Northern Ireland Assembly, 24 November 2014

334 contributions from 67 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Before we commence today's business, Members should be aware that they are expected to treat each other with courtesy, good temper and moderation when in the Assembly. The standards of debate are there to try to protect the dignity of the Chamber.

I advise Members that Deputy Speaker Dallat has written to the Member who raised a point of order after the Health Minister's statement last week and we consider the matter closed. However, we are increasingly concerned about the number of remarks being made and conversations taking place from a sedentary position. This is a debating Chamber, and Members are not expected to be heard in complete silence. However, a number of Members are constantly barracking and conducting private conversations, making it difficult for the Chair, and indeed anyone else, to hear the Member who has the Floor.

We will, therefore, be keeping an eye on Members who continually talk disruptively while other Members have the Floor. They may well find that they will not be called to make their own contribution to a particular debate. I ask Members to bear that in mind and ensure that they treat this Chamber and other Members with courtesy and good temper in what they say.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order to ask whether the Speaker's Office will be initiating or seeking any investigation into the revelation that Sinn Féin MLAs have been laundering expenses through bogus front organisations?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

As the Member will know, that is not an issue for the Speaker's Office. An independent body is charged with looking after the financial considerations of Members. It will be its duty to further investigate. I believe that that body is consulting, and if it deems it necessary to alter the rules and regulations at some point in the future, that is an entirely independent issue for that body. Members do, of course, have a right to debate any issue, but, ultimately, the decision on such matters has been formally granted to the independent body that governs Assembly Members' expenses.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Ms Maeve McLaughlin has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member will have up to three minutes in which to speak.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to present this public petition to the Assembly. The petition 'Putting Patients First' is not only a principled approach to how we should and could deliver health care, it also gives voice to thousands of people across the North in their support for their general practices. Over 16,000 people across the North have signed the petition. In order to shift left, from acute to community or primary care and early intervention, it is important that we acknowledge the increasing pressures on GPs and that we equally support the infrastructure to deliver the very services that we all envisage under Transforming Your Care.

GPs will be a necessary part of the shift from hospitals to care in the community. The petition calls for general practice to receive 11% of the health-care budget. That shift would enable general practice to deliver shorter waiting times for appointments and more flexible opening hours, longer appointments and consultations, better continuity of care and positive benefits for health services as a whole, and reducing pressures, very clearly, in our hospitals and emergency departments.

Funding for general practice in the North fell by £21·2 million between 2008-09 and 2012-13, which is a decrease of 8·2%. That is alongside a 7% increase in activity at general practices last year alone. GP out-of-hours activity has increased by 18% over the last five years. Therefore, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker — Mr Deputy Speaker, gabh mo leithscéal — to deliver care to an ageing population, Transforming Your Care needs to deliver more GPs, practice nurses, district nurses and health visitors, backed up by pharmacy colleagues and members of the allied health professionals in the community.

GPs are indeed encouraged by recent investment in premises and they encourage more investment in the hub-and-spoke model. I am particularly pleased that the city side in Derry has been identified as a priority project. However, GPs feel that they are not engaged with the Transforming Your Care process and they most certainly feel that work on the process to shift the base has not followed.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member's time is up.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I am pleased to present this petition and I look forward to a positive response.

Ms Maeve McLaughlin moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I will forward the petition to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and send a copy of it to the Health Committee.

Executive Committee Business

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Mr Deputy Speaker, in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make the following statement on the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in the transport sector held in Armagh, on Wednesday 5 November 2014. The meeting was chaired by Minister Donohoe and was attended by me and Minister Durkan. My statement will address the agenda items which relate to my Department.

The Council discussed the UK road user levy for HGVs. We agreed to continue to liaise on the issue and its potential impacts. The Council welcomed the continued cooperation between the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and the Department for Regional Development on strategic transport priorities throughout the island, including the ongoing engagement on key areas, such as development of the strategic road network, enhancing east-west connections, driving a shift to public and more sustainable modes of transport and exploring the potential for shared cross-border public transport in border areas.

The Council acknowledged the ongoing positive cooperation between relevant Departments on EU-related transport issues and the opportunities that are being explored to pursue EU funding in a mutually beneficial manner, including maximising cross-border Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) transport funding opportunities; utilising INTERREG programmes for a joined-up cross-border transport and tourism infrastructure; and pursuing Horizon 2020 smart, green and integrated transport cooperation opportunities.

We noted the current position on key EU dossiers of mutual interest, including the Europe 2020 mid-term review and the outcome of the informal ministerial meeting; port services; the cross-border exchange of information on road traffic offences; the fourth railway package; and the Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR).

The Council welcomed an update of the progress of the INTERREG IVa-funded refurbishment works on the Dublin-Belfast Enterprise rail service and the Drogheda railway viaduct.

The Council welcomed the continued investment by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and the Department for Regional Development in the promotion and development of sustainable transport options, including cycling.

It also welcomed the strategic joint decision by my Department and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport to support the identification and development of possible INTERREG V funding for cross-border greenways. The Council welcomed my Department's work on establishing a greenways working group, initially consisting of key stakeholders from Northern Ireland, to scope a plan for the development of greenways. It noted that the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport would welcome any invitation to be included in full or in part on that working group.

On major road projects, the Council noted the ongoing public consultation on the final report informing the appropriate assessment process for the A5, and it was also noted that, when published, the new environmental statement will be subject to a public consultation and may lead to a further public inquiry. We also noted that both Governments remain committed to the A5 scheme. The Council welcomed that the A8 project is progressing well and that the road is expected to open by spring 2015.

The Council agreed to hold its next NSMC transport meeting in April 2015.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for such a brief statement. I note that his statement says that the Council raised the matter of the HGV levies and the perceived impact that they may have on hauliers from the Republic coming to Northern Ireland. However, did the Minister raise the not perceived but very real fact that there are tolls in the Republic of Ireland and that they have an impact on Northern Ireland hauliers travelling down there?

Can the Minister provide the House with details of the greenways working group that he appears to have established but that some of us are maybe not familiar with as yet?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his question and, indeed, for his compliment that my statement was brief.

The Minister of the Environment will largely deal with HGV levies, and he will do so in some detail — he will thank me for that — in his statement. However, it is fair to say that the issue that the Member raised about the differences that exist because of the tolls that apply in the Republic of Ireland is worthy of consideration and should therefore not be ignored in the context of that discussion.

I think that there are potential opportunities to get assisted European funding for the cross-border greenways initiative, and the Member will be aware that, in Newry and Mourne and in the Cooley areas of County Louth in the Republic of Ireland in particular, there are greenway projects for the advancement of cycling and walking. Those are the matters that we would pursue on that.

Obviously, the NSMC does not have any role in considering greenway projects, such as the Comber greenway, in Northern Ireland.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the statement that the Government remain committed to the A5 scheme.

Following on from Mr Clarke, I will pick up on the greenways working group. I welcome the fact that it has been established. I note that the consultation on the draft bicycle strategy concluded on Friday. Will information from the greenways working group feed into the bicycle strategy's delivery plan?

I will draw on the experience that the Committee gained from going to County Mayo, where we learned about the Great Western Railway, which has been transformed, with part of it being used as a greenway with great success in the local area. Is the Minister minded to look at the possibility that sections of the Great Northern Railway in Ulster be part of a similar type of greenway project?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his question. Indeed, he will know that my Department's cycling unit has begun work on scoping out a greenway plan for Northern Ireland, although it does not envisage being involved in the delivery or construction of the greenways, because my Department's statutory responsibilities relate to public roads. The majority of the greenways will be located off-road.

Our aim is to bring together the relevant organisations and to support and facilitate greenway projects being developed by local authorities in a coherent way. The Member will also note the clear distinction about work that is being looked at or brought forward by the North/South Ministerial Council, which is what we are discussing today. There may be schemes or projects that we would be interested in looking at on a cross-border basis. Obviously, greenways in Northern Ireland remain the preserve of local Ministers.

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

I desperately want to bring a bit of good news to the Chamber this afternoon. I inform the Minister that I was on the Belfast to Derry train on Saturday, and it was packed to capacity in both directions. Many of the passengers whom I spoke to were from the Republic. Will the Minister assure the House that, in cooperation with the Republic's Government, everything is being done to source European funding to help to rebuild the infrastructure of the permanent way and the railway stations, particularly the station in Derry?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his good news. It is good news that there are ever-increasing numbers using not only trains in Northern Ireland but the cross-border Enterprise service. We can happily agree that that is indeed good news.

The Member will also be aware of the very good news that, under the INTERREG IVa project, through the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB), we are getting additional finance to refurbish the Enterprise service extensively, which will be good news. I also travelled on the Enterprise service recently. Whilst it was a very good experience, I think that there are grounds for further improvements.

The Member will also know that the Department is pursuing opportunities for further European funding projects, including for the old Waterside station. I know that he and the Committee for Regional Development will support that as we seek to move it forward.

Ross Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I also welcome his comments on the old railway station in the Waterside in Londonderry. Will he detail the work that is being carried out by his Department under Horizon 2020?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his positive comments and, indeed, his contribution to the Committee for Regional Development and his commitment to projects in the north-west.

Horizon 2020 is the EU's biggest research and innovation programme, with nearly €80 billion of funding available between 2014 and 2020. The transport objective under the Horizon 2020 programme is entitled 'Smart, Green and Integrated Transport' and has been allocated a budget of €6·4 million. It aims to support:

"better mobility, less congestion, more safety and security with a substantial reduction of traffic congestion; with a substantial improvement in the mobility of people and freight ... and by reducing accident rates, fatalities and casualties and improving security."

There could be significant opportunities for DRD, other Departments and our counterparts in the Republic of Ireland to work in partnership in the identification of projects and the preparation of applications that seek Horizon 2020 funding. With the aim of maximising those opportunities, I recently led a delegation to Brussels to meet the CEO of the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency, which operates Horizon 2020. My Department is open to working together with those of Minister Donohoe and Minister Durkan through the NSMC forum to ensure that those opportunities are realised.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I welcome the identification of sustainable transport, including cycling, as a strategic priority for the North/South Ministerial Council. How are the Minister and the Minister of the Environment working to ensure that the introduction of a single-tier taxi scheme does not overload bus lanes or limit his attempts to improve bus and cycle provision in Belfast and Northern Ireland?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am very grateful to the Member for the very clever way in which he introduced business that is not the business of the North/South Ministerial Council or the report of the meeting into his question. Clearly, he has learned a political skill. The Member will know that there are ongoing discussions between me and Minister Durkan as to how that issue can be properly resolved to the satisfaction of everyone concerned.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement. On strategic transport priorities, you talked about enhancing east-west connections. What are you are talking about in terms of enhancing those? Will you expand?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for his question. Clearly, whilst NSMC will deal with cross-border issues, we will always seek to maximise opportunities through the British-Irish Council (BIC), which is not part of the statement. We clearly reference that work as being important; it is not just North/South but east-west. We look positively at opportunities that there may well be for us in that respect.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an ráiteas seo. I thank the Minister for his statement. Under strategic transport priorities, Minister, you talked about:

"exploring the potential for shared cross-border public transport in border areas."

Will you elaborate and expand on that?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Could the Member repeat the latter part of the question? I beg your pardon.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

You talked about:

"exploring the potential for shared cross-border public transport in border areas."

