Northern Ireland Assembly, 27 January 2015

580 contributions from 74 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Why is it that, yet again, when we are about to have quite an important statement on health, the statement is not put in Members' pigeonholes until after 10.15 am, giving us a wholly inadequate opportunity to consider the points that are to be raised? I thought that there was guidance of at least 30 minutes, which has yet again been breached.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Ministers are required to ensure that Members get statements in sufficient time. There may be issues, which, I am sure, reflect on what the Member has just drawn to our attention. I am sure that the Minister will address those in his statement.

Ministerial Statement

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

At the outset, I will take up the Member for North Antrim's point. My understanding is that the statement was to have been in Members' pigeonholes by 9.00 am. Given the importance of the statement, I think that it is essential that Members get proper notification.

Last year, my predecessor commissioned an examination of governance arrangements for ensuring the quality of health and social care provision in Northern Ireland. That examination was led by Professor Sir Liam Donaldson. It is now complete, and the report is published today.

I am sure that other Members will wish to join me in paying tribute to the commitment and efforts of all those working in our health and social care system. I thank Sir Liam and his team for completing the review in such a short time. I also thank all those who met his team, including clinicians, managers, patients and members of the public. All of them contributed evidence to inform the team's work and findings.

Sir Liam is a world-renowned expert. The report is far-reaching in its implications, and I agree with Sir Liam's main conclusions. That said, I will need to take more time, as should others, to consider the specifics of some of the associated recommendations.

I want to highlight a quote from Sir Liam's report. He concludes that our health-care system:

"is likely to be no more or less safe than any other part of the United Kingdom, or indeed any comparable country globally."

That statement should be of some comfort and reassurance to those in our community who rely on our health service.

The report makes 10 recommendations. While some focus on specialist areas of quality and safety improvement, such as maximising learning from incident reporting, others are broader and focus on our health system. Members will be aware that I have already asked my permanent secretary to look at administrative structures in the health and social care system and the organisations that support it. The purpose of that review is to ensure that the structures in place to support the delivery of health and social care are working, individually and collectively, as effectively and efficiently as possible. That work will feed into future planning cycles, including for 2015-16.

It is clear that, on a number of the recommendations, there is a need to hear the views of other stakeholders, many of whom contributed evidence to Sir Liam and his team but will not have had sight of the recommendations before this morning. There are clearly recommendations that need to be considered by the Executive, and Members will also understand that, in respect of some of the recommendations, we will need to take account of the findings of the inquiry into hyponatraemia-related deaths, which will, hopefully, become available shortly. Despite that, there are a number of recommendations that should be progressed, and I am determined that that should happen as quickly as possible, particularly those that point to opportunities for improving the quality and safety of our services.

My predecessor and I have highlighted issues with commissioning, and this is reflected in Sir Liam's report. My officials have been asked to undertake a review of the existing commissioning arrangements to ensure that they are effective. The review will also take into account the recommendations set out in Sir Liam's report. A copy of the terms of reference for the review is attached to my statement.

A key point made by Sir Liam is that, in the Northern Ireland and broader UK context, the health and social care system that we have is not the one that we need. However, while acknowledging Transforming Your Care (TYC) as a strong forward-thinking piece of work designed to address this issue, he notes that progress has been slow. I wholeheartedly agree with that assessment, but we need to be clear that it does not reflect a lack of ambition or effort. In December 2011, the TYC report set out a change vision that would take three to five years to achieve and require some £70 million of additional transitional funding. Due to a change in the wider financial context, the Executive have been unable to provide that funding to my Department. That said, TYC remains a priority. It directly addresses the challenges facing our hard-pressed health and social care system. By working to safely introduce services in primary and community care, and supporting people to make good health decisions and manage their own conditions with appropriate assistance, we will be able to ensure that service users and patients are treated in the right place, at the right time and by the right people. We need to enthuse our front-line staff and empower them to make the changes that they can make in support of the aspiration for the highest-quality health and social care service. I am determined, even though we are working in a constrained financial context, that we must redouble our efforts to speed up the implementation of TYC. The best change comes from the ground up, and I want to facilitate those at the coalface to play a fuller role in delivering transformation.

I note that Sir Liam's review recognises the potential for pharmacists to expand their role in the provision of community services, and I can confirm that I will shortly announce details of an implementation plan to guide the execution of the Making it Better Through Pharmacy in the Community strategy. That will set out the strategic direction and enhanced role of pharmacists in the community for the next five years.

In addition, I can advise that my Department will be issuing a medicines optimisation quality framework for consultation later this year. This framework complements existing policies and TYC and aims to support better health and well-being outcomes for our population by improving the appropriate, safe and effective use of medicines throughout Health and Social Care (HSC).

I wish to confirm that a statutory duty of candour will be introduced in Northern Ireland. There should be no ambiguity in respect of my expectation regarding the crucial elements of patient safety, which are openness and transparency. I recognise that despite the best efforts of doctors, nurses, social workers, other staff and managers, mistakes can and do happen. Patients, service users and the public have a right to expect that, when they do, they will be communicated with in an honest and respectful manner and that every effort will be made to correct errors or omissions and to learn from them to prevent reoccurrence. I have asked my officials to begin the process to create a statutory duty of candour in Northern Ireland, so that, supported by professional codes of conduct that already exist, we might bring about the strongest possible form of openness and transparency in Northern Ireland.

The serious adverse incident (SAI) system has been the subject of a great deal of focus over the last 12 to 18 months. Sir Liam highlights that the SAI process needs to be strengthened. I agree with that assessment. However, I want to remind everyone that it is a system for learning, and it should not be used as a source of information to attack the service or to sensationalise issues which affect people at a very difficult time in their life. Such an approach can only serve to undermine the extent to which we are open about and seek to learn from mistakes that occur. The Health and Social Care Board and the Public Health Agency (PHA) jointly manage the operation of the SAI system. I have instructed them to consider the recommendations made in this report, prioritise changes that can be made now and set out the direction of travel for recommendations that will take longer to bring about.

Shortly, I will publish the details of a look-back exercise into SAIs, which was commissioned in 2014. The look-back report will confirm the desire of professionals to involve people, but highlights how hard it can be to get this right, because people want to receive information in a manner of their choosing, which may be unique to them. It will show that reporting of deaths in hospitals to the coroner is generally carried out appropriately. Sir Liam Donaldson and his team have however highlighted that improvements could be made.

I want to reiterate today my commitment to progress to a conclusion work that was previously announced by my predecessor, which was to introduce a regional morbidity and mortality review system as well as the development of proposals, in conjunction with the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Department of Justice, to introduce a new independent system to review deaths in Northern Ireland, complementing the role of and working with the coroner.

