recurring. Finally, on the application of emergency tax codes, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has reviewed the tax codes of all affected staff and, where appropriate, revised them in time for the May pay run. HMRC has confirmed that some staff will remain on an emergency tax code in line with normal business, and these are being considered case by case.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire le haghaidh a fhreagra go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his answer. After listening to it, I would like to ask him this: has he considered suspending the roll-out of the payment delivery scheme until he has a guarantee that there will be no repeat of the recent debacle, or is he happy now that all the issues have been resolved?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Minister is far from happy. There are 70,000 people on our payroll, and, in the last round, I understand, roughly 500 did not receive the appropriate pay, so I am far from happy about that. However, it would be an absolute disaster if we dismantled that process and went back to what happened before. We are almost there, and we can only apologise to people who have not received their pay. They are entitled to their pay and should get it. We can apologise to them, and we can ensure a second pay run in the month to enable things to move forward. As of 5 June, only a fraction of staff — we are down to fewer than 10 members of staff — still need a fix to the amount owing to them. We are almost there, albeit that we should never have had to go through all the difficulties in the first place.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

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

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

1. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, following similar questions to his ministerial colleagues, including those who are his party colleagues, considering the jeopardy that so many people are facing with their future employment, what proposals he is bringing forward, in line with the good example set by Minister Durkan, to relocate health jobs to Coleraine in order to mitigate the horror of the decision imposed by London. (AQT 1241/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Of course, those jobs were not lost on the DUP's watch; when it was in the DOE, the jobs stayed in Northern Ireland. Nonetheless, the Member asks a valid question. The answer is simple: I have asked my staff to write to each of the trusts and arm's-length bodies (ALBs), indicating that, if administrative jobs are available, Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) staff should be made aware of them. Where there are jobs available in the health and social care system, I encourage DVA staff to apply for them.

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

I want to say to the Minister in respect of his opening comments that, if he asked people in Coleraine, the unions and the workers which party and which Ministers went over the wall for them, they would not look favourably on him and his colleagues.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Can we have a question, please?

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

He should ask that question rather than smirk at the experience of people in Coleraine whose jobs are now in jeopardy.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Can we have a question, please?

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

People in Coleraine and the DVA will not be impressed —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order. Can we have a question, please? If not, we shall move on.

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

Given what people in the DVA in Coleraine are about to experience, do you think that writing letters at this stage is an adequate response from you as Minister?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I was not the Minister who failed the people in the first instance. Those pressures were on when Sammy Wilson, Arlene Foster and I were in that Department. We did not fail. Given the fact that failure has now happened, I have responded. I am asking trusts and arm's-length bodies to see whether they can assist and provide jobs for the people in Coleraine and other areas. We care very much about those individuals. We care about people having jobs. Jobs have always been a top priority for the DUP throughout its tenure as the lead party in the Executive. From 2007, in the most difficult times, we have always sought to bring jobs to Northern Ireland. It is my party's policy to give people a hand up as opposed to a handout. I am seeking to ensure that we can provide employment for them. If we can provide jobs for those people at all, we will certainly do so. I am asking the trusts and the ALBs to look at that.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

2. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to outline the process that his Department is following to make drugs such as Speckled Reds illegal and whether he believes that the response is timely and speedy enough, given that he will be aware of the coroner’s comments last week about the Speckled Reds link to 18 deaths. (AQT 1242/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Unfortunately, the Department cannot make them illegal, as it is a reserved matter. When it came to light last year that a large number of people had died as a result of taking such drugs, we did some work on that. We have corresponded with the Home Office, which has the responsibility. Subsequently, the Home Office carried out a review, and I expect something to come forward on how it can respond better to that in the next few weeks or months. I asked the Home Office to look at places like the Republic of Ireland and New Zealand, where reactions are perhaps sharper. We can do more to ensure that those drugs are taken off the streets. The PSNI has been lifting the drugs, not because of some of their content but perhaps because of other things in them. That has enabled the police to confiscate them. However, a lot of the materials produced may be "legal", in spite of the fact that they are very dangerous substances.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra.

I thank the Minister for his answer and, indeed, what he outlined. I made the point to the Minister of Justice that Belfast City Council used by-laws around the regulation of products. I just wonder whether there is now an opportunity for the Minister of Justice, you as the Minister of Health and perhaps the chief executives of the new councils to come up with some swift way of dealing with this type of issue as it arises.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Councillor Gavin Robinson pressed that issue, and it was a very successful move. I know that counterparts in Scotland and Wales are looking at what went on in Belfast to see whether they can apply that in their cities.