I would like you to expand on that, Minister. Thank you.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his question. Principally, it is the work around the Enterprise, which is important work, and the rail services. Of course, there are also the Translink and bus services on a cross-border basis that occur. It is to look to see how we can best improve timings, ultimately, of the Enterprise service, hopefully, to put it into more frequent service given its popularity and to ensure that the cross-border bus services are fully efficient and effective.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his statement. In relation to strategic transport priorities and the east-west connections that you mentioned, have you had any continued discussions with the Scottish Government on the A75, given the effect that freight transport has travelling on the A75 from the ports of Larne and Belfast? That is something that was being looked at under European funding possibilities as well.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his interest in and question on the matter. The A75 link route into Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom has to remain an important focus of our cooperation on an ongoing basis. We continue to look at ways of improving it through lobbying the Scottish Government and perhaps bringing forward innovative ideas that would garner support not only in the Executive but, potentially, with the Scottish Government and which would also have EU involvement. Some of that work is still at a relatively early stage, but I am happy to confirm that we are pursuing it.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht an ráitis sin. I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, given that some EU funding has been used in the provision of transport and tourism infrastructure, namely the Magilligan to Greencastle ferry, were there any discussions on extending that to make sure of a year-round service of that ferry?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his question. As he and other Members, particularly Mr Dallat who has raised this issue on an ongoing basis, will know, my Department has had no previous involvement with the funding of that project, and there are no plans to change that at this point. I am aware of the interest of Members, particular Members from that constituency, and of the councils involved. However, primarily, that would be a project for the councils involved to carry forward.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome his mention of the A5 road. In relation to the A5 road, would the Minister support the call locally for the new bridge that would be required across the Finn between Lifford and Strabane to be started as a very positive signal showing a serious commitment to the building of this project?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his question. Of course, the Member has a longstanding interest in seeing the development of the A5. As I have outlined here, and, indeed, at the NSMC, the current situation is that we continue to work through the various reports to inform the appropriate assessments. I am not at liberty to go further than that through the statement or at this time.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister's mention of the A5 and confirmation that it remains an Executive and a North/South Ministerial Council priority. Can I ask the Minister to outline the timetable for progressing the A5 project in the remaining weeks of 2014 and in 2015? What level of funding commitment is there from his Department and from the Government in Dublin?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for his question. The Member will know about the appropriate assessments: the three assessments that have been carried out and the one on Tully Bog, consultation on which is due to end later this week on 28 November. We will need to take those into consideration. The next step in progressing the scheme will be the publication of the new environmental statement, draft vesting orders and draft direction orders. Development work on those is at an advanced stage, but a firm date for publication cannot be given until after consideration of any submissions to the ongoing public consultation exercise on impacts on Tully Bog.

Publication of the new environmental statement and draft orders will be followed by a further consultation lasting a minimum of six weeks, when formal representations and/or objections to the scheme can be made. The Member will know that this consultation is likely to lead to the need for a further public inquiry, but a decision on this can be made only following careful consideration of the representations and the level of objection received in response to the consultation exercise. That may lead to a new public inquiry, which would be likely to be held in 2015.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

That concludes questions on the Minister's statement.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

In compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make the following statement on the seventeenth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in the transport sector, which was held in Armagh on Wednesday 5 November 2014. The meeting was attended by me, the Regional Development Minister, Danny Kennedy, and Minister Paschal Donohoe TD, Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport. Minister Donohoe chaired the meeting.

I will address those agenda items for which my Department has responsibility: mutual recognition of penalty points; and road user and vehicle safety.

During our opening remarks, we discussed the UK road user levy for HGVs. We agreed to continue to liaise on the issue and its potential impacts.

The Council discussed mutual recognition of penalty points. We noted that a draft EU directive facilitating the cross-border exchange of information on road safety-related traffic is due to come into force in 2017. This will cover the offences being considered by the mutual recognition of penalty points — or MRPP — project. The MRPP steering group will continue to examine the directive and the outcome of a European Commission review of the need to strengthen enforcement with regard to traffic offences, and the implications of these for the MRPP project. The MRPP working group will meet to explore issues relating to the counting down of penalty points in both jurisdictions, and both jurisdictions will continue to carry forward work regarding the prosecution of offences with a view to providing an update on those issues at a future NSMC meeting.

The Council welcomed the continued sharing of knowledge and experience between officials from both jurisdictions on the delivery of road safety measures. We noted the progress and enactment of legislation in both jurisdictions designed to improve road safety, including measures and proposals to address drug- and drink-driving and reform of the learner driver regime.

We welcomed the continuing proactive cooperation to target a wide range of illegal activity in the goods haulage and passenger transport industries, including continuing liaison on successful cross-border enforcement operations in 2014 in both jurisdictions.

The Council noted the recent meeting of a tripartite enforcement planning forum to maximise the benefits of enforcement efforts and to identify synergies from a coordinated enforcement approach, and it welcomed the continued training exchange for enforcement officers.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

That was short, Minister.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I just went faster than usual.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

Obviously, road safety is a big issue for the Committee, and it is always very concerned about fatalities and injuries. There have been joint advertising campaigns between the two jurisdictions and sharing of production costs. Given the financial restraints, North and South, was coordination and sharing in these expensive advertising campaigns discussed?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Ms Lo for her question. It is not often that I get accused of being short in any respect.

Road safety advertising is an emotive issue and, as Ms Lo points out, it is expensive. It has also been extremely effective. Ms Lo quite rightly suggests making it more efficient, if possible, through cross-border collaboration.

She quite rightly said that there has been collaboration on several public information campaigns. Between 2000 and 2007, DOE and the Road Safety Authority shared the production costs for campaigns where there were similar road safety issues to be addressed. For example, there were joint campaigns on issues such as drink-driving, seat-belt wearing, pedestrian safety and speeding.

There has also been the purchase of ads from us by the Republic of Ireland Government and vice versa. Given the financial constraints that both Governments are having to operate within, it is certainly worth exploring where further collaboration can be achieved. We have a tremendous opportunity, through the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, to harmonise the drink-driving limit on both sides of the border. That might provide an opportunity for a new shared campaign.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his brief statement to the House this morning. In relation to road safety, Minister, what actions will you be taking in light of the very tragic death of eight-year-old Adam Gilmore recently? Will you be working with the Education Minister towards ensuring that we have the best road safety measures for our schoolchildren?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for her question. Obviously, the tragedy that occurred recently will have — and certainly should have — focused all our minds on how we can work to maximise road safety and minimise the potential for such a tragedy to occur to anyone on our roads. The fact that something like that could happen to children or a family on their way to school beggars belief, particularly in light of concerns that were raised with the local education and library board on the very real dangers — I was going to say "potential dangers" — being faced by children day and daily on their way to get buses in rural areas or, as is the case in many areas, walking the whole way to school on roads with no footpaths because they do not have buses to get. That is a very important issue.

There is a ministerial working group on road safety that generally comprises me, the Minister for Regional Development and the Justice Minister, but I am keen for an invitation to the next meeting to be extended to the Education Minister to see what work can be done with education boards on the matter.

As a Department, we work very closely with schools. We have outreach programmes that are run very successfully with the schools: the schools enjoy participating in them and find them extremely useful. It is important that we build on the work that has been done and do everything we can to ensure that the likes of this tragedy does not occur again.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh ráiteas an Aire. I welcome the Minister's statement. In light of the increase in road fatalities — across the island, there have been nearly 250 road deaths this year — will he consider using media outlets like they do in the South — for example, some of the radio stations in the South notify the number of deaths — to try to get the message out again. I do not believe, Minister, that the message that we have is working, given that there have been 20 more deaths this year than there were at this time last year. Will he consider using other media outlets to get the message out? Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his question. I have said in the House before, and I am happy to say again, that I will consider any option to reduce the number of deaths on our roads. To say that what we are doing is not working may be a wee bit unfair given the drastic reductions that we have seen in the number of fatalities on our roads over a number of years. In 2013, there was an increase on the number in 2012, but 2012 had the lowest number of fatalities on our roads on record, with just 52. That is not to say that we should be resting on our laurels and saying that we cannot do better. For me, one death on our roads is one too many, and I aspire to a time when we have zero road deaths. That may seem beyond our ability, but it certainly should not be beyond our ambition.

The Member's suggestion that we keep the public informed about how many fatalities there have been on the roads is worth looking at again. Last week was Road Safety Week, and I attended a couple of events across the North. I know that Members possibly attended — they certainly would have been invited to — events in their own constituency. I remind all Members of their responsibility to use any opportunity that they have to reinforce road safety messages to their constituents.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for his statement and his answers thus far. Why has it taken so long to get to the point of mutual recognition of penalty points?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr Eastwood for the question. Progress has been made on advancing that work, and some key policy and operational issues have been agreed to date. The mutual recognition of penalty points working group is continuing to explore the issues relating to the counting down of penalty points in both jurisdictions, with a view to providing an update on those issues at the next NSMC meeting in the transport sector.

The issues arise from a number of technical differences between the two penalty-point systems. For instance, on disqualification, all points on a Northern Ireland licence are wiped, whereas those on a licence in Ireland are suspended. Therefore, a driver disqualified for drink-driving who already has three points for a speeding offence on his or her licence will have those points wiped if it is a Northern Ireland licence, but the points will be on his or her new licence if the driver requalifies after the period of disqualification in the South.

Those differences could in certain circumstances lead to issues of double jeopardy. Given that lawyers are constantly searching for grounds on which to challenge driver disqualification, I am sure that Members will recognise the need to ensure legal certainty on these complicated but important issues. Both jurisdictions will continue to carry forward the work on the prosecution of offences, with a view to providing a report to the next NSMC meeting. The issues include courts' treatment of summonses served outside the jurisdiction, on which Departments are working with their respective courts services to clarify an appropriate, robust way forward.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for the brevity of the report, if nothing else. Mutual recognition is a major benefit, but there is some concern that it seems to have taken a long time. The report obviously makes reference to 2017 as the date of the EU directive coming into force. Following on from the previous Member, are there any plans to bring in legislation to pre-empt that so that we can be moving rather than waiting? Has there also been any discussion about mutual recognition with the authorities across the water so that we can have a system that applies across the entire British Isles?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr Weir for his question. The timetable for the implementation of mutual recognition of penalty points will be dependent on the progress made in assessing how parity in the counting down of penalty points across both jurisdictions can be achieved and on the continuing work on the prosecution of offences. I remain extremely keen to implement mutual recognition as soon as possible, but I recognise that we need to do so confident that there is unlikely to be a successful legal challenge to what is groundbreaking work. The issue of mutual recognition between us, the Republic of Ireland, and England, Scotland and Wales, for example, is one that has been raised with me recently and one that I will raise at the next NSMC meeting.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister will be aware of my party's total opposition to the introduction of the levy for HGVs travelling into the North. Is he aware of serious disquiet among hauliers in the South and among businesses in all parts of the island regarding this levy? In his discussions with the Irish Government, has he encountered any appetite on their part for introducing a reciprocal levy, which would be a disaster?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr McElduff for that question. I am well aware of his party's position on the matter, and I am sure that he is well aware of mine and the fight that I fought to resist having to enforce legislation here that was implemented from elsewhere. I am aware of disquiet among hauliers and other businesses in the Republic around this legislation, and that is more around the legislation than the fact that the DOE will be enforcing it as opposed to the DVLA. In fact, over the weekend, I was, I suppose, approached by a couple of different businesses in the Republic and had similar discussions with them.

I do detect from the Minister in the Republic of Ireland Government an appetite to help me to gain the evidence that will be required to show that the levy is detrimental to the economy in Donegal and in other border areas on both sides of the border. The damage to trade could well take place on both sides of the border. There is a review ongoing by the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment of the cost of the haulage industry and the cost of doing business in the haulage industry. I very much hope to tie into that and to figure into that hard evidence from hauliers and from other businesses on how this levy is affecting them. It was the sheer lack of this type of evidence that was used as an excuse, if you like, by Robert Goodwill MP not to grant exemptions here.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I agree with the Minister's comments. As I have said before, one road death is too many. I certainly do not think that it is beyond our ambition to try to achieve zero road deaths. The Minister referred to drug- and drink-driving. He will be aware that detecting people who are drug-driving is very difficult. Was there any discussion about or is the Minister aware of any possible technologies that could be used to try to detect drug-driving? It is probably more overlooked because of the lack of technology.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his very pertinent question. Often, it appears that our focus is on drink-driving, and, while drink-driving remains painfully high, when we look at the causation factors for fatal collisions, drug-driving is well up there as well. It is currently an offence here in the North to drive when under the influence of drink or drugs. The prosecution of this offence requires evidence of impairment at the time of driving, and, all too often and all too sadly, we do not have that evidence until after the event. Again, all too often, it is obtained through a post mortem.