A "never events" list will also be developed for Northern Ireland. Never events are serious, largely preventable patient safety incidents that should not occur if available preventative measures have been implemented. They include incidents such as wrong-site surgery, misidentification of patients and dosing errors. Some of these events are already dealt with in Northern Ireland in the context of existing SAI learning letters and other guidance issued. I have instructed my officials, as an interim measure, to urgently consider the list of never events for England and to determine its applicability to Northern Ireland.

Sir Liam restates the need to use expertise and guidance from regulators in other countries. The Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) already uses and will continue to use experienced professionals from other UK countries in review work and will build on those existing arrangements appropriately in future review work.

Members will recall the announcement made by my predecessor that RQIA will begin a series of unannounced inspections of acute hospitals in April 2015. Members will agree with me that unannounced inspections are often of more value than announced inspections. Best practice from other regulators is already being incorporated in that work, and it will be shaped going forward on an analysis of key trends in the HSC in Northern Ireland on a rolling basis.

I have asked my officials to investigate with the RQIA the possibility of speeding up the roll-out of this programme of unannounced inspections. My officials will also begin work on new policy proposals to review the Health and Personal Social Services (Quality, Improvement and Regulation) Order 2003 with a view to introducing a stronger system of regulation of acute health-care providers. These changes need to be taken forward alongside changes to the current system of regulation. My Department will bring forward proposals to the Executive for changes to that system of regulation of non-acute services, with the aim of issuing the proposals for consultation later this year.

I say again: openness and transparency are vital to ensuring a system that is focused on maintaining quality and continuous improvement. The system must learn to listen to the voices of people who use it and who work in it and to make sure that those voices are heard. It is often those voices that highlight poor standards. The effectiveness of whistle-blowing arrangements in the health and social care system continues to be a cause for concern. As part of the 2015-18 RQIA review programme, I have directed that RQIA should undertake a review of the operation of whistle-blowing in health and social care bodies and make recommendations on how we can improve its effectiveness.

I am conscious of the general conclusions in the report about how the health and care service is both reported and perceived. Focusing on reviews, complaints and "never events" is important. This focus can, however, skew everyone’s perceptions about these services. I want more work to be done to measure and report patient and client experience. With this express intention, I have asked my officials to review the current arrangements for measuring patient/client experience to ensure we take the best available worldwide evidence and design a framework to strengthen the voice of patients at every level from the front line up to the Department. Monitoring patient and client experience, good and bad, is a much more effective way of driving improvements in the quality of our services. It is also an approach that will give a much more balanced view of the quality of the services being provided.

This is a time for those who are committed to the delivery of high-quality health and social care services to engage in open, honest, intelligent debate about how we move forward. The report should force us collectively to raise the standard of our debate on health and care and to focus on the prize, which is a world-class health and care service. We need to recognise the realities that we face and to arrive at the right decisions, beginning by ensuring that we are asking the right questions. Too often, discussion about the health service can be overly simplistic and focused on a simple choice between closing or keeping open a particular facility. In this context, the reaction of the local community is understandable and instinctive: a save-our-service mentality. In reality, though, it is not about saving a service, but saving a structure. The real choice that we face is an uncomfortable one for us all, including political representatives. It is this: do we want a world-class service or a service on our doorstep, which, while convenient, may be sub-optimal and compromise quality and safety? The discussion about the right structure for our services and hospitals has been going on for many years under different administrations and under the leadership of Ministers from different political parties.

The message from Sir Liam is clear — I need to emphasise this point — we now need a mature debate and we need to strive for political consensus to empower us collectively to make the right choice. Borne out of a desire for that mature debate, I have chosen to place this report in the public domain and to address the Assembly at an early stage in the interests of openness and transparency. I want to allow a wide range of stakeholders the earliest possible opportunity to reflect on the report and to begin to formulate solutions to meet the challenges in it. These solutions can only be informed by openness and honesty about where we are now and what has to be done to deliver the changes needed.

Whilst we are moving ahead with some of the recommendations that I have outlined today, I am also asking for written comments on the recommendations to be submitted to the Department by the end of April 2015. That gives an opportunity for stakeholders to reflect and engage with one another, political representatives and the Department.

I recognise that the analysis of the report will take some time and that it will need to be given careful, measured consideration. Inevitably, some of the recommendations will have financial implications, and some may require legislative change and Executive approval. Sir Liam, through his report, challenges us on what is best for the people we serve.

The report highlights specific issues on innovation, silo working and standardisation. As part of my approach to addressing those issues, I have specifically asked the six trusts to work with each other, their staff and other stakeholders to develop a combined response to the report and its recommendations. Their response should reflect the views of all front-line staff in particular. It should also focus on their ideas for improving collaboration, ending silos, increasing standardisation and promoting innovation. Front-line staff must be empowered not only as a result of that work but as part of it. In short, they hold the key to delivering on the change that is needed.

The trusts, along with other stakeholders, will be asked to provide their views and comments to the Department, again by April 2015. I accept that that is quite a challenging deadline for all concerned.

Mr Speaker, in the light of the challenges posed in the report, we must all contemplate the tough choices on improving health and social care that face the Executive. I propose to ask Sir Liam to return next year to advise me of his views on the progress made.

I will conclude by highlighting another quote from Sir Liam’s report. He said:

"the leaders of the Northern Ireland health and social care system should be clear in their ambition, which is in our view realistic, of making Northern Ireland a world leader in the quality and safety of its care. Northern Ireland is the right place for such a transformation, and now is the right time."

In summary, Sir Liam has concluded that we have a real opportunity to transform our health service into a world leader. I believe that that is an ambition that we should cherish. I look forward to the debate ahead.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Before I call the Member who will ask the first question, I inform the House that a large number of Members have put their name down to ask questions. I am sure Members will agree with me that as many as possible should be allowed to do that. For that reason, I ask Members to ensure that their questions are brief, not multi-question comments, and that they relate to the ministerial statement.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. However, I suggest that there is little in the report that heralds the new dawn, if you like, for our health and social care service.

The Minister said that we need a mature debate. That is absolutely no problem. However, the report cost £116,000 for eight months' work. It has effectively told us that Transforming Your Care is too slow; that there are concerns about commissioning, but it does not outline what those concerns are or, indeed, how they could be rectified; that the health and social care system is not the one we need; that there will be a statutory duty of candour; that there will be a direction for pharmacy; and that there is a need to strengthen the serious adverse incident system. So, how, exactly, Minister, will these 10 recommendations be taken forward by the direct actions that are required to bring our health service into the 21st century and to provide that world-class service that we all strive for?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

The lady is absolutely correct. I intended to reveal this anyhow: although not all the invoices are in, we think that the report cost roughly £116,000. That has to be seen in the context of an overall expenditure for 2015-16 of over £5 billion. I believe that, if properly implemented, Sir Liam's report will certainly make us much more cost-effective in many respects.