The Executive discussed the matter at last Thursday's meeting, and it was agreed that we would ask the Attorney General to take a look at whether we can provide more flexibility in closing down on these things. We need to be aware that a new drug could be produced every day of the week for the next number of years, so we need to be as fast in responding to what comes forward as the criminal fraternity is in producing the drugs.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

3. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what safeguards are in place for under-16s who are excluded from the draft Mental Health Capacity Bill. (AQT 1243/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

There is a series of safeguards under a series of Orders, including the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 and other Orders and legislation. A considerable amount — a raft — of legislation covers that area as things stand.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. How will the Minister address the criticism of the Children's Law Centre and others that this legislation will disadvantage one of the most vulnerable and least resourced groups, namely the under-16s?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Considerable advice has been taken on that from the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC), the Attorney General's office and the Departmental Solicitor's Office. This will be the largest piece of legislation to come before the Assembly. We have not been convinced of the added value of doing this at this stage. The Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 will be retained specifically, and that will cover under-16s. Interestingly enough, the Republic of Ireland Government have decided that they will set the age at 18, so other states are doing the same as Northern Ireland.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

4. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to outline what efforts are being made to improve access to 24/7 social work expertise. (AQT 1244/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We have been working quite closely with the social work community on this. In the past year, we have provided 24/7 access to social work teams in each trust across Northern Ireland. So, if you require or someone requires a social worker, 24/7 access is available. That has been developed over the past year, and it is a significant advance.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his answer. How can the greater availability of social workers help our emergency departments?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Social work and healthcare go hand in hand. We are very fortunate in Northern Ireland to have health and social care under the one roof. We have our Northern Ireland regional emergency social work service, which provides a response outside the 9 to 5 times. By doing so, it often ensures that people with mental health issues can be dealt with outside a hospital setting in their own home. The service provides the care and support that such people need to get through a time of crisis in their life. Our social workers carry out very important work, which ensures that fewer pressures are applied to our emergency departments.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

5. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for an update on any progress that has been made to resolve the pay issues faced by health workers in the Belfast Trust area. (AQT 1245/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I think that I indicated that to the House when answering previous questions. We identified that the numbers are now very small, and we are thankful for that. I am not happy about anybody not receiving their pay on time, and I will continue to heap pressure on each trust to ensure that they make sure that all staff are paid on time. There is a responsibility on staff as well to get their time sheets in on time and to ensure that their managers put them in on time, but there is also a massive responsibility on those who have introduced the new system to ensure that it works effectively. That was not the case, but it is working much more effectively now. I want to see it working perfectly.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for his answer. A few days ago at a protest, Conor McCarthy of Unison said that, every week, even up to last week, members were holding their breath waiting to see whether they were going to be paid at all and that, even the ones who were paid, did not know whether they were going to be paid correctly. Does the Minister believe that the system is fit for purpose?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I think that the system is fit for purpose. It should have been fit for purpose from the outset. In every pay run in life, somebody will not get the pay that they expected to get because something has not been cleared, such as time sheets to apply for overtime and so forth. That was not the issue here. There were multiple cases, of course, but we are now getting down to a situation where it is much more marginal and is affecting much smaller numbers of people. I want it reduced right down to single figures.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

6. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety whether he welcomes the U-turn from the Chair of the Health Committee who, in yesterday’s Main Estimates debate, stated that funding for Transforming Your Care should be designated a priority bid. (AQT 1246/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I certainly do, because, a few weeks ago, people on the other side of the House were suggesting that we should not proceed with Transforming Your Care but did not produce any alternatives. I am glad that they now recognise that they are incapable of producing alternatives. Therefore, we need to progress with the well-thought-through proposals that have been put forward and ensure that we properly and appropriately finance them. I trust that the Executive will decide to ensure that health service reform can happen so that we can absorb the additional workload that will arise as a result of demographics and greater levels of chronic illnesses. The greater availability of quality drugs will ensure that people can live much longer, and we need to respond to that. Transforming Your Care is the best means of doing that, but it needs to be supported financially.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Does the Minister not find it somewhat ironic that, in calling for the funding to be made available, Sinn Féin and others continue to block welfare reform? Will he outline the impact that not taking welfare reform would have on providing the much-needed funding for Transforming Your Care?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

What is being asked of us would buy us well over 1,000 nurses or allied health professionals. It would buy around 10,000 hip replacements. That is the scale of what is being taken out of the healthcare budget to support welfare reform. However, what galls me most is that, at this moment in time, we are struggling to find a means of giving people on low pay in health and social care a pay rise that they deserve and should get while others who are not working are receiving considerably more money. Members opposite — Sinn Féin and the SDLP — are making the case that that should be the case and that people who are not working should receive more money than people who are working. Those parties are denying me the opportunity to give those people who are working but are on low pay the rise in their salary that they should be entitled to.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

1. asked the Minister of Justice for an update on his proposals for Crown Court remuneration. (AQO 6316/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I have just completed an extensive period of consultation with the Bar Council and the Law Society following the public consultation on Crown Court remuneration. I listened carefully and sympathetically to their representations and, where possible, made adjustments to my proposals, which have recently been made available to the Justice Committee. I have agreed to protect the fees in some categories of cases and types of fee.

The impact of the proposed new fees will be an overall reduction in levels of remuneration for solicitors by 27% and for counsel by 22%. When fully implemented, Crown Court remuneration will be more in line with that in England and Wales.