While we have significantly more deaths and serious injuries on our roads through drink-driving, as I said, drugs still figure extremely highly. Last year, six people were killed due to driving while impaired by drugs, whether illegal drugs or, indeed, legal prescription drugs. That is a growing concern. I plan to address this issue with the creation of a similar offence to that recently introduced in Britain that will help to better detect and collect evidence from drivers who are suspected of being impaired through drugs. In effect, this move will bring drug-driving detection into line with drink-driving detection. Proposals for change here will be informed by the work ongoing in Britain and Ireland, but, given the complexity of the issues involved, it is unlikely that the Bill could be taken forward before the next Assembly mandate. In the meantime, I welcome the progress in developing a Road Traffic Bill in Ireland, which will include a range of measures, including the roadside testing of drivers for the presence of drugs. I look forward to the harmonisation with that up here. It would pretty ridiculous if someone could be caught for drug-driving in Donegal and be able to avoid detection just a minute or two down the road.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement and look forward to even greater cooperation between North and South on road safety. Minister, your Department will endure very considerable cuts. Will those impact on road safety, North and South?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his question. Since a Budget for 2015-16 has not yet been agreed, I cannot provide a full assessment of how resource pressures will impact on any area of my Department or on our road safety partners. I can assure you that I remain fully committed to continuing to work with stakeholders to improve road safety and reduce casualties. However, reductions in funding will make a number of activities a lot more challenging, including, as Ms Lo referred to earlier, the creation and airing of road safety advertising. There will also be an impact on road safety grants that are made to community groups and on our road safety education programme that we carry out in conjunction with schools.

I am very conscious that it is not just cuts to my Department 's budget that will impact on road safety. Cuts to the Regional Development budget will obviously have an impact on roads maintenance, and where you have street lights that are out and potholes and gullies that cannot be cleaned as regularly as they should be, there will be a detrimental impact on road safety. That is without doubt. Furthermore, one would imagine that the cuts to the police as a result of cuts to the Department of Justice's budget will lead to fewer police on the road to carry out traffic activities.

There is no doubt that the financial situation will require us to continue — in fact, to start — to work in a more joined-up way across government to do things that make all of us, as road users, improve our behaviour and reduce the likelihood of fatalities and casualties on our roads.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I want to go back to the themes of justice and policing that the Minister has just mentioned. The police reduced its road traffic branch long before there were any cuts, and it is now merely a service that deals with motorway policing. Given the detrimental effect that that has on fatal road accidents, has he had any discussions with the police to fully re-establish that branch and make it effective to deal with road safety issues?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his question. My officials are in constant contact with their counterparts in the PSNI and, indeed, the PSNI is an integral member of our road safety working group. I have had discussions with a succession of acting chief constables on that and on road safety issues.

Last Wednesday night, I was out on the ground, or in a car rather, with PSNI traffic officers in Derry and had a look at the type of work that they do. It is extremely important work, but, while they were not crying about it, it is painfully evident that there is not enough of them to do that work and that they are being spread very thin. We went to a speeding checkpoint, stayed there for 15 minutes and then had to go somewhere else.

One thing that very much impressed me that evening was that we went to Bridgend on the Derry-Donegal border and met some guards. There is ongoing collaborative cross-border drink-driving project, and that was very good to see. I am aware of the pressures facing the police budget. I have concerns about the impact of budget cuts on how many officers they have to carry out this job, but I have also raised with the PSNI how they spend the reducing budget that they have.

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

The Minister has just alluded to the question I was going to ask. He represents a border area where there have been appalling abuses of the road traffic laws by a small number of people on both sides of the border. Is the Minister satisfied that the level of cooperation between an Garda Síochána and the PSNI is sufficient to identify the people who have contributed so much to the heartache of families who, at times, have had multiple members wiped out by, largely, speeding offences, but by other traffic offences as well?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr Dallat for that question. He is correct. There have been awful abuses of laws, and there have been even more awful losses of lives in that border area, and in others across the North and South. I am sure that collaboration between police services in both jurisdictions is good, but I will never be content that it cannot be better. I will continue to, and constantly, push for increased and improved collaboration on this and many other issues.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Minister has often spoken of the connection between speeding and fatalities on our roads. He will be aware of the recent publicity about the shocking scale of the number of drivers from the Irish Republic who are detected speeding in Northern Ireland but not pursued in respect of penalty and penalties outstanding. Did he raise that issue with his Southern counterparts or has he taken any steps with other Ministers to seek to better that situation and to act upon it?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his question, and I thank him for highlighting a most unsatisfactory situation, which, no, I regret that I did not raise with the Minister from the Republic of Ireland at the meeting. I think that the publicity surrounding that issue emerged, possibly, the day following our meeting, but it is a matter that gives me great concern and it is one that I will raise at a future North/South Ministerial Council meeting.

In answering an earlier question, I alluded to the technical difficulties that have been presented in our attempt to achieve the mutual recognition of penalty points. It is my understanding that some of the difficulties around courts and summonses would be applicable in this case. However, I do not believe that they are in any way insurmountable. If people are speeding on a road in the North of Ireland, it is extremely likely that they are going to continue speeding when they hit the border, and beyond. A dangerous driver in the North is a dangerous driver in the South, and vice versa. There has to be collaboration; we have to work together to eradicate those dangers from our roads.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the Minister for missing the start of his statement, although I was here for the large part of it. I note that illegal fuel laundering was not discussed at the meeting. It is a longstanding problem here in Northern Ireland and is worth £80 million in lost tax revenue. Is it an issue that the Minister will raise at a future meeting?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for her question. I assure her that, in missing the start of my statement, she did not miss much, but she might have missed me saying that this statement is on the transport sector as opposed to the environment sector, where the issue of fuel laundering has been discussed at every North/South Ministerial Council meeting that I have attended. Your party colleague Minister Kennedy is often keen to raise it. The cost of fuel laundering to our economy is huge. In that respect, it is, I suppose, relevant, in a way, to this meeting, given the impact that fuel laundering has on the costs of doing business for legitimate businesses in the haulage industry.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

That concludes questions on the Minister's statement.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I call the Minister for Employment and Learning, Mr Stephen Farry, to move the Bill.

Moved. — [Dr Farry (The Minister for Employment and Learning).]

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

As no amendments have been tabled, there is no opportunity to discuss the Work and Families Bill today. Members will, of course, be able to have a full debate at Final Stage. Further Consideration Stage is, therefore, concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I beg to move

That the Child Support Fees Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 be approved.

The regulations, which came into operation in June 2014, enable my Department to charge collection and enforcement fees for using the statutory child maintenance scheme introduced in 2012 under powers contained in the Child Maintenance Act (Northern Ireland) 2008. The 2012 scheme is delivered by the Child Maintenance Service.

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

The regulations form part of the wider reforms to rebalance child maintenance policy. The aims of the reforms are to support parents to collaborate and work together; and to create a more efficient and fairer child maintenance system that delivers more money to children and a better value-for-money service to taxpayers.

Before addressing the detail of the regulations, I should perhaps state that the programme of reform began in 2006 when Sir David Henshaw delivered an independent report on the future of child maintenance. His report recommended that the Child Support Agency no longer be the default option for parents. The introduction of fees was also recommended in order to provide both parents with an incentive to collaborate.

Since then, as part of the reform programme, parents on benefits are no longer compelled to apply to the Department to pursue maintenance payments. It is also worth noting that, since 2010, child maintenance has been fully disregarded for the purposes of assessing benefit entitlement. The 2008 Child Maintenance Act provided the powers to introduce the 2012 child maintenance scheme.

The reforms are designed to incentivise parents to take financial responsibility for their children and to encourage them to collaborate in the best interests of their children. Evidence suggests that children do better when their parents work together. A dual approach is being followed to increase the number of parents who work together to agree child maintenance rather than relying on intervention by the Department.

First, parents are supported to work together, not only on child maintenance but through the whole range of issues faced following a separation. Secondly, fees will act as an incentive for parents to consider whether they could set up a more collaborative family-based child arrangement without automatically turning to the statutory scheme. The new 2012 statutory scheme was introduced using a phased approach from December 2012. Following assurances that the processes, procedures and client interfaces were working well, the scheme was opened to all applicants in November 2013. The 2012 scheme operates alongside the two earlier child maintenance schemes, which have been in place since 1993 and 2003.

Initial reports are that the 2012 scheme is a great improvement on previous schemes. Customer satisfaction is at 73% compared with 55% on the older schemes. Anyone making an application to the 2012 statutory scheme must go through the child maintenance choices service. This provides free, impartial information and support on the various ways to set up maintenance arrangements, and it gives parents the information that they need to consider what arrangements are best for them.

The regulations introduce collection fees for any parents using the statutory collect and pay service. Sir David Henshaw’s report recommended fees as a balanced incentive to encourage parents to consider whether the statutory service is necessary for them.

The collection fee payable by non-resident parents is 20% of the daily amount of child support maintenance that they are liable to pay. The fee payable by a person with care is 4% of the maintenance collected by the Department. It is only fair that both parents should make a financial contribution towards the cost of the service that both are using.

I must emphasise that fees are charged only on money actually collected by the Department. Non-resident parents face by far the highest charges, reflecting the fact that they have greater control over whether they use the collection service. There is no collection fee for parents who make their own family-based arrangement or who use the direct pay service provided by the child maintenance service. The decision not to introduce application fees in Northern Ireland has ensured that the statutory scheme remains open and accessible to those who cannot make their own family-based arrangements. That is a difference between the scheme that currently operates in the rest of the United Kingdom and here in Northern Ireland.

Direct pay is when the Child Maintenance Service calculates the amount of maintenance payable, and the non-resident parent then makes payments directly to the parent with care. That provides a way for parents to access the statutory service in a way that can help to rebuild trust between them.

Before fees were introduced, 24% of cases on the 2012 scheme used direct pay. Since the introduction of fees, the percentage of cases using direct pay has more than doubled to almost 60%. That shows that collection fees are having the desired effect in encouraging more parents to work together. Staff in the Child Maintenance Service have been working hard to ensure that parents are aware of the introduction of fees as well as how to avoid them.

The regulations also include a safeguard to prevent non-resident parents being forced onto the chargeable collect and pay service by the parent with care and also allows the Department to deduct fees from benefits in the same way that it can deduct maintenance owed. In addition, the regulations make provision for the payment of an enforcement charge by a non-resident parent when the Department makes a deduction from earnings order, a regular deduction order, a lump sum deduction order or an application for a liability order. Before the regulations came into operation, there was no financial incentive for non-resident parents to pay maintenance in full and on time. The introduction of enforcement fees is intended to act as a deterrent to encourage non-resident parents to comply with their commitments, and I think that it will also help to offset the cost of administrative action to enforce compliance.

The enforcement fees are as follows: deduction from earnings order, £50; regular deduction order, £50; lump sum deduction order, £200; and liability order, £300. It is estimated that the collection and enforcement fees will generate a revenue of about £1 million a year. That will provide a financial contribution towards the cost of the Child Maintenance Service, which will continue to remain heavily subsidised by the taxpayer.

Although the introduction of fees for child maintenance is a significant change, the aim of these reforms is to promote collaboration between separated parents to ensure that their children achieve the best outcomes in life.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. The Committee for Social Development considered the Department’s proposal to make the Child Support Fees Regulations at its meeting on 5 June 2014 and considered the resulting statutory rule at its meeting on 3 July 2014. The Committee was supportive of the regulations.

The Committee took note that, although the primary power for child support fees is set out in the Child Maintenance Act 2008, this subordinate legislation is required to enable the full introduction of fees. The Committee noted that, among other measures, the regulations will introduce fees for collect and pay services in the 2012 statutory child maintenance scheme as an incentive for parents to work together to reach their own family-based arrangement or to pay each other directly via direct pay within the statutory scheme if they cannot reach their own family-based arrangement.

Under the equivalent regulations in Britain, there is a £20 applications fee to access the 2012 child maintenance scheme. The Committee is pleased at the previous Minister's decision that residents in the North will not be charged such a fee. Of course, it may sound like a small saving, but £20 is by no means an insignificant sum, and the removal of any financial burden to claimants of child support fees is very welcome, as it is in any circumstance.

In conclusion, the Committee for Social Development is supportive of the regulations and recommends that the statutory rule be confirmed by the Assembly.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I echo what the Deputy Chairman of the Committee said. The Committee did indeed consider —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Could you use the microphone? It helps Hansard staff.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, sorry.

The Committee considered the regulations. Anyone who has dealt with people who have had to go through the Child Support Agency or the Child Maintenance Service will know that it was far from satisfactory and was one of the arms of government that had a very poor record, first of all, in collecting money where it was difficult to collect and, secondly, in dealing with changes in circumstances and queries. Sometimes, it was the parent with care who was adversely affected, and it was sometimes the parent who was having to make the payment.

The Committee had two concerns about the scheme. The first is that, where there cannot be cooperation between parents — according to what the Minister said, that is still the case with 40% of people who are receiving child maintenance — the fees, in effect, mean that a quarter of the payment that is received is lost in administration charges imposed by the Child Maintenance Service.