Where the mature debate is concerned, I remind her that three parties in the Assembly have had the opportunity, or the pleasure, of holding the health service portfolio and that all three have struggled with initiating the debate that Sir Liam clearly flags up, which is that, if Northern Ireland came into existence today, we would not start our health service provision from where we are now. I hope that his first recommendation will encourage us all to have that mature debate.

Although we had our concerns about issues surrounding Transforming Your Care, commissioning and SAIs, it was very helpful to have a totally independent, detached voice come in, look at the situation and confirm that our reading of that situation and our concerns were correct. That reassures me, and it incentivises me to try to ensure that we deliver what Sir Liam is saying. To some extent, at least the report is saying that Transforming Your Care is the right direction and that, strategically, it is the correct way forward. However, we need to put more resources into it. We can all agree on that.

Some of the recommendations will be implemented almost immediately. I mentioned the end of this financial year, which is quite a challenge. Some recommendations cannot be implemented without Executive support, while others cannot be implemented without changes to legislation. The Chairperson will understand that that is a long-term process. I am very keen to have a public, open and transparent debate on all Sir Liam's findings to get a sense of the support or otherwise among the medical community, service users and the general community, all of whom have a view on health and social care.

Some of this is very challenging and some of it is uncomfortable. I accept that. However, there is not much sense in our having a report that does not challenge us all. I will also be relying on the Committee to provide a sounding board for many of the views on it. I see the report as an extremely important document for the future of health in Northern Ireland.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

It is important that we distinguish the two reviews. First, Richard Pengelly, the permanent secretary, has initiated a review of administrative structures in the trusts, the board and other aspects of health care to see whether we can make more cost-effective decisions. I know that many Members have expressed their concerns about admin costs. Mr Pengelly's role — it is a challenging one, because he has to report by the end of this financial year — is to examine every aspect of administration to determine whether there is overlapping administration and whether there are ways in which to take costs out of the system.

In addition, attached to the statement are the terms of reference for the review of commissioning arrangements, which focus particularly on the role of the board. The review will have a number of tasks. It will assess the health and social well-being needs of the population of Northern Ireland and assess strategic planning to prioritise needs within the available resources, including the use of financial and other levers to reshape services to meet future needs. It will engage with patients, users, carers, families and other key stakeholders at a local level in the commissioning of health and social care. It will secure, procure, incentivise and agree high-quality, value-for-money service provision to meet the assessed and prioritised needs of the population. It will ensure the delivery of outcomes from services commissioned and evaluate the impact of health and social care services, feeding back into the commissioning process how needs have changed. It will bring recommended options to improve the effectiveness of the delivery of health and social care in Northern Ireland. We expect that report by the summer of 2015.

Therefore, there are two ongoing processes here that affect commissioning. Of course, we acknowledge Sir Liam's comment that Northern Ireland could be in a position in which we have all the bureaucracy and administrative demands of a commissioning service without any of the real, tangible benefits that commissioning should be yielding. We need to examine that, but, again, that is something that I and my officials realised was an issue before we saw the text of Sir Liam's report. At least it is good to have that independent corroboration that we need to look at this very important issue.

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

I am reluctant to say, "I told you so", but does this report not represent a vindication of those who have been rightly critical of a service that has not been delivering, up to and including criticism of who runs the system. I remind the House that this Minister and his predecessor have robustly and at all costs defended that system. In that light, is it not now time, not for another debate, but for decisions, finance and action?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

First of all, as to who is in charge, I am in charge. I will always hold the ultimate responsibility for any decision that is made. I am not surprised that the Member will maybe try to twist that. The report is quite clear that, whilst there may be confusion over responsibilities and relationships between the multiple bodies in our system — we are looking at that — at the end of the day the ministerial role is at the apex, and that is where the final decisions are made.

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

I believe that Sir Liam's analysis of our health and social care system is that we are no worse or no better than many others but we have massive room for improvement. I accept that. However, the Member, amongst others, has been attacking me when we have tried to make any changes in the structure and the number of buildings that we use to deliver health and social care. We need to have a realistic debate, and nobody has been prepared to grasp the nettle over the past 17 years. Do we need to make radical changes to how we deliver health and social care on the ground? If you read Sir Liam's report, he is saying that we must do that. I am not going to abdicate responsibility: this is something that will have to lead in conjunction with Members of the House. Some of what he has asked us to deliver cannot be delivered without the support of the Executive and the five main parties in the House. That is a great challenge to us all. What I notice from the Member's own party is that they tend to give a nodding acquiescence to that and then, when the final vote comes up at the Executive, they wish to detach themselves so that they can organise a guerrilla war campaign against the difficult decisions.

There is no more difficult decision in Northern Ireland than how we configure our health service. I am at least reassured that on the Budget and on welfare reform we have shown ourselves capable of making those difficult decisions. This is another one that we will have to tackle, but it will need buy-in from everybody in the Chamber before we deliver this in our community because it is a bitter pill to swallow and a difficult set of decisions to take.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Minister, your statement refers to a regional morbidity and mortality review system but seems to focus solely on a review of deaths in Northern Ireland. What additional steps will you take about the number of patients now being sent outside Northern Ireland for their operations, so that anything that adversely affects their lives is also reviewed by our health service in Northern Ireland?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

That is a very good point and one that had not occurred to me. Whilst the review will deal with deaths and the subsequent serious adverse incidents (SAIs) in Northern Ireland, I will check with my officials to see what is the situation if they happen in other parts of the United Kingdom.

As the Member will understand, there are certain services where we simply do not have the capacity or number of patients to deliver a top-class service in Northern Ireland. Therefore, we send patients with specialist conditions such as congenital paediatric to Evelina and Birmingham and those with Duchenne muscular dystrophy to Newcastle upon Tyne. There really is not the population on the island of Ireland for Duchenne muscular dystrophy services, therefore we will have to continue to do that for the foreseeable future. The standard of care is extremely high. The results already coming back from London and Birmingham show that statistically the care is of a very high standard. Sadly, occasionally, things do not work out, and there is the passing away of a child or adult who was receiving care. I will have a look at that and write back to the Member because it is a different angle on an important issue. We will certainly do all we can to answer his concerns.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I would like to complain that we have not had even a sight of his statement to examine one recommendation on what we are discussing.