The high spend on legal aid continues to have a significant impact on my Department’s budget. The reforms that I have put forward need to be implemented to minimise the impact on other areas of justice delivery.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he accept that the proposals will have an adverse effect on solicitors' firms in rural areas and a negative impact on his equal access to justice strategy?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

No. There is no evidence to suggest that the changes being made will have a particularly adverse effect. The position will remain that fees will continue to be paid at a slightly higher level than is the case in England and Wales, despite the fact that lawyers in Northern Ireland have referred to the lower cost of running legal services in Northern Ireland.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Minister will be acutely aware of the forecast overspend already for legal aid of some £35 million this year. At what point will he decide to bring forward concrete proposals, given the fact that it is unlikely that he will get agreement from the Law Society and the Bar Council for a unified proposal from the Department and the legal profession? Ultimately, there needs to be a point at which the Department brings forward proposals for the Committee to take a decision on.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I entirely take the Committee Chair's point. Firm proposals are on their way to the Committee, and I trust that it will give them a favourable hearing, given what the Chair has just said about the very significant excess expenditure likely in this financial year compared with the budget. There is a real issue of costs being taken from other key aspects of the justice system in order to pay legal aid fees at a higher rate than is payable anywhere else in these islands.

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

I have listened very carefully to what the Minister has said. He places his reply in the context of what has happened in England and Wales. Does he not recognise that, as a result of severe cuts in England and Wales, there is, in fact, a crisis in accessing justice? Does the Minister wish to replicate that here? Would he not prefer to enter once again his Department into negotiations with the Law Society and the Bar Council to reach an amicable agreement?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thought that lengthy negotiations with the two branches of the profession were exactly what had been happening over the past several months since the formal consultation closed. I have made the point that the fees that will be payable in Northern Ireland under my proposals exceed those currently payable in England and Wales, from which the Justice Secretary has made proposals, which he has withdrawn temporarily, to make further cuts. Therefore, the reality is that, in circumstances in which solicitors and barristers say that they can run their legal practices cheaper in Northern Ireland, we will still be paying more than in England and Wales and significantly more than what is proposed for England and Wales.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

Having listened to the Minister, I wonder why he will not undertake a full review of costs in the overall judiciary and identify efficiency opportunities.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Anybody who does not think that, for the four years since the devolution of justice powers, we have been seeking to ensure maximum efficiencies in every part of the justice system really has not been following comments that I have made in the Chamber in the four years since I became Minister. As the Committee Chair highlighted, the reality is that the budget for legal aid is exceeded by the anticipated expenditure for this year by approximately 50%, and the issue clearly requires significant attention.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

David McIlveen is not in his place for question 2.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

3. asked the Minister of Justice to outline the progress made on the proposed newbuild programme for Magilligan prison. (AQO 6318/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Prison Service officials are nearing completion of the outline business case for the redevelopment of Magilligan prison, which will be submitted for approval within the next two months. It is DFP’s decision as to whether to grant approval for the capital funding for the project. That decision will determine the timeline for the development of the new prison at Magilligan.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he confirm whether the newbuild will create additional and permanent employment opportunities at HMP Magilligan, which could help to alleviate the unemployment situation in the surrounding area?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am afraid that, at this stage and without the approval of DFP, I cannot guarantee that the project will go ahead as I would wish, and nor can I guarantee that there will be additional employment, since one of the key issues for any newbuild will be to ensure that it is manageable in the most efficient manner possible. However, when we talk about employment, we should recognise that we have now completed the voluntary early retirement scheme, with a significant number of officers being able to leave with dignity from the services that they performed in the past, and the introduction of a significant number of new operational staff who will help to implement the planned reforms of the Prison Service.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí. I thank the Minister for his answers. Will he outline what meetings have taken place with local stakeholders about the location of Magilligan to ensure that there is no negative impact on the need to create good community links?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Members will remember that one of the initial recommendations from the prison review team was to look at rebuilding Magilligan elsewhere. Following good discussions, in particular with councils in the north-west, we are able to see how better community links can be established to ensure that we provide opportunities for prisoners for outside work, in particular, to ensure connections with local businesses. As a result of that, we have been able to proceed with plans to rebuild at Magilligan.

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

Will the Minister arrange for Members to spend a day in jail in Magilligan — that might be welcomed by the wider world — so that they can see and understand fully the transformation among inmates, particularly with educational opportunities.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Prison Service has arranged a number of visits in recent times for Members of the Assembly and, indeed, for members of the Oireachtas, who have also visited Maghaberry prison. I have no doubt that, if Mr Dallat wishes to make a personal visit, he will be welcomed through the gates and possibly back through the gates as well.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

4. asked the Minister of Justice for an update on any discussions he has had with the PSNI, the Department of the Environment and other agencies in relation to illegal fuel laundering. (AQO 6319/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The law enforcement and policy lead for fuel laundering is with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and my Department is in regular contact with HMRC. The Organised Crime Task Force has a cross-border subgroup devoted to fuel fraud. It is chaired by HMRC and includes members of the PSNI, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency and their counterparts in the Republic of Ireland. The group meets regularly.

In addition to the ongoing operational work of HMRC, there was an announcement earlier this year on the introduction of a new marker for rebated fuel, and market testing is ongoing. My Department has also introduced legislation on the unduly lenient sentencing in this area, and, as I informed Members recently, I have been in correspondence with the Economic Secretary to Her Majesty’s Treasury about legislation affecting the naming of filling stations that have been found to sell illicit fuel.