The second is — I hope that the Minister will keep a very close eye on this — that, given the chaotic way in which the Child Support Agency or Child Maintenance Service sometimes administered dealings with parents, I hope that, now that a 24% charge is being imposed, we will see greater diligence so that we see fewer of the kind of mistakes that were made in the past or, indeed, what could sometimes be regarded as lack of forcefulness in pursuing situations where payments were not being kept up to date. The Minister pointed out that that will still not cover the full costs of the service. Nevertheless, now that charges of that level are being levied, there should be an improvement in the service for those who find that, where there is non-cooperation, the agency is not pursuing the matter as quickly as it should.

Those are the only two caveats that I would attach to this. A large number of people will still have to go through the child maintenance arrangements, and they will now be paying in administrative charges a substantial part of the money that would normally have gone to the child. If that is the case, there should be a proper, effective service for the parents who, because they cannot reach agreement, find themselves in the scheme.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Deputy Chair of the Committee for Social Development, Mr Brady, for his comments and for the work of the Committee in relation to the issue. Turning to the comments of my colleague Mr Wilson, I think that we all need to set it in the context of the concern that we have all had, as public representatives who, in time past, have had to deal with the child maintenance service. In the past we clearly saw a system that was not fit for purpose for either component part of what is always a very difficult situation. It is not a process that is devoid of dealing with realities; we are dealing with families, children and very challenging circumstances.

I am conscious, and have been since taking office, that there was a good-news story about the progress that has been made in the child maintenance service. Look at the satisfaction rate that I referred to earlier. I suppose that you have to take any survey with a degree of caution, but moving from 55% to 73% shows that it is working in the right way. Given what is happening across the water, clearly the introduction of the application fee, which we decided here in Northern Ireland not to do, has encouraged those who, for a variety of reasons, some very complex, have not felt it necessary to become involved in the scheme. I think that we have demonstrated that what is being delivered here in Northern Ireland is immensely better than what is in the rest of the United Kingdom.

There is a lesson for us to learn. I have had this discussion with my officials. It goes right across every part of the Administration and Executive. You can have a policy intent, but if the implementation of that policy intent is haphazard or far from fit for purpose, you lose the focus of the policy intent. I do not think that anybody disagrees that the reasons set in the new scheme need to be achieved and are the right parameters to operate in, but it is how it is implemented and operated. That is why, with the way that the scheme is operating, progress is being made. I hope that, as it rolls out, it will continue to be a success.

In conclusion, just last week a senior official in my Department received national recognition for the work that was carried out in the reorganisation in the Child Maintenance Service. I am very proud that that official from Northern Ireland was given recognition for the work being done in that organisation.

In conclusion, I am certain that we all want to ensure that all steps possible are taken to assist parents to work together in the best interests of their children. Obviously, the circumstances that face some families are difficult. I know too well just how difficult that can be and the pressures that it can bring to bear on families. I trust that this process will be an advantage to the Child Maintenance Service. I therefore commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That the Child Support Fees Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 be approved.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I beg to move

That the Child Support (Ending Liability in Existing Cases and Transition to New Calculation Rules) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 be approved.

These recommendations, which came into operation on 30 June 2014, allow my Department to close down the 1993 and the 2003 child maintenance schemes. Any parents who choose to use statutory schemes can apply to the Child Maintenance Service's 2012 scheme. The 2012 scheme provides a more efficient and fairer child maintenance system, delivering more money to children, as I said, and a better value-for-money service to the taxpayer.

Currently, there are three statutory child maintenance schemes providing for the collection and payment of child maintenance under differing rules: the 1993 scheme, which was established under the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991; the 2003 scheme, which was set up for all applications received after March 2003, following amendment of that order by the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act (Northern Ireland) 2000; and the 2012 scheme, which was established under the Child Maintenance Act (Northern Ireland) 2008.

The 2012 scheme was introduced on a phased basis in December 2012, and later opened to all new applicants from November 2013. The scheme introduced a new way of calculating child support maintenance based on historical income and a number of other important changes in relation to child maintenance. The transition period over which liability in existing cases under the 1993 and 2003 schemes will be brought to an end is expected to run until the end of 2017 and early 2018. Any parents using those schemes will have their case closed. During the case closure process, the Child Maintenance Choices service will provide help and support to separated parents. Parents will be encouraged to consider family-based arrangements, but, where that is not possible, can make an application to the 2012 scheme.

The closure of the 1993 and 2003 schemes will not remove non-resident parents' responsibilities to pay any child maintenance arrears that have accrued, unless those arrears meet the limited criteria for write-off; for example, where the parent with care no longer wants the arrears collected. The Child Maintenance Service will continue to ensure that parents meet their financial responsibilities for their children.

The regulations specify that the power to close cases will be exercised in stages known as segments. The order in which cases will be closed will be carefully controlled. The first cases on the 1993 and 2003 schemes to be selected for closure are those where the Child Maintenance Service has assessed that the non-resident parent does not have to pay any maintenance. The Child Maintenance Service has started the process of closing 1,129 of those segment 1 cases. Those will be followed by cases where there is a liability but no payment is being made. In both scenarios, there will be no payments to disrupt when the case is closed. The order of case closure has been determined so as to minimise payment disruption as far as possible. Accordingly, the last cases to enter the process will be those where compliance is hard won. The ending liability scheme, which is published on the departmental website, provides more detail for parents on how and when cases on the 1993 and 2003 schemes will be closed.

Having all child maintenance cases together under the 2012 scheme will simplify the process, not only for staff in the Child Maintenance Service but, more importantly, for parents.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. The Committee for Social Development considered the Department's proposal to make these regulations at its meeting on 5 June 2014 and the resulting statutory rule at its meeting on 3 July 2014. The Committee was supportive of the regulations.

The Committee noted that the regulations will enable the 2012 child maintenance scheme to gradually replace the 1993 and 2003 schemes and ensure a smooth transition to the new scheme. The Committee notes that the regulations will make provision to end liability in cases on the 1993 and 2003 child maintenance schemes. They also ensure that people who wish to remain on the statutory scheme can exercise that choice and are handled by the new 2012 child maintenance scheme. The Department has advised the Committee that the powers will be exercised in such a way to ensure that payment to existing cases on the 1993 and 2003 schemes is minimised as far as possible.

The regulations specify the powers for cases to be closed. However, it should be noted that arrears will remain due and parents will not be relieved of their liability to pay unless those arrears meet the limited criteria for write-off. That could be, for example, where the parent with care no longer wants the arrears collected. Importantly, the continuity of maintenance payments to the parent with care will be protected.

I am sure that I speak for all members of the Committee when I say that any changes to child support must keep the welfare of the child as a key focus and priority. The regulations are designed to reduce any disruption in maintenance flowing to children and, in that sense, can be seen as a positive and protective measure.

In conclusion, the Committee for Social Development recommends that the statutory rule be confirmed by the Assembly.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank Mr Brady, the Deputy Chair of the Committee, for his comments. I also thank the Committee for its work on this. I concur with Mr Brady's comment, which really follows on from what I said previously, that at the focus and centre of this is the continued welfare of children.

Given the difficulties and challenges that there were in the two previous schemes, I can well imagine the concerns and nervousness that there are in relation to that. That is always the case in any of these processes, when you move, in this case, from two schemes to one. However, I think that progress to date indicates that the central focus of what we are about is to ensure that the welfare of children is paramount. As well as that, the comment that I made earlier in relation to the segments and the way in which this process will be handled will ensure that it is carefully controlled. I will ensure that that is the case within the Child Maintenance Service.

The Child Maintenance Service is the one place that I have not had the opportunity to visit to date. However, plans are afoot for me to do so before Christmas. As Minister, I want to satisfy myself about this. It is very easy to come to the Chamber, read the prepared script and do what you have to do, but another part of our responsibility and duty is to ensure that we see at first hand the work that is being done, take on board the concerns that are expressed and continue to make progress on the issue.

We need to underline and emphasise that the statutory scheme should only be used where family-based arrangements are not possible. For that reason, it is important that all cases are managed on the 2012 scheme which, as we have said, is better for children and parents. Bringing all these cases under the one set of rules will, I trust, simplify the process for all concerned. Therefore I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That the Child Support (Ending Liability in Existing Cases and Transition to New Calculation Rules) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 be approved.

Committee Business

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to two hours for this debate. The proposer of the motion will have 15 minutes to propose and 15 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have 7 minutes.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I beg to move

That this Assembly takes note of the following Public Accounts Committee Reports: Report on the NIFRS: An Organisational Assessment and Review of Departmental Oversight and Report on Accounts 2011-2012 Report on DCAL: Management of Major Capital Projects Report on Department of Finance and Personnel – Collaborative Procurement and Aggregated Demand Report on The Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) Report on PSNI: Use of Agency Staff Report on NI Water’s Response to a Suspected Fraud & DRD: Review of an Investigation of a Whistleblower Complaint Report on Account NI: Review of a Public Sector Financial Shared Service Centre Report on Improving Pupil Attendance: Follow-Up Report and the following Department of Finance and Personnel Memoranda of Reply: Report on the NIFRS: An Organisational Assessment and Review of Departmental Oversight and Report on Accounts 2011-2012 Report on DCAL: Management of Major Capital Projects Report on Department of Finance and Personnel – Collaborative Procurement and Aggregated Demand Report on The Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) Report on PSNI: Use of Agency Staff Report on NI Water’s Response to a Suspected Fraud & DRD: Review of an Investigation of a Whistleblower Complaint Report on Account NI: Review of a Public Sector Financial Shared Service Centre Report on Improving Pupil Attendance: Follow-Up Report

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Members, the details of the motion give some indication of the wide range of work undertaken by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in its work of contributing to a better and more efficient delivery of public services. PAC reports have dealt with a number of important issues covering areas such as: contract management, procurement practices, the need for greater focus on efficiency savings, performance management, strengthening fraud investigative skills, valuing whistle-blowers and improving service delivery in the interests of our citizens, including our children.

Although there is not time for me to go into all the items listed in the motion, I will take a minute to remind you of the role of the Public Accounts Committee and the scope of the Committee’s work.

The Committee is a Standing Committee of the Assembly and was set up under the NI Act 1998 to:

"consider accounts, and reports on accounts, laid before the Assembly".

The accounts of all Departments and, indeed, of most public sector bodies are prepared and laid by the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG), who is the head of the Audit Office here. The Comptroller and Auditor General may also make value-for-money reports and reports on efficiency and effectiveness.

The Audit Office's role is to examine closely public expenditure from a position of independence from government. I commend it for the excellent support that it provides to the Committee.

I have in the past described the Audit Office as a natural scrutiny partner to the Assembly, complementing the system of checks and balances that are fundamental to a healthy democracy. That scrutiny role will be all the more significant in today's economic climate, as value for money in the public sector becomes even more important in these times of austerity.

The current budgetary pressures facing the Executive make the PAC's role even more critical, as every pound of public expenditure needs to extract maximum value. The PAC plays a key role in maximising value for money in public expenditure. By honing in on instances of public funds being spent unwisely, the PAC can then make recommendations for improvements, which, if implemented, can ensure that better value for money is achieved.

The PAC plays a constructive role in pointing out the lessons that need to be learned to improve performance. Whilst our inquiries tend to be specific to a particular Department or body and the issues pertaining to it, there are lessons to be learned throughout government. PAC reports this year highlighted a number of lessons that can be applied right across the public sector.

I wish to emphasise that the PAC's key role is to apply the lessons that have been learnt from our inquiries. It aims to be constructive in its recommendations and to offer guidance about what needs to change to avoid a repeat of those events.

In my time as Chair of the PAC, I have seen similar issues come up time and time again. That was the case with the report on improving pupil attendance, which highlighted the fact that very little progress had been made since an Audit Office report back in 2004 recommended an attendance strategy. In 2014, its follow-up report highlighted the fact that an attendance strategy was still outstanding. The PAC decided that that was worthy of further investigation, and we have made recommendations. My Committee colleague Mr McQuillan will talk about it in more detail later.

Public financial government is at its most effective when all the participants are thinking about and striving for excellence. That means not just the Committee but the auditors, the accounting officers and the civil servants. There is a shared interest between the PAC and DFP in working in partnership on the stewardship of public money. I see that as an important principle that should underscore the relationship that exists between the two to ensure value for money in the delivery of our public services.