This is yet another report. Reports and reviews are coming out of our ears. I am sure that the people engaged in providing a very good health service for our people are lost. Perhaps the Minister might be able to tell us how many reviews he is engaged in at this time. I see on page 1 of his statement that his officials have been asked to undertake yet another review on account of the recommendations, so there is another review. On page 3 —

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

Order, please. Could the Member please come to a question? This is not an opportunity for a statement.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

The question, Mr Deputy Speaker, is on page 3:

"The real choice we face is an uncomfortable one".

Could the Minister — then he goes on to say —

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

Please. Really.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

— "contemplate tough choices". Can the Minister tell us what those tough choices are? Be upfront with the Members of the Assembly. He knows, but he is hiding behind something. Tell us what those tough choices are, so that we can provide a first-class service for our constituents.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

First, Mr Allister raised a very valid point and so has the Member. I was given an assurance that the document would be in the hands of Members by 9.00 am. As soon as I leave the Chamber, I will investigate this, because this statement is far too important for Members to find themselves having it thrust into their hands five minutes before the debate on it. So, point taken. I will make certain, even if I have to go to the pigeonholes myself at 9.00 am, that the Member is not put in this position again.

The tough choices are alluded to in Sir Liam's report, where again he says that we are not where we should be in terms of provision in Northern Ireland. Our essential services and expertise are dissipated and spread too thinly over far too many buildings in Northern Ireland —

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

You are coming to it.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

— and that, particularly at night —

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

Order, please. It is bad enough going on and on without speaking from a sedentary position. We really will have to do things properly.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I have no doubt that, if I have missed anything he said, I will get it in next week's 'Newtownards Chronicle' anyhow. I guarantee that much of this is for the benefit of the local media rather than me.

To be fair to Mr McCarthy, we simply have to look at the way we deliver our service. When he gets a chance to read the report in detail, particularly recommendation 1, and raise it with Sir Liam tomorrow at the Health Committee, he will see that he has expressed the same concerns as numerous experts about developing better services through TYC and said that we would not start from where we are today in Northern Ireland to provide a high-class sustainable and safe service. That is uncomfortable reading, but we cannot continue to run away from this. We need an open and honest debate among all Members about the best way to provide a first-rate service.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

What is the Minister's reaction to Sir Liam Donaldson's criticism of the local media?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I have to resist the temptation. Sir Liam was quite critical of the influence of the media in his final report and throughout his review. Some may wish to use the report to engage in a witch-hunt against the media or elements of it, but let me be clear that that is not something that I advocate. I recognise that the media's job is difficult and complex, and my reading of the report is that there is food for thought for all of us in Northern Ireland: those who are in public life; those working in the health service; and members of the public, including the media. The media will give this report intense scrutiny and open up the debate, which I welcome. I noticed this morning that it was the first item of news on all the broadcasts, which was good.

We need the media to give all of Sir Liam's recommendations widespread coverage, and we need to engage the entire community. I do not accept Mr McCarthy's view that this is one review too many. This one, because it is bespoke for Northern Ireland and deals with crucial issues, is complementary to other reviews such as the RQIA's review and the College of Emergency Medicine's review, which have achieved solid changes in how we deliver A&E and ED in Northern Ireland that patients have benefited from. Reviews are only mistaken if we do not act on them. Much of what Sir Liam has indicated in his report will be policy and will be enacted within this calendar year.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas ar maidin. I thank the Minister for his statement. He said that he plans to bring about an enhanced role for pharmacists: in that context, will he ensure that there is appropriate funding to accompany that new plan so that pharmacists are permitted the opportunity to provide a first-class community service?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

The Member for West Belfast has raised an issue, and I have to be a wee bit circumspect, because action may be taken by representatives of community pharmacists on the issue of payment. I do not know how far down the line that has gone, but I have to be relatively careful in what I say.

What I can say is that it is clear that pharmacy has so much more to offer than simply the administration and checking of prescriptions. The expertise that is so evident in that profession should be used to make certain that we deliver first-rate care. The strategy for the provision of pharmacy services in the community sets out an expanded role for pharmacists in medical organisation and public health targeted training, such as medicines adherence, brief interventions, self-care and the management of long-term conditions in the community. All those roles align with wider transformational changes in the health service designed to bring care closer to the home. Pharmacists have already shown themselves to be very useful in the minor ailments programme, for instance. There is also a proposal under Transforming Your Care that pharmacists will play a more important role, with GPs forming confederations where they can employ a pharmacist to take on the heavy burden of administering prescriptions and repeat prescriptions in GP surgeries.

I welcome the fact that Sir Liam has raised an issue, as I highlighted at Question Time yesterday, that we had our concerns about, which is that pharmacists are underutilised and their skills could be better used in the community. This will require delicate negotiations with the organisations that represent pharmacists in Northern Ireland, and I am keen to take that forward.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Obviously, one of the major challenges as we move ahead is ensuring that front-line services are maintained and improved where possible. I note that recommendation 9 of the Donaldson report is about moving to the forefront of new technology. What role does the Minister believe technology could play in the key challenge of improving services for patients?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Northern Ireland has shown itself to be adept in using new technology. I had the privilege of visiting Daisy Hill Hospital on Thursday to see the way that new technology is used there for speech and language therapy for stroke patients, and I was very impressed. A few years ago, the Southern Trust won the award for the best telemedicine service in the United Kingdom. That was a remarkable achievement, given the names of some of the other leading health trusts in the United Kingdom that the Southern Trust beat to win that award.

I welcome the fact that Sir Liam has mentioned this. Whilst we are not complacent, we see some very interesting ways forward. For instance, the regional radiology information service, known as NIPACS, is one of the largest systems of its type in the world. We should celebrate the fact that people from around the world have come to see and use that technology. We are consulting on a draft e-health and care strategy. That has just concluded, and the responses received will be evaluated to consider what steps need to be taken, including any steps necessary to ensure that Northern Ireland remains at the forefront of technological innovation.

Northern Ireland does this well not only in healthcare but in manufacturing. As I have mentioned before, the then Chair of the Health Committee and I were in Cuba two years ago and were very interested to see that a lot of the diagnostics being undertaken in Cuba were being down with equipment made by Randox in Crumlin. I had the pleasure of explaining to the people of Havana where Crumlin was. This offers not only a chance to deliver better medical services but an opportunity for really important secure jobs in the Northern Ireland economy. We have shown ourselves very capable of taking on new medical technology and using it to stimulate our economy and, in the case of Randox, make exports to over 140 countries. Sir Liam has come into the Northern Ireland context and recognised something that we had been concentrating on as well.