Fuel laundering affects the environment, legitimate businesspeople and the money available for public services. All areas of the justice sector will continue to fight it in every way possible. It must, however, be recognised that it is a crime sector that exists as a result of demand, and it is in the hands of the public to remove that demand and bring laundering to a halt once and for all.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for that response. He will, however, be well aware of the long line of illegal fuel laundering plants discovered in recent months. It seems to go on and on, unabated, and, as you rightly said, it causes huge damage to the environment and is a huge cost to the public purse. Does the Minister agree that the full cooperation of the National Crime Agency (NCA), locally, would be a major help in trying to tackle illegal fuel laundering and that there is a need for all parties in the Chamber to give the agency their full support?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I certainly agree with Mr Anderson that we require the National Crime Agency to have full operational powers in the devolved sphere in Northern Ireland. However, the NCA does have powers on the specific issue of excise evasion because it is a non-devolved matter. Of course, it operates those powers without any accountability to the institutions in Northern Ireland because of the refusal of those who are so concerned about accountability to allow the NCA to operate in the devolved sphere.

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

Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister referred to a new marker being tested. Can he indicate when it will eventually be applied to fuel?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The best advice that I can give to Mr Bradley is that, when the announcement was made in February, it was estimated that it would be 12 to 18 months before it was fully operational. I have had no updates since.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

I am sure that the Minister will agree that the livelihoods of hard-working and law-abiding families are being put at risk by illegal fuel laundering. Why is the conviction rate so pathetic?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not sure that it is appropriate for me to answer, because that is, effectively, an operational question. I should, however, make clear to Mrs Dobson and others that, effectively, many laundering plants operate without any personnel present. If it were possible to pick people up, it would be solely at the point at which a delivery was being made and fuel taken out. Given the way that they operate, it is extremely hard to arrest those who are directly responsible. However, in the potential for the referral of unduly lenient sentences, we have the opportunity, when arrests are made, to set a clear sentence that will set down a marker to others.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

5. asked the Minister of Justice, given the marked increase in violent hate crime attacks, whether the Unite Against Hate campaign should be re-launched. (AQO 6320/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Hate crime, whether it manifests itself in verbal abuse, intimidation or violent crime, is deplorable and has no place in a modern society. I am determined that my Department will continue to do everything possible, through the delivery of the community safety strategy, to tackle hate crime and the harm that it causes.

Unite Against Hate was previously launched in 2009 as a multi-agency campaign to raise awareness of the impact of hate crime, challenge negative attitudes and perceptions, create a climate of zero tolerance and promote diversity. With an estimated 110,000 migrants having come to live and work in Northern Ireland, and in the context of recent events, it is clear that there remains work to be done.

On 19 May, I wrote to the First Minister and deputy First Minister seeking an update on discussions that their Department led in 2012 on the scope for a renewed Unite Against Hate campaign. I am waiting for a response. In the meantime, my Department will continue to chair the multi-agency working group set up to deliver a range of practical actions, as set out in our community safety strategy, to tackle hate crime.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I welcome the fact that he has raised the issue with OFMDFM, but I can only hope that a response comes faster than the seven years that we have been waiting for the racial equality strategy. In the meantime, will the Minister give the House a sense of what his Department is doing to tackle hate crime?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank my colleague for his question. I certainly share his hope that it will be significantly less than seven years before we see some action on hate crime, which is clearly becoming a major issue. I will list some of the issues that are the direct responsibility of the DOJ and which my Department is implementing. We partly fund the hate incident practical action scheme, which provides protection and security to victims. We are consulting victims' groups on developing third-party reporting systems for people reluctant to approach the police about hate incidents and crimes. We have reviewed the capacity of advocacy services and are considering investing in that scheme. We part fund an initiative to identify the key elements of the Belfast City Council tension monitoring model, with a view to using PCSPs to roll it out elsewhere. We are monitoring the review of legislation in England and Wales to see whether there are lessons we can learn. We have delivered initiatives to prevent reoffending through early stage intervention, working with PCSPs, the Probation Board and the Youth Justice Agency. We hope that they will address offending behaviour, including community and restorative approaches. We are planning workshops with key victims' groups to raise awareness of the work of the hate crime delivery group in delivering our community safety strategy so that we can develop it and ensure that we provide the best possible services to people in Northern Ireland.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Does the Minister agree that, regardless of the campaign in place to combat racism, those in positions of leadership must never, by their actions or words, create the conditions in which racism flourishes?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I agree entirely with Mr Lynch. As I said in an interview when I was asked about comments made by Pastor McConnell and the First Minister, people need to be very careful, not about the precise intellectual justification for the words they use but the potential atmosphere created among those in this society who are only too ready to indulge in hate crime and do not hear the words; they just hear the sense.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Will the Minister include hate crime against sections of the indigenous community, such as damage to Orange and church halls, in any campaign?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

As I have already said, the Unite Against Hate campaign is led by OFMDFM. It certainly applied to all kinds of hate crime in the past. I trust that, if it is resurrected by that Department, which will certainly be with the full assistance of my Department, it will cover all forms of hate crime again.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

6. asked the Minister of Justice for an update on the progress made towards the establishment of Hydebank Young Offenders Centre as a secure college, as recommended by the Prison Review. (AQO 6321/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

In October last year, I announced that Hydebank Wood College would be delivered through the creation of a task force, whose responsibilities included designing, developing and delivering the college ethos. It is, of course, crucial that we get the supporting structures and processes right to deliver the right outcome for those in custody. The Prison Service has therefore established a dedicated secure college oversight group, whose current membership includes senior officials, the governor and deputy governor, and which will soon be extended to include external providers and agencies, including learning and skills experts.