I welcome the recent work undertaken on drafting a protocol on the memoranda of reply (MORs) between the Committee and DFP. The PAC regards MORs as being an integral part of the public accountability cycle and monitors the Department’s progress on the implementation of its recommendations. I therefore acknowledge the important role that DFP plays in working with Departments on the production of MORs to ensure that Departments respond to each PAC recommendation as fully and as positively as possible.

I have heard it said that the PAC has created a risk-chill effect in Departments. Some critics would say that that has resulted in Departments avoiding taking risks because of the fear of being called before the Committee, thus dampening innovation.

It is the Committee's job to hold Departments and accounting officers to account for their spending decisions, judging whether they have spent wisely and well. When the C&AG's value-for-money reports are selected by the Committee, the relevant accounting officer will be asked to attend to give evidence in open session on how and why decisions were made. Admittedly, this is an exposed position for a senior official to be in and therefore should be regarded as an incentive to Departments to prevent this arising.

However, it is not to create a risk-chill factor and it is not the PAC's primary focus to increase the capacity of bodies to innovate. The PAC primarily looks at expenditure that has been incurred and tries to ensure that where mistakes have been made, lessons have been learned. It will make recommendations which would support greater joined-up working.

I now wish to address the report that was published this year by the Committee in respect of the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI). AFBI is the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's largest arm's-length body. AFBI carries out scientific testing for DARD and other public and commercial bodies to satisfy statutory requirements mainly around animal and plant health. The institute also carries out research and development for DARD and other clients. Between 2006-07 and 2011-12, DARD provided AFBI with £253 million in grant aid.

The Committee examined AFBI's performance since its establishment in the key areas of financial management; scientific testing undertaken for DARD; the programme of R&D work delivered for the Department; governance of AFBI; and oversight of the institute by DARD. Overall, the Committee was disappointed at the extent of shortcomings in AFBI and at the unacceptable delay in introducing improvements. The Committee formed the view that, until recently, DARD had abdicated its responsibility, as parent Department, for proper oversight of the institute.

The Committee found that proper costing systems were not introduced in AFBI until seven years after its establishment, meaning that the institute did not have the proper tools to measure its operational efficiency. Despite this, DARD continued to fund the institute to the tune of £40 million annually, with little assurance that it was receiving good value for money.

AFBI's corporate costs have been alarmingly high. Between 2006-07 and 2010-11, these amounted to almost £100 million, £51 million of which related to the institute's estate. The Committee was very concerned at the lack of action to reduce the high state costs in the 10 years since a project board had been set up to prepare for AFBI's establishment.

The Committee also identified poor management with regard to fees charged by AFBI for commercial work. Until 2011, AFBI calculated fees using a historical overhead rate, which dated back to at least 2003, with the result that at least £3·5 million income was lost. The Committee made recommendations which aim to ensure that AFBI's fees are set on the principle of recovering the full costs incurred in delivering commercial work.

Scientific testing for DARD is AFBI's most significant operational activity in both volume and cost terms. The Committee was therefore disappointed that very few unit costs had been calculated for this work. In the absence of costs, the Committee could not understand how DARD had any notion of whether it was receiving value for money for its significant investment in this area.

The management of the research and development programme delivered by AFBI for DARD can only be described as unacceptably poor. The Committee identified some alarming weaknesses in that area. The forecasting of the costs of individual projects at the outset was so inaccurate that 39 were not subjected to the required full economic appraisal. Projects examined by the Committee had overspent by almost £13 million. For many years, ongoing costs were not monitored, which left AFBI and DARD unaware of significant cost escalations for numerous individual projects. When DARD finally undertook a meaningful review in 2012, it immediately terminated 52 projects, which had cumulative costs to that date of over £18 million.

A range of enhanced governance measures have been introduced in AFBI, and DARD has strengthened its oversight of the institute. The Committee views the acceptance of its recommendations by DARD and AFBI as evidence that they recognise the need for improvement. However, the Committee considers that it took far too long to put such improvements in place. Indeed, the extent of shortcomings identified led the Committee to conclude that best value for money had not been achieved in the delivery of AFBI's operations. The Committee was particularly disappointed that many weaknesses replicated those identified by a 1995 Westminster PAC review of science service, which was AFBI's predecessor, and that the recommendations from that report were not implemented in the institute. Consequently, we intend to follow up on that area to gain assurance that improvements are being implemented and sustained in practice.

Go raibh míIe maith agat. I commend the motion to the House.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

I appreciate that the Public Accounts Committee has sometimes come in for a certain amount of flak in relation to the reports that we have produced. One that I want to speak on is to do with a whistle-blower's report associated with the Department for Regional Development and the appointment of a contractor to provide signage.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he accept that some of the flak is justifiable? First of all, picking over the bones of some of the projects with hindsight can sometimes reveal things that were not apparent at the start. Secondly, the detail and the intricacies of some of the recommendations creates extra work for Departments. Thirdly, the sometimes unfair way in which the scrutiny is done introduces a chill factor, and that risks are not taken by Departments where sometimes they should be taken.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute, as well as having seven minutes to make his presentation.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

Normally, most reports are brought about by whistle-blowers. Sometimes, that can lead to extra work for Departments. I appreciate there are occasions when you have to take risks to move forward and that risk-taking, sometimes, is removed.

The report that I am dealing with today involved a very clear whistle-blower. Some people might have perceived him to be a disgruntled contractor who basically did not get the crack of the work that he had won. It was identified that there were difficulties, but the Department's internal audit identified that no problem whatsoever was associated with the matter. As a consequence, the whistle-blower's concerns were not taken seriously by the Department. Between 2005 and 2010, the contractor was contacted by telephone on only one occasion and was interviewed once.

The Department's internal audit showed up nothing amiss. When a full investigation was conducted, however, it was identified that this contractor had lost out significantly as a result of what had gone on in the Department. The business went bankrupt and is no longer trading, whether as a consequence of what was going on or not. I appreciate that there was a contractor who received numerous orders prior to his contract finishing, which would have covered this gentleman's work over a period of time. That was demonstrated quite clearly in our evidence sessions.

A recommendation was made to the Department of Finance and Personnel, and, to give it credit, it has already put in place a centralised service to provide expertise. Through the Northern Ireland Civil Service's centralised fraud investigation service, a mechanism has been put in place to ensure that what was identified at that stage will be flagged up early and that information will also be shared among Departments. Unfortunately, the report identified that not all Departments have the internal expertise to investigate potential fraud to the level that would be required by the PSNI to scrutinise investigations and present cases to be brought forward for prosecution, which possibly should have happened on many occasions.

The report also highlighted the difficulties for members of staff in those government bodies. They get used to using a certain contractor and are maybe not totally aware that they are no longer using the services of that contractor. That management issue needs to be identified. It needs to be ensured that, when tenders are won, certain people who used to get orders for that service are taken off the list and that a new contractor gets the orders. That needs to happen and to be disseminated to staff. The whole information-sharing aspect needs to be dealt with.

There was also a report on Northern Ireland Water, which brought out major problems. We will maybe not go into the details of what happened in many other areas, but this was to do with Northern Ireland Water's awarding of contracts for the supply of water meters and how that had been mismanaged. The report identified all sorts of problems whereby the people who were supplying the water meters were told to submit invoices for £20,000 or below.

If it is discovered that invoice slicing is or has been going on without a reasonable explanation, that is identified as being a potential or major fraud investigation. Somebody could be saying, "I need cash flow to keep my business going". That might well be the case, but there were major areas in which Northern Ireland Water was falling down in passing information through to the contractor who was supplying and fitting water meters. They were making numerous calls to areas. The information on when they could go to those locations to fit meters was available, but, unfortunately, that was not making its way back to the supplier of the meters. Sometimes, they were being paid umpteen times for visiting the same location.

The policing of that mechanism was not very good. Problems were identified, and invoice slicing was a big issue. Many recommendations were made. There was a clear weakness in the planned scope and methodology of the investigation. Despite references being made to the Department —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way on that point?

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

I will indeed.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I do not know the details of the case, but does the Member accept that, very often, the people who criticise Departments for invoice slicing, as he calls it, or cutting down the size of contracts are the very people in the Assembly who call, time and time again, for more work to be given to small local businesses? The way to do that, of course, is to break contracts down in the way that is suggested.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

That is why I made the point about people getting payments as opposed to waiting on a very long contract and ending up with millions. The overall cost of the contract is what really matters. I do believe that —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The Member's time is up.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

— proper invoicing should be dealt with. I apologise, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, for running over. I did not really get into detail on the second part. Thank you.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Thank your colleague.

Ross Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

May I remain seated, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Yes.

Ross Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I begin by paying tribute to the Clerk and Committee support staff for their assistance throughout the past year. My party colleague Michael Copeland, an active member of the Committee, is absent due to ill health. I am sure you will join me in wishing him a speedy return to good health and thank him for his participation in the Committee in recent years.

I wish to address the report published this year by the Committee on DCAL's management of major capital projects.

In the period 2008-2011, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure had an unprecedented target to deliver £229 million capital investment in the Northern Ireland culture, arts and leisure infrastructure. This resulted in the delivery of a number of capital projects, including the Grand Opera House, the Ulster Museum, the Crescent Arts Centre, the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland, Tollymore National Outdoor Centre, the MAC and the Lyric Theatre.

The projects have undoubtedly enhanced culture and arts provision in the local economy. However, this has come at a significant cost to the public purse. The projects cumulatively ended up costing £103·4 million, 32% more than the original estimate of £78·5 million. The projects also encountered significant delays.

The Committee was concerned that despite the availability of extensive guidance, public bodies continue to make the same mistakes around planning, governance, project management and procurement that the Committee has observed and reported on over many years.

Approvals for projects were based upon business cases that were not robust and were overly optimistic about what could be delivered. That resulted in projects being re-scoped, which contributed to the significant cost increases and time delays. There is a clear lesson here that public bodies must ensure that robust project management arrangements are put in place so that projects can be delivered on time and within budget.

In total, £87·4 million — 84% of the £103·4 million investment — was provided by the public purse. Despite having a lack of experience and expertise in delivering capital projects of this scale, DCAL failed to seek technical advice at the appropriate time and provided grant recipients with too much autonomy in making key decisions. This is clearly unacceptable: public bodies must seek technical advice and use it to inform key decisions. All key decisions on projects of this scale should be authorised by the public body in consultation with technical advisers.

There was something of a furore when the Committee's report was published. Many took exception to the Committee's conclusions. It may be helpful if I emphasise a number of completely unacceptable departures from long-established principles of good practice that were made in awarding the Lyric Theatre rebuild contract.

A number of unexplained adjustments were made to the tender submissions. Despite £413,000 being stripped out from one of the tenders, that cost was later paid in full. The tendering documentation to support the tender decision was destroyed promptly after the tender evaluation meeting. The sponsoring bodies — DCAL and the Arts Council — or their technical advisers — the CPD — had no oversight of the tender evaluation process and were unable to assure the Committee that it had been completed in accordance with good practice. Finally, we discovered that the preferred bidder provided a donation of £150,000 to the Lyric Theatre. In light of this sequence of events, the Committee stated that it was left with a strong impression that the outcome of the tender process had been manipulated, and it remains of that view.

DCAL accepted all the PAC's recommendations and has taken a number of actions. It now requires all capital projects to follow best practice project delivery arrangements as set out in 'Achieving Excellence in Construction'. It has revised and updated a service level agreement with the Central Procurement Directorate of the Department of Finance and Personnel, formally documenting roles and responsibilities. DCAL also intends to develop procedures to ensure that local operating agreements are put in place with the Central Procurement Directorate for all major capital projects and programmes.

In response to this report, the Department of Finance and Personnel committed to updating its guidance on the use of grant in procurement to ensure that all records of procurement associated with grant awards are retained in line with public procurement policy. Also, Departments and arm's-length bodies will be required to obtain written confirmation from a centre of procurement expertise that procurement guidelines have been met and that a contract represents value for money before a grant recipient is permitted to award that contract.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

As Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the House take its ease until then. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Anna Lo.

The debate stood suspended.