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

I welcome the Minister's statement. Recommendation 3 talks about reducing the need for hospital beds and suggests a solution in terms of pharmacists and paramedics. Minister, surely primary care should be advocated and enhanced through the GP system? Why is there no mention of enhancing the role of GPs in reducing the need for hospital beds and improving the general healthcare for the population?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

You will recall, Mr Byrne, that Sir Liam was originally brought in over specific problems regarding the Northern Trust and the Belfast Trust, particularly the reporting of serious adverse incidents and the openness and transparency within the system. In the course of his investigations, he realised that there were other major issues, such as TYC commissioning and the configuration of health provision, which were so important that they had to be mentioned in his report. He was not actually asked to look, per se, into GPs, pharmacy etc.

As I outlined yesterday, we are having real problems with workforce planning in health care, particularly at that level. We are 20% short of GPs. A quarter of GPs are over 55. We are having a workforce review to address that. Young people coming out of medical school do not see being a GP as an attractive career route. How we increase the number of young people who adopt the view that being a GP is the best career to follow is being regarded as a matter of urgency. So, whilst Sir Liam's report was comprehensive, it could not look into every aspect of health care in Northern Ireland. However, I am content that, were we able to implement fully most or all of his recommendations, many of the structural problems that face health in Northern Ireland would be resolved. I therefore welcome that, but, in the short period he had, he could not have carried out an all-encompassing review of the health service in Northern Ireland.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I welcome the Minister's statement. Can he provide further detail on how he plans to develop clinical leaders in patient safety?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

The honourable Member has raised a crucial issue, and it ties in clearly with the duty of candour. When all our senior staff are empowered and feel free to report all incidents, the standard of provision will be raised enormously. At the moment, 80,000 adverse incidents and 400 serious adverse incidents are reported every year. I do not see it as a bad thing if we increase that process, so that we can learn from where we are getting it wrong or getting it right.

We have also undertaken surveys, such as the 10,000 Voices project, to give patients the opportunity to use narrative to describe their experience of the health service, using their unique stories. Patients who share their story retain anonymity from the health-care provider, and I think that senior health professionals can learn from that. Equally, however, we have some absolutely first-rate senior managers in Northern Ireland. Every time I go round hospitals and clinics, I see their work in action; I see them working well beyond their contractual hours and absolutely dedicated to their role. We need to give those individuals the confidence to come forward when they see a role for improvement, and to welcome, encourage and nurture that, rather than this reticence that we still find in some aspects of the health-care system, where proposing change is seen as negative. That should not be occurring. Therefore, again, the duty of candour that will be given to senior clinicians and managers will encourage them to regard candour not as a nice add-on but as an imperative. If they see something wrong or something that can be improved, they have a duty to come forward and be honest and open, without it being held against them in any shape or form.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his statement. The lack of treatment and services during the evening, and particularly at night, is one of the criticisms that we often hear. How can progress be made on making evening and night services as good as they are during daytime?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Sir Liam has highlighted this issue. Whilst in most of our hospitals, during daylight hours, it is possible to provide a high-quality service, in the evenings and at weekends the system is under considerable stress. Whilst I believe that it is still safe and sustainable, if the workforce planning reviews are correct, we are going to find it more and more difficult, and expertise will be spread so thinly over so many units of care while expecting the same high standard 24/7. We are already finding it difficult to fill essential positions such as middle-grade doctors and consultants in many of our hospitals. I again come back to the fact that we would not start from where we are today; we would concentrate resources on a smaller number of sites. We have to initiate a very difficult debate in the Chamber: where do we take the structure? Do we simply try to make do or do we try to improve it? We may reach the stage, as we did with Downe and Lagan Valley, when the decision is taken out of our hands, and the royal colleges and the regulator will say that we have to close a service or reduce its hours because we simply do not have the staff.

I see signs of stress throughout the system, particularly at nights and weekends. It is two tier in the sense that you will still have a good outcome, but it is about how long we can sustain it, and I have my doubts. Sir Liam was absolutely right to raise the issue. It is coming to all the health authorities in the United Kingdom, but particularly so in Northern Ireland, given that, because of history and tradition, we spread our service over so many units in comparison with the rest of the UK.

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

Thanks, Minister, for your statement. How will patients, service users and relatives discover whether there has been a never event, particularly as we do not have a list of never events, other than by going down the legal route?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Sir Liam has been very helpful in suggesting that we look at the English situation, where they do have never events. As a matter of urgency, we must devise a list of things that should never happen, and we can do that quite rapidly if we decide that it is the proper route to go down. Absolute basics such as a patient being treated in the wrong ward or given the wrong medication are never events that should not happen if there are proper procedures. Many of those will already fall under the SAI system, whereby, if things go badly wrong, they become serious adverse incidents. The duty of candour will be such that, if that occurs, people will have to be told immediately. We are talking about a tiny minority of cases. When it does happen, however, those can go disastrously wrong. I believe that a culture of transparency and candour will ensure that, when those unfortunate incidents happen — we need to put this in context, given that there are about 1·7 million procedures in hospitals every year — there will be immediate openness, and they will be reported. Basically, one common theme of Sir Liam's report is that you cannot be too open and honest with your clinicians, trusts and, most importantly, patients, so he is pushing on an open door.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I welcome the Minister's very detailed statement, particularly his words about open, honest and intelligent debate on how to move forward. The implications of that are spelled out in paragraph 4.5 of the report. We need to debate the issue further. How can data and metrics help to bring forward the safety agenda?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I do not want the public to come away with a negative impression of the quality of health care in Northern Ireland. The reality is that, in cold, hard statistics, in many aspects of care, we perform extremely well. In prostate cancer, breast cancer and cardiac surgery, Northern Ireland can hold its head up very high in the overall UK and European context. We gather a lot of statistics in Northern Ireland. We have a cancer register, for instance, which is a very modern tool to identify that acute condition. I do not want to indicate that Sir Liam is saying that we have a shortcoming.

I recognise the importance of ensuring that we can measure performance and patient safety and understand our progress in that area. Meaningful, relevant and timely information relating to safety and quality is essential. My Department has been working to develop a number of indicators and targets that can be used to monitor patient safety. Data relating to pressures, pressure ulcers, infections, falls in hospitals, weekend death rates and hospital mortality have all been developed within the last few years. We will continue to explore the development of further metrics as appropriate. Whilst metrics can be compared within and between trusts, we need to ensure that appropriate conclusions are reached. Any disaggregation of information has to be fit for purpose and applicable to Northern Ireland, rather than, of course, on the scale of North America.