A review of supporting structures has taken place, with significant changes being implemented to the management structure and specific roles, coupled with the introduction of free-flow movement of prisoners, revised scheduling arrangements and a review of security classifications, all of which are aimed at supporting the creation of a college-based ethos. Work is now also under way to ensure that a comprehensive induction programme is completed for each committal, which will inform the development of a personal development plan based on individual strengths, risks and the need to support effective rehabilitation. An interim contract is in place with external providers, who are working alongside existing staff to improve the provision of learning and skills, with programmes tailored to meet individual needs, complemented by a daily regime that timetables activities in an innovative way.

In September 2014, the prison oversight group will receive an update on the vision action plan and timelines for the delivery of the Hydebank Wood College.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I welcome the progress made by the Minister of Justice in relation to the establishment of Hydebank Wood Young Offenders Centre as a secure college, given the importance of skills and employment to rehabilitation and the reduction of reoffending. Does the Minister have a timescale for the completion of the project and what key differences does he think it will make to our society?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

At one level, the project will not be complete ever because it will be an ongoing project. We are certainly looking to have the work being done on external skills provision well in place and fully implemented in the next academic year. We will be doing the ongoing changes to regime, timetables and so on, which I mentioned, over the same kind of timescale. The important issue is that we provide those in Hydebank Wood with the best possible opportunities to make progress while in prison and to link them in when they return to the community to keep them involved in whatever learning and skills opportunities they have developed in custody to ensure that they have a better chance of employment when they leave.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the limited progress made around this. It is very important that rehabilitation is at the forefront of our minds when we are looking at these issues. Can the Minister assure us that all inmates will be given opportunities to access training and education suitable to their needs?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

That was awfully begrudging — "limited progress". It is work that is well under way, and I think that, when Members see the work that is being done overall on the prison reform programme and the amount that has been done in two years, they will perhaps acknowledge that it is a very significant programme. It is taking time to implement: I grant that. I assure Mr Eastwood that all those in custody in Hydebank Wood will be given the opportunity to avail themselves of appropriate learning and skills opportunities.

For example, we have seen work on developing the horticultural unit, and there is other work going on. I hope to sample the food that is being cooked by prisoners in a new development that will provide additional opportunities. All of those are small steps which, when joined together, will show that we are providing a much better opportunity for prisoners than has been the case until now.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

What does the Minister estimate the cost of the provision at Hydebank to be? Has he had any discussions with the Department of Finance about when he will bid for funding for this facility?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The cost of implementing the scheme is relatively little, because it is coming out of existing budgets by way of reallocation to ensure that services are provided in a more efficient way. There are, of course, other issues at the Hydebank Wood site, such as accommodation for women, which are under discussion with DFP as part of the capital programme, but there was no need to involve that Department on the specific issue of the secure college.

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

7. asked the Minister of Justice to outline the discussions he will have with the newly appointed Chief Constable in relation to working with local communities to ensure a peaceful and inclusive parading season. (AQO 6322/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

First, I publicly congratulate George Hamilton on his appointment as Chief Constable, as I have already done in person. I look forward to working with him in my role as Justice Minister. I have had regular meetings with Matt Baggott on a range of issues, including parading. Naturally, I hope that these will continue when Mr Hamilton formally takes up his post at the end of the month.

As for the parading season, I encourage all to play their part in finding a solution to bring about a peaceful conclusion to the issue. The reality is that neither the police nor I can solve the issues around parading. Resolution can only come through local dialogue in an atmosphere of tolerance and mutual respect. I am thankful that the weekend parades passed off without incident and hope that this will set the tone for the coming weeks.

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Can he outline what discussions the Chief Constable intends to have with local community groups and what his engagement has been with those communities in the lead-up to the parading season?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am afraid that I cannot say what the Chief Constable plans to do, since that is an operational matter for him, but I assume that some of the discussions that have recently been led by ACC Will Kerr about a variety of issues in Belfast that impinge to some extent on parading will continue. I am aware that there has been some local engagement in the north and east of the city in particular. Really, the issues as to exactly how the police will operate are issues for the Chief Constable, whether current or future.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Does the Minister agree that the money being used to police the illegal protest camp at Twaddell is money wasted, and furthermore it is money that is lost to other policing priorities?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I agree, and I made exactly that point at the last Question Time, when I highlighted the fact that the cost of policing the Twaddell Avenue protest has now exceeded £9 million. The reality is that that money, which could have been used to address policing priorities in other areas, is now lost. It could have been used on a variety of ongoing community policing projects that I suspect every MLA could identify in their constituency. However, it has, sadly, been expended for no good purpose whatsoever. It really is time that those who are involved in that particular camp recognised the reality of the law, recognised where the Parades Commission's lawful determinations have led them, accepted that point and gave up their protest.