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

Oral Answers to Questions — Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister

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

Questions 1, 5, 7 and 13 have been withdrawn.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

2. Mr Ramsey asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the appointment of a Commissioner for Victims and Survivors. (AQO 7101/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The deputy First Minister and I remain committed to providing the best services possible for victims and survivors. This includes ensuring that they have proper representation and a collective voice through their own commissioner. Unfortunately, the current process has not produced a sizeable pool of appointable candidates. We are looking at options on how to widen the pool of appointable candidates, and we will release further details of this very shortly. However, as this is still a live competition, it would not be appropriate to comment further.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the First Minister for his response. Clearly, there will be victims and survivors across Northern Ireland who are disappointed that we are not progressing this matter. First Minister, we do not want a rerun of the previous appointment that caused a lot of distress and discomfort to the victims. Can you outline to the House any time frame on going forward, taking the point that there have been delays? Is there any time frame in which you can assure the House that that will happen?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I do not think that I can agree with him about there being any concern about the previous commissioner. Kathryn Stone was a first-class commissioner. I think that, perhaps, he may be referring to the appointment of four commissioners on a previous occasion. Some of them were slightly dodgy, I think, as the House will know.

[Interruption.]

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

Order, please.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I think there are lessons to be learned from all that —

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

Order, please.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Sorry.

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

Sorry, I have to ask you to resume your seat. I will not accept any remarks from a sedentary position.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I think that the point that he makes, nonetheless, is important. It is essential that we get this right. There are people relying on the commissioner to speak for them, and it has to be a commissioner they can identify with. That is what the deputy First Minister and I are working on. I think that the timescale is as soon as possible. We have to resolve the issue of whether we widen the pool and, if so, how we do it.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

What progress has been made on severely disabled pensions, and will it seek to redefine "victim"?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I think that many people have recognised that, when the initial assessments were made for victims at the time of the incident that affected their lives, in some cases, if not most, there was not the expectation that some of these victims would still have been alive today. That is the blunt truth. Therefore, I think that the assessments were less than were necessary for them to have a full life for a prolonged period. In that context, my colleagues and I have been consulting on a Bill that would come before the Assembly that would provide a pension for people who are severely disabled. I think that is important legislation, and I hope that it receives the support of the House. It would augment whatever previous settlement that there had been with them.

Nothing can compensate for the injury that has been caused to them, but we cannot leave people who have gone through that severe pain, anguish and a prolonged period of living with a disability without giving them the assistance that we can because they were not able to be employed and were not able to build up National Insurance and are, therefore, at a disadvantage from the rest of the community. It is an important piece of legislation for the House, and I hope that it will consider it sympathetically and support it.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answers thus far. Will he outline which recommendations of the independent assessment of the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS) have been implemented and which remain outstanding?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

There was a whole series of recommendations. My recollection is that we have implemented about two thirds of them. If the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister wants us to give the Member further details on that, I am quite happy to do that. However, very considerable progress has been made on the implementation of the recommendations.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I want to acknowledge the First Minister's admission that his party was complicit in appointing what he had described as a dodgy character as a commissioner. I am sure that government is not easy for the First Minister. Is the process that is being run giving a list of deemed appointable candidates? If so, how many people have been deemed to be appointable?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I do not want to go into the details of an open competition, but I can assure the Member that the process is being monitored by the Commissioner for Public Appointments and is being held in accordance with its rules, regulations and guidelines. It will bring to us a list of those who are appointable.

There have been occasions — I will leave this issue to the side so that I can speak more frankly on it — when we have been left with very little choice. On one occasion, I recall being offered only one person to choose from. If the deputy First Minister and I are being asked to make choices, we would like a wide field that we can look at and perhaps agree on an outcome.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

3. Miss M McIlveen asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on discussions on the devolution of corporation tax powers. (AQO 7102/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Securing powers to lower corporation tax is a key priority for the Executive to promote the growth of our local economy. As part of our economic pact that was signed last year with the Prime Minister, the United Kingdom Government indicated their intention to make a decision on the devolution of corporation tax powers at the time of the autumn statement, which is on 3 December. That has involved discussions with the Secretary of State, and we also wrote to the Prime Minister to press him to come to a decision quickly and ensure the swift devolution of corporation tax powers.

The reply from the Prime Minister confirmed that the timescale remains the same. Officials have been told that, if a positive decision is made, a Bill could be introduced in the House of Commons very shortly afterwards, but before the election. The Executive's agreement will also be required to approve the devolution of corporation-tax-rate-setting powers and to lay a legislative consent motion before the Assembly. Officials are working to make the necessary arrangements in that respect.

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

I call Mr Daithí McKay. My apologies, Michelle. Your supplementary question.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to thank the First Minister for his response. Further to that, what does he say to those who oppose corporation tax, on the basis that it breaks up the fiscal union, and do not believe that the Executive has the competence to deal with those increased powers?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Since devolution began in Scotland, we have seen the fiscal responsibilities being divided up between the Treasury and the devolved regions. The Government in Scotland, for instance, has had the power to reduce or increase income tax within certain limits, there are already proposals for various duties such as stamp duty and landfill tax to be devolved to Scotland and Wales, and we ourselves have the power over air passenger duty. That kind of tight fiscal union has already been made more flexible, and I do not think that that argument pertains.

We have very separate and unique circumstances in Northern Ireland. We have a land frontier with a country that has a considerably more attractive — ie, lower — level of corporation tax. We have also come through decades of conflict, and our economy has suffered as a result. Therefore, there is a strong argument that to rebalance the economy in Northern Ireland, which is lagging behind because of our history, we need something that grows the private sector and encourages growth in the economy.

No one has made a better suggestion than that of corporation tax, from which, it is viewed, something like 50,000 additional jobs would come over a period.

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

I now call Mr McKay.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Along the same lines, First Minister, can you outline what you believe the priorities should be with fiscal levers other than corporation tax? What conversations has your office had with the business community to ensure that it is part of the conversation, too?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I will take those questions in reverse. One thing that you can say about the business community in Northern Ireland is that it is always ready and willing to give advice on those and other matters, and it has been doing so consistently. The overwhelming view of the business community is that devolving corporation tax will be good for business and that it will encourage growth, not just of foreign direct investment but of our indigenous companies, giving them a confidence for the future.

The Member asked about other financial levers. I think that I said at a previous Question Time that the Department of Finance and Personnel had looked at a range of fiscal powers to see which ones might be applicable to Northern Ireland, which ones might give us some ability to direct our social and economic policy, which ones we could afford to do and which ones the economy of scale would make it impossible for us to do. At the end of that exercise, we looked at the stamp duty and landfill tax powers that were being offered to Scotland and Wales. I might even add aggregates tax and corporation tax to that, as well as air passenger duty. Those seem to be the parameters within which we will probably have to work. Any of the others are of such complexity that a small area with a population of 1·8 million would find it very difficult to pay the cost of operating the additional taxes without having to increase the burden on its local community to pay for the cost of their operation.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

Does the Minister regret wasting time discussing the cost of devolving corporation tax with Her Majesty's Treasury, when the decision was always going to be a political one that would be made in Number 10?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member has an imperfect knowledge of the issues that relate to corporation tax. Very significant discussions — indeed, the bulk of discussions with Treasury — have been undertaken on the basis of what the modus operandi of corporation tax would be. We discussed what arrangements would be made if any secondary benefits were to come back to Northern Ireland. We also discussed how we would deal with multinational companies with a base in Northern Ireland and their headquarters in GB and what would happen if they were to transfer their headquarters and attempt to get a larger profit base into Northern Ireland. A range of issues had to be resolved before the political decision could be taken, not least because it relates to how much of a reduction to the block grant there would be as a result of our getting the lever to set our own level of corporation tax.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

Given the furore that his party has made about the £87 million that we have had to cut to fund welfare, how does the First Minister propose that we pay for a potential cut of £400 million a year if corporation tax is reduced to the level that he has proposed?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

He refers to a furore. I object to throwing money away. I like to invest money, and that is a distinction to be made between the two scenarios that he points out. Investing money in your economy to build and grow it seems an imminently sensible position to adopt. Of course, the distinction in all of this is that everybody recognises that, given Northern Ireland's very high dependency on the public sector, we need to rebalance our economy. Everybody has been bandying those words about for years. It has been the mantra of almost every political party. I wonder whether they recognised what it actually means. If you are going to rebalance your economy, you streamline the public sector and grow the private sector. The kind of thing that we are going to be forced to do, because of what has been described as austerity, is offer a voluntary exit scheme to reduce our dependency on 212,000 people employed by the public sector for a population of 1·8 million. I think you can recognise that if you can reduce that level of dependency and, at the same time, grow your private sector, it is a better use of the funds that are available. I do not think that it will be as high as the Member is outlining, but even if it were, the amount of money that you would take out of the public sector for a very limited number of people that would be coming out, compared with the 50,000 that would be coming in over the years, on the balance books, shows that it would be good value for money.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Last week, one of the First Minister's party colleagues described devolving corporation tax as a gamble. On the same theme as that of Mr Agnew, how then does the First Minister reach the conclusion that it is safe to gamble with such a substantial, adverse impact on the block grant, particularly as we are now most likely facing further austerity and cuts in a new spending round review?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member is not much younger than me, so he has been around in politics for a long time, and he knows that there are very few certainties in politics. To that extent, all that you can ever do is make your best assessment of what the outcomes might be. The fact that every significant commentator, economist and politician who has financial experience has indicated that the provision of corporation tax powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the consequent lowering of the level of corporation tax will bring tens of thousands of jobs to Northern Ireland seems to me to be a fairly firm basis for us to move forward. I have not heard any intelligent commentator indicate that it would not add to the number of people in employment in Northern Ireland. Our own Invest Northern Ireland very strongly supports it. It contains the people who are out on the ground right across the world and, particularly, in Northern Ireland. Therefore, they know best what the business community is looking for in order to increase investment or to bring investment to Northern Ireland. All that we ever do in all these circumstances is take the best advice we can from the experiences of others and the knowledge that we have, and we act upon it.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

4. Mrs Cameron asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the actions taken to promote gender equality. (AQO 7103/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

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

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

The gender equality strategy 2006-2016 sets out an overarching framework for Departments, their agencies and other relevant statutory authorities to promote gender equality. The strategy provides a framework of objectives to direct action by decision-makers and policymakers in government to increase their awareness and understanding; to tackle specific gender inequalities, including the structural inequalities that can perpetuate them; and to ensure the promotion of gender equality across their policy areas.

The strategy and its supporting action plans bring together what government is doing here to promote gender equality and to enable government to demonstrate how it is meeting international commitments under the Beijing Platform for Action and, importantly, the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. A review of the strategy was undertaken during 2013, and, in January 2014, Ministers approved the development of the new strategy. Since that date, meetings have taken place with a range of key stakeholders and the gender advisory panel to update them on the progress that has been made and, importantly, to include them in the development of the new strategy. The current strategy will remain in place until the new strategy is developed and operational. The new strategy will require full public consultation and Executive approval.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the junior Minister for his answer. Has he confidence in junior Minister McCann providing support for the domestic violence strategy, given the Maíria Cahill revelations?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I think that Maíria Cahill was a particularly brave individual to come forward and tell a story of horrific rape that should never have happened and for which she can never be blamed. Child abuse can never, under any rational explanation, be blamed on the child. The House considered the motion, and I came to the correct decision and voted on it. My record is clear on that.

As somebody who has some experience of dealing with child abuse — I spent over two decades of my life in professional practice — I know that a paedophile will rarely, if ever, abuse only one child. I can give you a legion of research to confirm that. The important thing is that when anybody is aware of child abuse, they must immediately bring that to the attention of the police and social services. They do not have the option not to bring that to the attention of police and social services. It is not something that you should do; it is something that you must do. The reason why the criminal law is very clear in that you must bring that forward is because it allows the police and social services, under the joint protocol procedures, to act in a way that can take the criminal route and also the child protection route to protect any child. Whatever the abuse or the domestic violence, whether it is that of an adult or a minor, it is imperative that that abuse is reported immediately. Failure to do so is simply not an option.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Although I warmly welcome the First Minister and the junior Minister's commitment to equality, how can the First Minister possibly reconcile the Executive's commitment to equality with the disgraceful, hurtful and insulting comments of his colleague Gregory Campbell at the DUP conference regarding the Irish language, and is he not aware that the —

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Gender equality?

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

— Irish language community is much wider and deeper than the membership —

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

Can we have a question?