So, that is a work in progress. We are already doing quite a bit on that statistical analysis, but it must ultimately lead to improved outcomes and better patient safety. I am glad that Sir Liam has pointed us in the direction of improving on that.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I was tempted to ask the Minister how many reviews he and his predecessor need to run the health service, but I will ask about recommendation 1 instead. Surely that has to be the most totalitarian, undemocratic recommendation ever seen. It suggests that all the political parties and the public in Northern Ireland should abdicate their critical faculties, sign up to accept whatever is proposed by some faceless panel about the future configuration of our hospitals and merely deliver whatever it is they say. Has there ever been a more totalitarian suggestion?

I invite the Minister —

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

Order.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— to repudiate —

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

Order. Mr Allister —

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— recommendation 1.

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

Mr Allister, we really need a question. The same rule applies to all Members.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The question is this: will the Minister repudiate recommendation 1 on the basis that I have outlined?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I detected a question in the previous statement. He is the first Member to have concentrated on recommendation 1. I will not abrogate my responsibility. Any decisions taken on the structure of the health service and provision in Northern Ireland rest with me and the Department, in conjunction and consultation with the Assembly and the Executive.

I think that where this is coming from is that Sir Liam has detected, quite rightly in my opinion, that we have looked at the issue through Developing Better Services and Transforming Your Care and will look at it again as a result of his report. We all understand the considerable pressures that MLAs come under when that is suggested.

Transforming Your Care was quite interesting. Everybody supported reducing the number of buildings and structures in which we provide health care until it came to the structure or building in their area. Suddenly, they manned the barricades and said, "No"; we need to streamline but not in west Tyrone, north Antrim or north Down", or wherever else. The barricades were immediately manned on that issue.

What Sir Liam is saying is that we will come under huge political pressure to deal with that issue, and maybe the only way that we can deliver on it is to hand the decision to somebody else. I see that as a very controversial recommendation, and I give the commitment that decisions will be taken by elected representatives in the Assembly. However, that does not mean that should not have an informed debate about whether we are spreading our expertise and clinical excellence and services over far too many buildings. The answer from every world authority that has looked at Northern Ireland is that we are doing that. We cannot keep running away, for decade after decade, from the fact that our present system is not the one that we want but the one that we have. It is certainly not the one that we need.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

The Minister alluded to my question when he discussed the extended role of community pharmacists. Great savings can be made through medicines management and more efficient prescribing. How does the Minister see that moving forward, and how do we make savings on drugs in Northern Ireland?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

We have made considerable savings. When I first became the Chair of the Health Committee, the total community pharmacy drugs budget was £400 million, and I think that that is now down to £362 million. That has been achieved by driving up the generic prescription rate — I believe that the last rate that I saw was something like 72%. Every one percentage-point improvement in the generic rate saves us about £4 million. So, we are making progress.

We are also looking at proposals to reduce the number of smaller items that are available on prescription. It strikes me as strange that food supplements, suntan oil, Savlon and other potions and medicines available over the counter for a small price are still available on prescription. So, we are moving in the right direction as far as pharmacies are concerned.

We are also receiving money through the change fund. We made a successful bid for additional money for medicines management through that fund. That was one of our four successes. I see this as a way of improving efficiency by using pharmacists and their skills better and by bringing the medicines budget under some form of control. At one stage, I thought that it was beginning to run out of control, but at least it has now been brought under some form of control. Again, Sir Liam spotted that and made specific recommendations on how we use pharmacists. We also have to keep the community pharmacists on board, and negotiations are going on at the moment that preclude me from going any further on that.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his statement. He called for a mature, open, honest and intelligent debate. I was in his position for over four years, so can I suggest to him that, from my experience, his biggest problem with that open, honest and intelligent debate lies within his own party and that I think that he will have difficulties there when he calls on the rest of us? The fact is that there is not enough money to run the health service. You either increase the money or you reduce the service. Is that not —

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

Mr McGimpsey, could we have a question, please?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Pardon?

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

Could we have a question?

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Yes, you have. I am just doing it. Do you accept —

[Interruption.]

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

Mr McGimpsey —

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

— that this is, in effect, a plan to reduce the service to match the budget that is available and that it is, in fact, a closure plan? When are we going to see the actual closures and the list?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Sir Liam was not asked to and did not identify any services that should be reduced, expanded or closed. However, he said that we — the "we" being the 108 MLAs in this Building — need that educated, coherent, sensible debate on what is the best way to deliver the services on the ground. Whatever the decision, it will be made following that debate and with the Assembly's agreement. We could not deliver it any other way. There has to be that mature debate. Once again, we are reminded that a debate that Developing Better Services prompted at least 10 or 12 years ago has not really matured into a decision-making process. We can do that only if the Assembly parties unite, have the debate and come to a common policy on it in conjunction with the Minister.

There is absolutely no indication in Sir Liam's report about what that will lead to on the ground. However, I know that whatever we decide will provoke a massive public reaction. Are we mature enough, as MLAs and as an Executive, to have that debate and to respond to that public reaction in a mature way? I do not know, but I think that Sir Liam is absolutely right to flag this up again as a very important issue that has to be tackled. That is because, eventually, as I said, the royal colleges and the BMA may make the decision for us that we simply will not be able to continue to spread the service as thinly as we have up to now.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for this statement and his commitment to continue the strategic leadership that he has shown over the Department. It is a Department that other parties bypassed when they had the choice to select it at the Executive. They should bear that in mind when they now criticise.

Will the Minister outline who the duty of candour will be applicable to? How can we have confidence that it will provide the openness and transparency that many people expect to be in the health service already?

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

First of all, I accept that, when Health was being selected under d'Hondt at the first Executive meeting after the election, I noticed that many parties in this room were not fighting their way to the front demanding that they —

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

—

[Interruption.]

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

— have this portfolio. Maybe, Mr Swann, you want it next time round. Be careful what you wish for, because it is indeed a very challenging position. The fact is that two of the largest parties have already had the opportunity of holding this post and there was not exactly a huge enthusiasm from those Ministers either to implement the inherent changes that Sir Liam mentioned.

The duty of candour, which I see as crucial, will apply to everybody at every level in the health service. We are talking literally from the cleaner who sees an unsafe practice in his or her ward right up to the thoracic surgeon — the eminent clinical expert — who might see something regarding radiography, anaesthetists or something that he or she has a duty to report. Equally, I want the public to feel absolutely safe. No retribution will be taken against anyone who comes forward with problems. Sometimes, the lessons that we learn from that openness are absolutely invaluable. People spot things on the ground or in the ward or clinic that, you would think, are blindingly obvious but are not until someone spots and reports them. Therefore, I want to instil the view that people will want to do it and do it regularly. I know that there will be the odd facetious or time-wasting complaint, but, on many occasions since I have come into this post, I have learnt enormously from people putting pen to paper, often through their MLA, to say that the service has fallen below that which is acceptable. We expect that the engagement will be based on the principles of openness and transparency. We also must ensure that we avoid any action that might promote a culture of fear, blame or defensiveness in reporting concerns about patient safety or reporting mistakes when they happen.