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

The question uses the phrase "inclusive parading season." Does that definition of inclusivity mean that the parades should be open to all, regardless of race, religion, community background or sexual orientation? Would the Member agree that that would be a step forward?

Will the Minister also outline to the Assembly what steps he has taken, if any, to press the British Secretary of State to introduce legislation, which has already been addressed as having been weak by the Secretary of State herself?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

On the first point that Mrs Kelly made, I have to suggest that she ask the questioner, not me, what she meant about an inclusive parading season. I am not necessarily sure that many of those who organise parades would wish to have others who parade on different days, in different places and perhaps wearing different items all involved.

The Member raises a serious issue on legislation, but, as far as I am concerned, the best solution to dealing with parading problems in legislation is when we get agreement among the five parties of the Executive and ensure that we can carry legislation forward in this Assembly and not rely on the Secretary of State doing it at Westminster. I trust that what we will see over the next few weeks will ensure that we do not have to make that request of the Secretary of State.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

8. asked the Minister of Justice to outline any discussions he has held with the PSNI in relation to the administrative scheme for on-the-runs. (AQO 6323/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I have not had any discussions with the PSNI about the administrative scheme for on-the-runs, nor would it be appropriate for me to do so.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

Was the Minister aware that there were three on-the-run letters cleared in March this year?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

My understanding of that particular position is that Sinn Féin has said that that was the case and the Northern Ireland Office has denied that it was the case. It is not my responsibility in any event.

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

Just to clarify, will the Minister indicate what discussions he has had with the Attorney General on the on-the-runs legislation?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am sure that Mr McGlone will be well aware of the convention that Ministers do not discuss legal advice that they have sought or received, including advice from the Attorney General.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his answers so far. Does he agree that all parties and individuals in the House should be open about their experiences in relation to the on-the-runs debacle? Will he therefore agree that it is an absolute scandal that Sinn Féin refused to appear in front of the House of Commons Select Committee this week in this place?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Again, whatever view David Ford might have about people who ought to be honest and open and take the opportunities that are presented to give evidence before a Select Committee of the House of Commons, I am not sure that it is for the Minister of Justice to say what others should do in front of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, save to say that I did my best to answer their questions this morning.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

9. asked the Minister of Justice for an update on the levels of sickness absence in the Prison Service. (AQO 6324/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

During 2013-14, absence in the Prison Service totalled 13·8 days per member of staff against the DOJ target of 9·7 days. That is a provisional figure, and the official figure will be finalised by NISRA later this year. At present, the projected figure for 2014-15 is 10·6 days per member of staff against a DOJ target of 9·2 days. I am not complacent about the progress to date, and every effort continues to be made to reduce the level of absence further. Management is committed to continuing that work with staff and their trade unions.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he see staff morale in our prisons as something that impacts on staffing absence levels? Is he satisfied that everything is being done to ensure good working conditions in our prisons?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Although I recognise that prisons can be very difficult places in which to work, it is not always easy to say that everything possible is being done. However, I take significant heart from the fact that the projected level of absence for uniformed staff in prisons for this year is around 11 days, whereas in the preceding four years it was between 15·1 and 17 days. I think that is an indication of good work being done and perhaps of higher morale among staff than was suggested by the question.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for his answers. Does he feel that, perhaps now that the voluntary redundancy scheme is over and complete, the reduction in absenteeism is directly related to the new intake of recruits?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr McCartney may be drawing inferences a bit further than the evidence suggests. There was a significant reduction this year, but a number of new staff were in last year and a number of old staff had already left last year. It is difficult to suggest that it is directly related, but I have no doubt that elements of those who were, shall we say, of more advanced years might have been more likely to take sick leave, owing to the natural health pattern as people age. That is something of which I am increasingly aware.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

That ends questions for oral answer. We now move on to topical questions.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

2. asked the Minister of Justice whether he has any concerns about the state of public confidence in our criminal justice system, particularly in the Omagh area, following the BBC ‘Spotlight’ programme on the behaviour, attitude and conduct of the PSNI in Omagh towards young people. (AQT 1252/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I appreciate the question that Mr McElduff has raised. I was in the US last week, so I did not see the 'Spotlight' programme to which he refers. I am aware that the district commander, Chief Superintendent Dunwoody, has said that he is working to address some of the issues raised and that the ombudsman has been made aware of some of the issues and is investigating a number of cases. Beyond that, I can make no particular comment on the points raised by Mr McElduff.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Will the Minister of Justice show a personal interest in making sure, in the time ahead, that there is public confidence in the criminal justice system, particularly in the Omagh area arising from the reported incidents, and that the damage is repaired?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I certainly take a personal interest in ensuring the highest possible community confidence in policing and other aspects of the justice system, not just in Omagh but in 25 other districts. In doing so, however, I need to be careful that I do not seek to take over the role of the ombudsman or the direct management responsibilities of the district commander. I expect that I will meet Chief Superintendent Dunwoody for other reasons in the near future, and I have no doubt that this will feature on the margins of that meeting.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