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

— of any one or even two political parties?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am waiting for a ruling as to whether this is a question on gender equality or not.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

It did not sound like it.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

My understanding —

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

Sorry; I seem to be being questioned. I hope not. The Minister knows fine well that he has the ability to answer the question or not.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

So, it does not matter whether the supplementary question is related to —

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I think the understanding was that the supplementary question would be based on the original question, and I think that most Members of the House are aware of that. Therefore, I will answer the original question, which was on the gender equality strategy, on which I do not think Mr Campbell said anything at that particular time.

We have a strong track record in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and a strong action plan on the actions that we have taken to promote gender equality. We have sought to find a gender balance on all Government-appointed committees, boards and all other relevant official bodies. The Commissioner for Public Appointments recognised that women, along with some other sections of the population, were under-represented, and it is working closely with Departments to identify and develop measures to address the under-representation among those holding public appointments in Northern Ireland. That is one thing that we have done.

With regard to Northern Ireland Civil Service actions, we are committed to achieving greater diversity in public appointments, and we have been consistent with the overall principle of selection by merit as a means of ensuring effective public bodies. We recognise that some sections of our society are under-represented and we are working to encourage greater participation. We have put measures in place to raise the awareness of public appointments and made it possible for people, and encouraged them, to apply for those posts. We have taken a number of steps, including an interdepartmental public appointments forum, to share best practice and increase diversity.

We have used the independent advice that will be provided to the public appointments forum by a senior academic with considerable experience in equality and diversity issues. Time does not allow me to go on, but those are the key, concrete actions that OFMDFM has taken on gender equality, which we are proud to stand over.

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

Before calling Mr Kieran McCarthy, I remind Members that we have dealt with only three questions. Can we have brevity from Members and Ministers?

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Does the junior Minister agree that it would be better for Northern Ireland if we had a single equality Act as soon as possible rather than trying to address equality issues piecemeal, bearing in mind that it is almost five years since GB introduced its Equality Act?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I am not sure that whatever body we have would change the legislation. We have very robust legislation in Northern Ireland, which we are using to drive forward change and to increase gender equality. We are doing that in a range of ways, including by using best practice, advertisement, encouragement and setting an example in the Northern Ireland Civil Service. All those measures are using best practice to address gender equality. I am more interested in the outcome than the process. We have the process and the legislation. Whatever body we have will not change the legislation. The important thing for people who are living with inequality is that we address that gender imbalance, and we are using best practice to do so.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

6. Mr Cree asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the progress of Together: Building a United Community. (AQO 7105/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Work is progressing on all seven headline actions that were announced alongside the publication of 'Together: Building a United Community' (T:BUC). On 2 July, the Minister of Education announced the first three successful projects to be taken forward under the shared campuses programme. A second call for projects has now opened.

We have successfully completed the first pilot of the United Youth programme, and a concept design call has attracted a high level of interest. A design team has been established to take forward development of the next stage of the programme. Stakeholder engagement is ongoing, with a view to commencing a further pilot phase in January 2015.

A significant number of summer schools and camps took place during summer 2014, and further schemes were delivered during the Halloween midterm break.

Stakeholder engagement is ongoing regarding the development of the first two locations for urban villages: the Lower Newtownards Road and Colin. Detailed project plans, complete with anticipated budgets, have also been developed for shared neighbourhoods, interface removal and cross-community sports programme headline actions. Work is continuing with the Departments to take forward work on the wide range of other actions and commitments arising from the strategy.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I thank the First Minister for his response. First Minister, will you detail the actual spend in the current financial year and the projected spend for 2015-16 by Departments on T:BUC?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member touches on an important point that is being raised in OFMDFM. These were new projects that were not baselined, and we have had to bid for funds. We have been able to get sufficient funds to carry out the pilots and the preparatory work that was necessary for the schemes. However, we need to identify where the funds will come from to deal with the 2015-16 financial year. We have not identified those funds yet. We will have further conversations with the Minister of Finance and Personnel — I put him on notice — to identify funds for those projects. I think that they are hugely important. We carried out a pilot on the United Youth project and put young NEET people into that project. We found that 84% of those who went through the project ended up in work, in training or giving support in some form of community or charitable organisation. That is a massive change. If one were to hear some of the transformational stories of the young people who were part of that project, I think they would convince the House, and I hope they will convince the Minister of Finance, that it is a project that is worth funding.

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

Unfortunately, that ends the period for listed questions. We will now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Ross Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

T1. Mr Hussey asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether they agree that the threats made against Mr Gregory Campbell MP MLA and those who are responsible for such irresponsible actions should be condemned. (AQT 1781/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I do, of course. We have been consistent on the issue, because there are Members from all sides of the House who have been threatened in one way or another. When there is a threat against anyone who represents the local community as a democratically elected representative, it is an attack on democracy itself. I trust that the early knowledge that the police have of the issue will help them to prevent anything arising from it, but I certainly condemn it completely. I thank the Member for his question, and I know that the Member for East Londonderry will not be deterred from doing the good job that he does for his constituents in East Londonderry, both here and in Parliament.

Ross Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

Does the First Minister agree that the history of the Irish language is associated very closely with the Presbyterian Church? In fact, the Presbyterian ministers kept that language alive. Does he agree with me that such an attack on Mr Campbell would make the support for the Irish language within the unionist community step back because of what they see as terrorism being associated with the Irish language?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It certainly would be counterproductive. I have to say that I do not point the finger at those who have a real and genuine interest in the Irish language. I suspect that the culprit is someone who perhaps could not care less about the Irish language except for using it for political purposes. Yes, the Irish language does have a history that has roots in Presbyterianism in Ireland, as it then was. It is a perfectly honourable entitlement for anyone to advance the Irish language and speak it. Of course, we respect those who do. We really need to separate and recognise the difference between support for the Irish language and those who want to use the Irish language for political purposes.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

T2. Mr McGimpsey asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, bearing in mind that although 53% of the make-up of the Civil Service is female, 100% of the permanent secretaries are male, even though 70% of Senior Civil Service staff at grade 3 are female, when there will be progress in finding equality and balance. (AQT 1782/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I very much encourage those within the Civil Service who are female and have the ability to apply for all the jobs that come up at the higher levels of the Civil Service. At the same time, we must always make sure that job appointments are made on the basis of merit. Of course, we have had females in very high positions, including that of permanent secretary, within the Civil Service. I hope that we can get back to that. My experience of the female participation in the higher echelons of the Civil Service has been a positive one. I hope that the Member is not indicating — and I certainly hope that it is not the case — that there is any glass ceiling within the Civil Service. It must be open to all on the basis of their ability to do the job.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I thank the First Minister for that answer, and I find it encouraging, but of course the proof of the pudding is always in the eating. It is a situation that we have been looking at for a number of years, and we appear to be unable to make progress. Therefore, will he, through his position, take a personal interest in this, given that, across 11 Departments, every permanent secretary is male, and the situation is almost as bad at grades 3 and 5, which is wholly unacceptable? All of us should endeavour to ensure that when he says that there is no glass ceiling we can demonstrate and prove that.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I take on board what the Member says. I entirely endorse the thrust of his remarks, but it will be a lot more difficult to end up with the outcomes that he refers to in circumstances where we are downsizing the public sector or, indeed, reducing the number of Departments, which would take out positions at each level in the Civil Service. However, I have no doubt that, as far as OFMDFM is concerned — I am pretty sure that I speak for the deputy First Minister when I say this — we repudiate anything standing in the way of full gender equality in positions at any level in the public service. We are happy to champion that cause, and there will certainly be no distinction on our part on the basis of gender. We look at who is the best person to do a job. I hope that that is a position that the various panels will exercise. We should also remember that these appointments are governed by guidelines and rules that forbid any form of discrimination.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

T3. Ms McCorley asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether the First Minister would consider asking Gregory Campbell to withdraw the remarks he made at the DUP party conference when he once again insulted the Irish language and Irish speakers, including thousands of children in Irish-medium education. (AQT 1783/11-15)

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Ag comhdháil do pháirtí thug Gregory Campbell masla don Ghaeilge agus do Ghaeilgeoirí, ina measc, na mílte páiste atá ag gabháil fríd Ghaeloideas. Ar mhaith leat iarriadh ar Gregory Campbell a chuid focal a tharraingt siar?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I think that we really do need to distinguish between lampooning those involved in a political campaign related to the Irish language and those who genuinely speak the Irish language. I have known Gregory Campbell for decades, and I know his dry sense of humour as well. I am pretty sure that he was pointing the finger at those who, in my view, politically abuse the Irish language. Frankly, they set back the prospect of acceptance of the Irish language among many other sections of the community.

I am fully supportive of those who enjoy speaking the Irish language, its richness and the culture surrounding it. They must be protected. However, when it starts to get drawn into the political realm, we start to undermine and dilute the importance of the language. As a matter of interest for those who are speakers, the more we can do to depoliticise the Irish language, the greater acceptance there will be of that language in the community.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for his answers thus far. How can you claim to respect other cultures and identities when you defend and echo the comments made at your party conference?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

We see evidence here of a supplementary question that was prepared before I gave an answer. I made it clear during my remarks at the party conference that this community will go forward only when there is a higher level of respect, understanding and tolerance. That has to be the way forward, but it has to be the way forward not just for the Irish language but for the unionist and Orange traditions as well. It ill becomes anybody to, on the one hand, feel offence when it is something that relates to the Irish language but, on the other, close their eyes and ignore the fact that there are people on the Benches opposite who have made comments about the royal family, the Orange institutions, parades in Northern Ireland and many other parts of the culture and tradition of the unionist community.

As I said at the party conference, it is essential that this is not a one-way street and that everybody recognises the importance of respecting, understanding and tolerating the other's tradition.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

T4. Mr Dickson asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether the First Minister, who described Mr Campbell’s remarks on Saturday as “a bit of comedy”, can tell the House who is laughing. (AQT 1784/11-15)

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I join with others to clearly condemn the threats made against Mr Campbell today.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

When he first made the remarks in the Chamber, a lot of people opposite were laughing.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Does describing another party's proposals as toilet paper mean that the DUP has written off any chance of agreement in the current talks?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I think that Mr Campbell was careful to use the term "wish list", as opposed to the serious agenda items that we are discussing in the talks process. I and the party are fully committed to reaching agreement on the wide range of issues that is being discussed as part of the agenda in the talks process. If we collectively fail in reaching agreement, it says little for the future of the Assembly and Executive, so it is very important that we reach agreement. That is why there has always been reluctance, on our part and, as I understood it, on the part of Mr Dickson's party, to stretch the agenda and deal with the wish list issues or the hobby horses, because all our political parties have them and we know that. There are key central issues that need to be resolved in the process, and that is where our focus and attention have to be.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

T5. Mr Gardiner asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether the First Minister has had any discussions with the UK Government on the replacement of the Barnett formula. (AQT 1785/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It has come up in a number of conversations. There is not a lot of enthusiasm in Northern Ireland for the replacement of the Barnett formula. If the Barnett formula is removed, I suspect that there would be massive political pressure from the north of England and from Wales for a recalculation, which would be to the detriment of Northern Ireland. If we have to cut up the cake differently, it will lead to us getting a smaller portion. That being the case, while it has been discussed, I was pleased that, as an outcome of the Scottish referendum, the Prime Minister indicated that he had no intention of replacing the Barnett formula.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the First Minister thus far. Will he outline the main arguments that he will use to keep Northern Ireland's block grant at the current level in the event of a redistribution of finance following the Scottish referendum?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

That comes close to the issues that we were arguing for in relation to corporation tax. We have come from a position where there has been massive division in our community. Our economy needs as much support as possible to be able to stand on its own two feet. For those reasons, the need factor is high in Northern Ireland.

I could easily make an argument for a higher proportion of that formula than we get at present, in terms of the distribution of whatever funds are available, but I can certainly make an argument as to why the amount that we are receiving in the block grant should be increased. In real terms, over the last four or five years, we have lost the equivalent of £1·5 billion of spending. All the difficulties that we are facing, in relation to the cuts that Ministers are having to contemplate, come as a result of the reduction in our block grant. Whatever the calculation and the formula may be, the overall pot needs to be considered, and there are issues that we have to deal with in Northern Ireland that are unique within the United Kingdom. Therefore, whatever the Barnett formula might be, I think that there is a very good argument for us to have Barnett plus.