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

That concludes questions on the statement.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You challenged Mr McGimpsey, the Member for South Belfast. In my view, he actually challenged your authority in the Chair. I ask you to take Mr McGimpsey's remarks to the Speaker to have them examined by him.

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

I will share my view, as the Speaker at the moment, with you: I am more than happy that Mr McGimpsey did not challenge me.

Executive Committee Business

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move

That the draft Planning (2011 Act) (Commencement No.2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 be approved.

I am pleased to bring before the Assembly the draft Planning (2011 Act) (Commencement No.2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015. The order will be made under section 254 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, which requires the order to be laid in draft and approved by a resolution of the Assembly. The order is the second in a series of commencement orders for the Planning Act.

The order will initially commence Part 3 of the Planning Act from 1 February 2015 for the purpose only of conferring powers to make regulations and orders. That will ensure that the Department has the enabling powers required to put in place the detailed proposals for subordinate legislation necessary to introduce the reforms to the planning system. The order will also commence Part 3 of the Planning Act for all other purposes from 1 April 2015, thus enabling the transfer of responsibility for the majority of planning decisions from central government to the new councils.

The provisions in Part 3 of the Planning Act cover a range of planning control powers, including defining "development" and setting the framework for the processing and determination of planning applications in the reformed planning system. Normally, commencement orders are not required to be laid before the Assembly. However, during the Consideration Stage of the then Planning Bill, the then Environment Committee tabled an amendment that provided that any order commencing Part 3 of the Act shall not be made unless a draft order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly. The Committee's amendment was to ensure that appropriate governance measures are in place when responsibility for the majority of planning decisions transfers to councils.

As Members will know, there has been significant progress made on local government reform, with a number of important milestones being met, including the Local Government Act receiving Royal Assent in May 2014 and the May 2014 elections, which led to the creation of the 11 new councils. Those are now operating in shadow form alongside the existing 26 councils.

Members will also be aware that the Local Government Act 2014 has introduced a new, modern statutory framework for political governance in the 11 councils and a new ethical standards framework, which includes a mandatory code of conduct for councillors. Part 9 of the code, which deals with the planning element, will come into effect in April 2015 and will set out what is expected of councillors in their new roles and responsibilities in relation to planning.

My Department has undertaken a broad range of capacity building with the new councils over recent months, and, to support the code, the most recent series of events has focused on ethical standards behaviour in relation to planning. These new roles and responsibilities have also meant that the working relationship protocol between councillors and local government officers has been revised and published. This provides a clear framework as to how the new councils should discharge their enhanced responsibilities in real, practical terms.

The necessary steps are in place to ensure the required systems and structures for the successful transfer of planning functions. This includes a broad range of subordinate legislation required to bring the Planning Act fully into operation and to establish the new two-tier planning system. Capacity building, training and the development of a planning performance management framework are on track. In addition, I am pleased to advise Members that the draft strategic planning policy statement, consolidating existing planning policy into a strategic policy framework for the new two-tier planning system, will be finalised very shortly. The planning portal is being upgraded and amended to take account of the new legislative environment and councils' new planning responsibilities. Transfer arrangements for staff, planning records and IT equipment are also well under way.

The local planning office networks have also been restructured in line with the 11-council model, and new offices have been opened. Planning applications that were previously dealt with centrally in the Department’s strategic planning division have been realigned to the new council planning offices to reflect the new responsibilities. Planning managers have been appointed to each of the new councils, and all staff have now been allocated to the relevant councils. This will involve the transfer of nearly 400 staff from my Department to local government. I would like to put on record my sincere thanks and appreciation to all those staff who are transferring to councils, both administrative and professional and technical, for all their hard work for the Department, carried out with dedication and integrity over the years.

Over the past four months, my Department has delivered an extensive capacity-building programme for elected members and council officials. To date, the feedback has been very positive. In addition, advice and guidance is being prepared on a wide variety of planning-related matters. This includes guidance on the application of the councillors' code of conduct in relation to planning matters, the operation of planning committees and practice notes on the reformed two-tier planning system. I am pleased that I have been able to provide funding to the Local Government Training Group to deliver activity on a regional basis as well as to individual councils to deliver on a more local level.

A key way to demonstrate the effectiveness and integrity of the planning system will be through monitoring performance management arrangements. The Department, in close collaboration with the councils, is developing a planning performance management framework. It is important to stress that the Department's approach to performance management, first and foremost, will be one of helping and supporting the role of councils. The Department wants to work with councils to promote good practice. The Department’s publication of a ‘Protocol for Planning Committees’, highlighting what is considered to be best practice with regards to the operation of planning committees, is an example of this.

The transfer of planning powers to councils has been long awaited, and a tremendous amount of preparatory work has already been done. I commend the efforts made by councils, officials in the Department and a broad range of key stakeholders to prepare for what is the biggest change to planning in 40 years. My staff are working with the local government sector as the final preparations are being made for 1 April, but the work will not stop here. The Department will support councils after transfer and is committed to reviewing the operation of the new system under the Planning Act at regular intervals. I ask the Assembly to approve the draft commencement order.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his explanation of the background and purpose of the draft affirmative statutory rule and for the progress made to ensure a smooth transfer of the planning function to the new councils.

The Committee was briefed by departmental officials on the SL1 proposal on 11 December 2014 and on the content of the rule at its meeting on 15 January 2015. Officials outlined how the Planning Act 2011 will introduce the framework for processing and determining applications for planning permission. They also described the range of additional governance procedures that will be put in place by the Local Government Act 2014 to ensure the effective implementation of that aspect by the 11 new councils.

The timing of the commencement of that element of the Planning Bill was something that caused the previous Environment Committee a high level of concern because the governance arrangements for ensuring equality and fairness in council decisions were not yet in place. That Committee drew the Department's attention to the equality impact assessment carried out at a strategic level on the reform of the planning system. An assessment of potential section 75 impacts indicated:

"While there may be no strong indication that religious belief will impact on the regional dimensions to the reformed planning system, given the correlation between political opinion and community background or religion, there may be concerns, whether real or perceived, that the political allegiance of elected members could reflect in local planning decisions at district council level and in particular where elected members are directly involved in any decision-making process. These anxieties should be duly acknowledged in any emerging proposals."

The previous Committee sought and received reassurance from the Minister that the planning functions of the Bill would not be devolved to local councils until governance structures were in place. Members welcomed that, but, mindful that responsibility for such a decision was on the verge of potential change, sought the reassurance of a legislative mechanism to prevent functions transferring to councils too soon.