3. asked the Minister of Justice whether he is aware of the rise in the use of the drug serotonin, also known as Speckled Reds, and some other tablets, with Speckled Reds linked to some 18 deaths in the North of Ireland, and, even though he will also be aware that there is some sort of process to find out how to bring forward legislation to make these drugs illegal, whether he agrees that it is time for the Department of Justice, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the councils to come together to try to find some way to close down the supply of what should be an illegal drug. (AQT 1253/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I note that a very similar question was asked at the end of health questions a few minutes ago. As Members are generally aware, the reality is that drugs policy is a reserved matter and is therefore not for us. I am sure that most Members will be aware of the practical work that was done by environmental health officers (EHOs) in Belfast using consumer product safety legislation to tackle some of the premises that were selling such drugs. I understand that the advice has been spread, at least to Omagh, and has been shared between environmental health officers. The Department of Justice offered its assistance if required, but I believe that the EHOs have been communicating anyway. I know that those lessons have been picked up in other parts of the UK.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as na freagraí go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his answer. He may have made this precise point, although I did not pick up what he said at the end. Will he elaborate on what collaboration is happening? Using by-laws to close down so-called head shops was a very good move while we await the other process. Will the Minister elaborate on the collaboration that he is talking about?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I believe that the specific legislation that was used was product safety legislation. I am not aware of the exact detail of that, as it was taken forward by environmental health officers working for the city council. Its use certainly appears to have been successful in closing down at least some so-called head shops in Belfast, and I understand that others, at least those in Omagh, have considered using similar legislation. Clearly, there are situations in which the current law can be used, but, as the Minister of Health said, the Executive have asked the Attorney General to look at the issue to see what further powers may be available to strengthen the law in the devolved sphere.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

4. asked the Minister of Justice what steps his Department is taking to tackle the rising level of racist attacks. (AQT 1254/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

In answering an earlier question, I highlighted some of the issues relating to hate crime and the work that was being done. There are significant issues about ensuring the best possible cooperation with the police and that bodies such as the PCSPs use their opportunities. A lot of work is being done to consider the implications of the Unite Against Hate campaign and issues for which the Department of Justice has responsibility, which I outlined to Mr Lunn. The key issue is to ensure that we spread the message that that sort of hate crime is utterly unacceptable and ensure that there is a policy of no tolerance for it.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for that response. Will he reissue a call to all those in political and civil leadership not to say or do anything that would encourage racism in our society?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I will certainly repeat the point that I made to Mr Lynch a few minutes ago: it is not necessarily the precise intellectual words that individuals use but the culture that is created and the danger that those who are willing to resort to hate crime in this society will half hear a message rather than listen to the words that I fear may help to drive the sort of crime that we have seen in recent weeks. I welcome the fact that we have now seen statements from Pastor McConnell and the First Minister that have made their position clear, but I believe that everybody in public life needs to be very careful about the language that they use.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

5. asked the Minister of Justice, at the risk of sounding like a broken record on the issue, to provide an update on the building of the Community Safety College at Desertcreat outside Cookstown. (AQT 1255/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Once Mrs Overend said "broken record", she did not need to say any more. At this stage, I cannot give any specific further information on the Community Safety College. Work is ongoing on the programme board, and I am not in a position to give any more specific detail other than to say that the work is ongoing and I am looking forward to seeing the next response. I believe that the Justice Committee will have a hearing on this on 2 July.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I must say that I am disappointed by that response. It seems that mistakes have been made along the way, right from the design process. In fact, if we take it back to basics, I understand that the land at Desertcreat has been badly planned since the Department of Agriculture milked goats on it and that, more recently, the weeds have not been managed and the rental of the land have not been managed.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Can we have a question, please?

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Will the Minister tell me what he is doing to restore confidence to the people of mid-Ulster and ensure that the college will be completed at Desertcreat?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I fear that neither the control of weeds nor the management of goats, beyond a couple of them, is within my remit, and nor is the overall issue of providing confidence solely for my role in the Department of Justice. Issues have to be addressed by the programme board, which, as Members will be aware, has connections to two Departments because the Fire and Rescue Service comes under the remit of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. In that context, it is impossible for me to give specific assurances on what the outcome will be. I assure the House that the programme board is examining arrangements in detail, looking at overall costings, seeing where costs can be taken out and whether it is possible to deliver the project on a slightly reduced scale to provide value for money. That detailed work is being done, and I cannot report on the outcome until it is completed.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

6. asked the Minister of Justice whether, when he took up office, he asked for or was offered briefings on the outworkings of Weston Park, the outworkings of Peter Hain’s on-the-runs legislation that did not make it through the House of Commons or, indeed, on the on-the-runs letters. (AQT 1256/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I did not ask for a brief on any of that. Given that I did not know that letters were being issued, it would have been a bit difficult to ask for a brief on them. As far as Peter Hain's statement to the House of Commons is concerned, I am afraid that I had the naive presumption that, when a Secretary of State stands up in the Chamber of the House of Commons and says that nothing is happening, that meant that nothing was happening.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Where does the buck stop with this matter?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I fear that we will all have to wait for the outcome of the review by Lady Justice Hallett, the inquiries by the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee and the Assembly's Justice Committee, the work being done by the Police Ombudsman and the internal PSNI review of the status of the letters. We will find out where the buck stops on a number of factors, but, at this stage, it does not stop with the Department of Justice and never did.