Bronwyn McGahan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

T6. Ms McGahan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, given the First Minister’s recent comments about the Equality Commission and its role in the Ashers Bakery case, whether the First Minister can confirm that OFMDFM is fully committed to the work of the Equality Commission in identifying and challenging all forms of discrimination. (AQT 1786/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

OFMDFM has statutory ownership of the Equality Commission but does not have any operational responsibility for it. The Equality Commission itself has a duty and remit that requires it to uphold equality for everyone. That has to include those who are Christian as well as those who are not.

Oral Answers to Questions — Agriculture and Rural Development

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

1. Mr Ramsey asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what plans her Department has to open up the Chinese market for dairy-related products from Northern Ireland. (AQO 7115/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am pleased to advise not only that the Chinese market is already open for dairy products from the North but that it is thriving. In 2013, 3,613 tons of dairy products such as butter, cheese and milk powder were exported from the North to China. In 2014, 3,918 tons have already been exported, and I am very pleased to see that upward trend. Overall, dairy exports have increased by 30% this year, and my officials continue to work closely with our industry to facilitate this growing trade.

In addition, significant quantities of raw milk are used in the production of dairy products in the South that may then be exported to China. My officials have established an international trade dairy group with their counterparts in the South to ensure that trade in those types of products is facilitated. At the most recent meeting, officials agreed new processes that ensure that the support that we give to the industry across the island of Ireland is a lot more joined up.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for her detailed response, which is most welcome.

Is the Minister aware that the Irish Government's Minister for Agriculture, Simon Coveney, visited China recently, bringing great hope to many food producers in the South? There is a hope and desire that our own Minister will also take the opportunity to visit China to promote the same concept and to increase the quantity and quality of produce that is going to China.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, I am aware of the recent visit of Simon Coveney and the delegation. The Member will be aware that I have actually been to China twice to explore the market and to make links with the Chinese Government and trade bodies. I intend to make another trip to China, hopefully very early in the new year, not just for the dairy industry, although that is obviously vital, but to look at some of the challenges that we are having in getting export certificates signed off with Chinese officials. I wrote to our friends in China recently and asked for some movement on that, particularly because the pork industry has been very disappointed by the continual cancellation of inspection visits by the Chinese vets. We are hopeful that we will get that progressed as quickly as possible. As I say, some work is being done to see whether there is scope in my going out in early January to pursue the market further.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Can the Minister tell us whether any new dairy export markets are being considered?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am pleased to note that a significant number of dairy export markets are already open for products from the North and, indeed, from across the island. That includes access to the new emerging economies of India and China. There is also a planned inspection in December by the Brazilians, who will visit interested dairy exporters in England, Scotland and Wales. Whilst our industry has indicated that it is not planning to export to Brazil, the inspection will hopefully provide a new, lucrative market for the industry in the future.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

Given the current depressed markets for dairy produce across Europe, and given the importance of the dairy sector to the Northern Ireland economy, has the Minister met our three MEPs to look at a possible way forward?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have not met with the three MEPs to talk about the dairy sector specifically, but my door is always open and I am very keen to engage with them, particularly given the discussions that happen in Europe. I am very aware that one of the MEPs is involved in the new dairy report, and at an official level we have already been inputting to that.

You are absolutely right that the crisis in the dairy sector is very real, as are the issues concerning price, managing cash flow and all the other issues that exist for the sector. My Department is certainly up for playing its role in whatever shape or fashion that may take to support the sector to grow. You will be aware that, under the Going for Growth strategy, there are a number of initiatives that will support the industry in going forward. It is so important that we tackle the underlying issues of profitability and look towards production efficiency. As I said, we in the Department are certainly up for playing our role to take that forward. We have done a lot of work around knowledge transfer, education and training. We will continue to do that over the next wee while.

Incidentally, I am meeting the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) tomorrow to discuss issues that are pertinent to the dairy sector. I look forward to that discussion. I also hope to have a conversation over the next couple of days with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Elizabeth Truss, particularly on the dairy industry. We are coming at trying to support the industry from a number of fronts in what is obviously a very difficult time, given that there was a 30% difference in prices this October from those from last year.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

Unfortunately, the Republic has been allowed to get ahead in building routes into the Chinese market. As Agriculture Minister in this Executive, can she give a commitment that, for the Chinese market, she sees the Republic of Ireland as nothing other than a major competitor? Ideology must not get in the way of standing up for our farmers and agriculture sector.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Those are typical nonsense-politics arguments. The reality is that what we need to do is work together across the island to get into these markets. That is the reality of the situation. The industry wants to see that. There is very strong growth right across the island. As I said in my initial answer, quite a significant amount of trade happens across the island, and that is why my Department works with our counterparts in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) to assist the industry, North and South, to grow. Given the quota situation post-2015, there are absolutely opportunities for us to explore. I am certainly up for working with the industry. What we need to see is a dairy-led strategy. As part of that, we will be working right across the island.

I do not think that the Member should get hung up too much on ideological positions. This is, in fact, a trade issue on which we can work together quite successfully across the island.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

2. Mr Campbell asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what private sector industries in, or related to, agriculture or rural development are being sought to complement the move of her departmental headquarters to Ballykelly. (AQO 7116/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I can advise the Member that, as a result of the soft market testing exercise on the Shackleton site by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister earlier this year, over 40 expressions of interest were received, principally from the private sector, although there was also some partnership and public sector interest. OFMDFM is giving consideration to uses for the wider Shackleton site as part of the plans to develop it.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I know that the Minister was initially somewhat lukewarm about the move to the site, but it is always a welcome development when a politician does the right thing. In doing the right thing, you should always keep doing the right thing, whether there are threats, online abuse or anything else. Keep doing the right thing. That is what I intend to do.

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

Can we have a question, please?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

On the contribution that has had to be made from the public purse to the development of the Ballykelly site, will she now ensure, along with OFMDFM, that swift progress is made to try to utilise best the rest of the site?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member is aware that I am very much committed to the project moving forward and have made headquarters relocation one of my principal priorities, which is why I made it a Programme for Government commitment. Since taking up office, I, like my predecessor Michelle Gildernew, have always been of the view that we need to move our headquarters to a rural location to bring us closer to our service users and to achieve all the knock-on benefits that we have always talked about. This is about a fairer distribution of public sector jobs and giving opportunities to those in the public sector to have promotion opportunities. The benefits speak for themselves. I have always been committed to the project. I have set out my stall to take it forward, and I will do so in the time ahead.

OFMDFM is the principal Department in developing the entire site. It is obvious from the expressions of interest that the move by DARD to the Ballykelly site will attract other people there. I am quite sure that that will happen over the next number of years. It will be a long-awaited investment in the north-west, which people there are entitled to, having been robbed of it for years.

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

Can the Minister tell us when the outline business case will be completed and the cost-benefit analysis conducted?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The outline business case has been cleared by DARD's internal assurance processes. Executive approval to proceed was given on 26 June 2014 by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. The business case outlines the options for relocating the headquarters to Ballykelly and was informed by a report by Central Procurement Directorate (CPD) on the accommodation options available on the Shackleton Barracks site, an assessment of equality impacts of relocation and the modelling of the required staff transition to the new headquarters, while incorporating opportunities provided by modern ICT as appropriate.

The preferred option points to a phased approach to construction, with 400 workstations being completed in 2017 and a further phase of around 200 workstations being completed in 2020. The total cost of the phased option is £30·8 million capital and £14·3 million resource. The funding gap is £29·7 million capital and £11·3 million resource.

The current programme for the work at Ballykelly indicates that the tender award for construction will happen at the end of 2015. Prior to that, my officials will develop the outline business case into the full business case.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Given the extreme pressure on public finances, not least on our hospitals and schools, will the Minister outline the total estimated cost of the project? Does she accept that it is not appropriate in such austere times?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

No, I do not accept that. The principal point is about a fair distribution of public-sector jobs. It is about better promotional opportunities for the public service. It is about ensuring that there are opportunities right across the North and that we have a better distribution of public-sector jobs. That is key; it is the principle that should guide us when moving forward. I have set out our stall in relation to Ballykelly for the headquarters, fisheries going to south Down, Rivers Agency going to Loughry in Cookstown, and Forest Service going to Fermanagh. I am absolutely committed to taking those projects forward. I have set that out in budget plans.

We absolutely are in austere times; it is a difficult economic climate. You always have to put it in context of what we are dealing with, which is the onslaught on the Budget from the Tory Government. There are difficult decisions to be taken. I am absolutely up for taking the fairest and most balanced approach I can. I assure the Member that I am committed to those relocation projects.

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Minister tell the House whether the redeployment has taken into consideration the surplus staffing positions in the Department and the impending voluntary exit schemes?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Absolutely. As part of the plan and in moving forward, we have been working very closely with the trade union side to make sure that staff are fully up to speed with all the moves that are happening and the implications for them. We are working with our staff. We have surveyed staff in headquarters and right across all elements of the Department. There has also been a wider public service survey. That has all fed in. We are very committed to taking forward the phased approach, which allows for any staff changes that may happen.

We still do not have all the details of the voluntary redundancy scheme, but that will become clearer from DFP over the next number of weeks. I am quite sure that a number of people, right across my Department and others, will want to take up that opportunity. We have to work our way through all that with DFP over the next number of months. It will be towards the middle of next year before we will know the numbers of staff from each Department who will go under the voluntary scheme.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

3. Mr Nesbitt asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development how she intends to deliver savings in her Department's budget in 2015-16. (AQO 7117/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

My officials will be discussing all of my Department's Budget 2015-16 proposals, including savings, at the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee tomorrow. We aim to publish DARD's draft budget consultation document on our website on Wednesday. Full details can be viewed then.

Delivering savings of almost £30 million will be challenging for my Department. However, I have been engaging with officials regularly over the last number of months to develop the most balanced approach to implementing any savings that have to be found. The approach focuses on the operating costs of the Department, including general running costs and staffing levels in all areas, as well as programme expenditure. I have also set targets to raise additional income to ensure the future sustainability of the key services delivered by my Department.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for her answer. She will be aware that there was a commitment from her Department in the previous Programme for Government to cut 15% from administration. Her predecessor managed less than a third of that. How does she justify a further £2·4 million being spent on administration from 2011 to the current year?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Obviously, every Department needs an element of administration, not least my Department, given that we administer almost £300 million of single farm payments to farmers. We need to make sure that we have the staff and expertise to be able to deliver that. I am absolutely committed to making sure that we protect the revenue that we receive — not just the £300 million but the rural development programme — for the farming and rural communities. We are looking across the Department at savings that may be found. I am working to try to protect front-line services as best we can to make sure that we look at how we deliver services and at whether we can improve things. That is constantly under review, as is the constant look at where we are duplicating services, where we can find efficiency and where we can do things better.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

When the Minister reviews all these matters, will she consider taking away from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) the authority for cross-compliance checking? It is carrying out its duties in such a way that it is damaging farmers' health and mental health, and it is driving farmers to attempt suicide. The anger in the farming community towards NIEA is palpable.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member will be aware that the NIEA comes under the remit of the Department of the Environment, but, as I said in my earlier answer, if there are new ways of doing things, if there are ways to double up on inspections, if there are ways to improve efficiency, then I am absolutely up for that and open to it as part of the discussions that we are going to have, particularly in terms of the 2015-16 Budget, in the time ahead. Everything is there, and, as I said, I am very prepared to listen to views on how we can do things more efficiently.

I am also aware of the pressure that the farming community is under, particularly the dairy sector and the prices it is now receiving for its produce, which are 30% down on this time last year. That is very significant for farm income. There are severe cash flow and management issues for farmers, so, absolutely, all those things are putting people under pressure.

I would like to think that it is nobody's intention in any Department to go out and make things difficult for any individual or farmer. So, as I said in answer to your original question, if there are opportunities for us to be leaner and more efficient, and cause the least disruption for farmers, then I am absolutely up for that.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Minister's programme for tackling rural poverty and social isolation be affected by next year's Budget?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is one of my policy priorities. I have said that I am absolutely committed to the Programme for Government commitments that we have made. But, tackling rural poverty and social isolation, is a key policy priority for me. We have to be real. This is the only Department that is serious about tackling isolation and poverty in rural communities. The pot of money that we have dedicated to tackling poverty and social isolation has levered in so much additional funding for rural communities. For me, this is a priority moving forward, and I intend to roll out the programme over the next year and, indeed, in planning for Budget post 2015-16.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

4. Mr McCartney asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for an update on the work her Department is doing to increase awareness of rural crime. (AQO 7118/11-15)