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

7. asked the Minister of Justice what evidence he can provide to show that he has made a demonstrable commitment to ensuring that legacy inquests are held, meaning that we are not called again before the EU courts to face criticism, given that he will be well aware of recent comments from the senior coroner, who criticised the Minister and his Department for their failure to provide expert investigators and for the fact that funding has been given on a drip-feed basis to the outstanding Stalker inquests into the murders of six men in Armagh, the murders of three police officers by the IRA and the murder of 17-year-old Michael Tighe, who was shot by state forces. (AQT 1257/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mrs Kelly raises a complex and difficult issue. There are currently something like 46 outstanding legacy inquest cases relating to 75 sensitive and contentious deaths. That is clearly a very significant backlog that has huge resource implications for a budget that, as I said earlier when we talked about legal aid, is under severe pressure. The individuals to whom she has referred, who are needed to carry out some of the investigations, are not DOJ employees, and I understand that there is difficulty in getting the relevant expertise to carry out that work. I have had recent meetings with officials and have commissioned an internal review of how we can more effectively use the resources that we have to ensure that we are more article 2-compliant than is currently the case. However, until we can find some way of resolving the difficult issues of the past rather than relying simply on coroners' inquests and the other work by the ombudsman and the HET, we will continue, as a society, to be in difficulty. That is why there is such a need to ensure that the five-party talks succeed.

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

I am not saying that we should not deal with the past in a comprehensive and ethical way. Nonetheless, this is a matter of concern and has been before the European courts a number of times. The men were killed in 1982, yet, some 32 years later, inquests have not been held and their families have not been able to move on. Minister, since you took office, have you, in any of the previous monitoring rounds, sought additional resources to facilitate the request of the senior coroner for an expert investigator? That matter has been before you or your Department for the past three years.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Part of the issue is the sheer technicality of the way in which monitoring rounds operate, with the DOJ having a ring-fenced budget separate from the normal DFP-led process. To the best of my knowledge, no specific request has been made for funding for such an investigator to be considered in the DOJ internal monitoring proposals. If that is not correct, I will write to the Member and correct it. If that is the context, it is not specifically the Department's responsibility. The responsibility lies elsewhere — in our arm's-length bodies — to see that the investigations are done. I will ascertain and communicate to her the exact position.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

8. asked the Minister of Justice whether he agrees that it could be said that neither DOJ nor the PSNI has a strategy to deal with rural crime, given that the recently published policing plan for 2014-17 makes absolutely no reference to agricultural crime. (AQT 1258/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The reality is that much of the work of the PSNI does not feature specifically in the policing plan, to some extent because it is regarded as business as usual. Had Mr McIlveen been here, I would have had a response specifically about some of the rural crime and agricultural crime initiatives in the Ballymena area. That will be published in Hansard shortly. However, I assure Mr Hazzard that a lot of work is ongoing, including work by the rural crime unit, which is part-funded by NFU Mutual and the Department. The unit works with the police on identifying trends in agricultural crime to ensure that we get the best possible response. Over the past two or three years, I have also had the opportunity to visit not just the Balmoral show but other agricultural shows, where the police have engaged, sometimes in conjunction with PCSPs and sometimes on their own, in order to look at these wider issues. We hope to announce further initiatives in the next couple of weeks.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Question 8 has been withdrawn.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

1. asked the Assembly Commission how it plans to address the recent criticisms of the Assembly, in relation to the Irish language, contained in the report by the Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. (AQO 6326/11-15)

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for her question. The Assembly Commission has not given any consideration to the report by the Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Nor was the Assembly contacted to provide information on its procedures, which were subsequently mentioned in the report. The Commission considered legal advice in May 2013, which indicated that, until such time as the regional and minority languages charter is translated into domestic law and given direct effect in Northern Ireland, it creates no rights or obligations on the Commission.

Draft language guidance has been under consideration by the Assembly Commission. The views of all parties were sought following a meeting of the Assembly Commission on 27 February 2013. Those views will be considered at a future meeting of the Commission. However, I think that it is fair to say that this is an area on which the Commission has so far been unable to reach political agreement.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Member for his answer. There may not be a complete obligation on the Commission to fulfil the requirements of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Nevertheless, there are requirements on public authorities, and I contend that there is a moral obligation on us all to comply with the obligations because, in fact, the Irish language does not receive equality of treatment. How would the Member respond to that?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Above all else, the Commission will ultimately be guided by its obligations. That is the legal requirement. To that extent, we must realise as well that, when we are talking about minority languages, there is a range of minority indigenous languages in Northern Ireland, minority ethnic languages and British and Irish sign language. It is a question of ensuring that the Commission meets its obligations. As such, what is the principal guiding bit? I think that that would be our obligations under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. From that point of view, any position that we have to take has ultimately to be guided by our legal obligations. Indeed, the Commission has received legal advice on what its obligations are, and it is important that we fulfil them. It is not for me to say, one way or another, what counts as a moral obligation.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chomhalta as ucht a fhreagra go dtí seo. I thank Mr Weir for his answers thus far. However it is now almost two years, I think, since the Commission consulted. This party responded on the formation of a language policy by the Commission. Is the Member telling us that this is yet another issue that will be left on the shelf, unattended, because of failure to reach agreement?