Ideally, the Committee wanted to link the commencement of the Bill to that of the local government reform Bill. However, it was advised that this was not technically possible. The next best alternative was deemed to be to ensure that none of the commencement orders passing the responsibility of planning functions to councils could take place without the approval of the Assembly. Members agreed to make the commencement of Part 3, on planning control, subject to draft affirmative procedure, and for that reason this commencement order has come before the present Committee.

After taking into account the mandatory code of conduct, which will specify how councillors will be expected to address planning matters, and the level of capacity-building that is still being delivered by the Department, the Committee believes that adequate systems of control and councillor confidence will enable those provisions of the Bill to be appropriately delivered. Accordingly, the Environment Committee has agreed to recommend that the motion is affirmed by the Assembly.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome that the commencement order has been brought before the House. I hope that it is relevant to mention that my concerns, at this stage, are that the strategic planning policy statement, which comes later, will afford some flexibility to local government to tweak or interpret policy in a rural community, for example, where there might be strong feelings about lack of opportunities. That flexibility is an important point for me.

The Minister made some reference to my second concern, which is the whole human resources aspect of this. People will be transferred from one working location to another. That is a very difficult exercise, which is being undertaken by HR Connect etc. At the heart of that are some people who have particular circumstances and would like or need to remain in the setting in which they currently work, for health or other reasons. So there are a number of challenges in that.

I thank the Minister for bringing forward the commencement order.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

This order will allow my Department to provide for the transfer of responsibility for the majority of planning decisions from central government to the new councils. It is a key step towards the reform of planning to councils. I would like to thank those who have contributed to the debate for their affirmation of the motion. We have had a good contribution from the Chair of the Committee, Ms Lo, and from the Deputy Chair, and Mr McElduff never misses an opportunity to ask about PPS 21. I can assure him that the single strategic planning policy statement is very near finalisation, and I am hopeful that it will be to his satisfaction. I thank the Committee and other Members for their support.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That the draft Planning (2011 Act) (Commencement No.2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015 be approved.

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

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to three hours for this debate. As two amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, an additional 15 minutes has been added to the total time allowed. The Minister will have up to 45 minutes to allocate as he wishes between proposing and making a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have seven minutes. The proposer of each amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members called to speak will have 10 minutes.

I remind Members that the vote on the motion requires cross-community support.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I beg to move

That this Assembly approves the programme of expenditure proposals for 2015-16 as set out in the Budget laid before the Assembly on 19 January 2015.

The motion before the House today is one of the more important ones that this House will debate. In any Administration, the Budget is the bedrock that underpins the delivery of services and ultimately plays a pivotal role in the success of those services. Our Budget should, in so far as it can with the limited resources at our disposal, reflect the priorities of our people. I am proud to say that this Budget is one that supports key services, like health and education; underpins economic growth; provides a platform for the reform and restructuring of our public sector; and places Northern Ireland's finances on a secure footing for the future.

I do not intend to rehearse the detail of my speech last week when I presented the Budget to the House, but I want to make a few key points before we debate and vote on the 2015-16 Budget. First, I would like to express my appreciation to the Committee for Finance and Personnel for its work in shaping the Budget and providing the level of scrutiny it does, which helps give the Assembly and the wider public confidence in the Budget that has been agreed. Members will be well aware of the financial environment confronting us in 2015-16 and in the years thereafter. We do not have the luxury of excess in our Budgets. We are faced with the challenge of doing more with less. That scenario means that we must confront difficult decisions on what the public sector should be doing and what it should not be doing. Change is coming. I am sure that no one in this Assembly — or, indeed, beyond — is under any illusion about that fact. The public sector must undergo reform and transformation, and this Budget allows that to commence.

The Stormont House Agreement provided the Executive with a financial package of measures that, along with agreement between the five Executive parties on welfare reform, permits us to place the public sector here on a sustainable footing for future years. The agreement struck between the Executive parties on 19 December is a deal that allows us to move forward with much-needed reform and restructuring of the public sector. The essential agreement on welfare reform, coupled with considerable Barnett consequentials flowing from the Chancellor's autumn statement, allowed the Executive to make allocations of an additional £150 million, bolstering the budgets of many Departments over and above their draft Budget position. I am pleased that the bulk of that extra funding has gone to education, employment and learning and policing.

Given the position taken by some Executive Ministers on the Budget, I anticipate that a number of Members today will use their time to disagree with the Budget. That is their right. The truth is that this is not a perfect Budget. There will always be differing opinions on budget allocations, in times of prosperity as well as in times of fiscal consolidation. I have spoken about what I would have wanted in this Budget, but I have also listened to other Ministers, Committees and the public, and that has shaped the final Budget. There will always be those who are prepared to stand up and say what services should be funded. There are not so many that are prepared to listen to the reality that we have finite resources and that extra funding for one thing means less funding for another or more taxes for everyone.

In this week, when we mark 50 years since the death of Winston Churchill, our Prime Minister has been encouraging people to share their favourite Churchill quotes. At this point in the debate, with several hours left and many Members to make their contributions, perhaps Churchill's remark:

"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen."

is most appropriate. I hope that Members do both in equal measure.

I will have plenty to say later, especially on one amendment, which, at this point in time, I would describe as very courageous. In the meantime, I commend the Budget to the Assembly.

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

Before calling the first Member to speak, I am sure that you all noted the deliberate mistake in my brief. Each Member will have seven minutes, not 10 as was indicated.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I beg to move amendment No 1:

Leave out all after the first "Assembly" and insert: "notes the lack of transparency contained in the programme of expenditure proposals for 2015-16; believes that the failure of many Departments to produce draft spending and saving plans weakened and invalidated the process; notes with perplexity how the tens of thousands of consultation responses could have been analysed between the close of the consultation period on 29 December 2014 and the Executive final decision only two weeks later; notes that the proposals were created in a vacuum of strategic direction and have not been based on a revised Programme for Government; and calls on the Minister of Finance and Personnel to modify the proposals, as set out in the Budget laid before the Assembly on 19 January 2015, including (i) removing the £26 million DEL allocated for the social investment fund, in light of its inability to spend the budget it had been allocated between 2011 and 2015; (ii) removing the reference to the relocation of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development headquarters to Ballykelly, as the project should not continue until a full business case is produced and value for money has been demonstrated — and changing its budget allocation accordingly; (iii) allocating £5 million resource DEL to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to partially alleviate the pressures on the health and social care trusts; (iv) allocating £3 million resource DEL to the Department for Regional Development to partially assist with funding Northern Ireland Water to the PC15 final determination; (v) allocating £1·5 million resource DEL to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure to partially alleviate the reductions to the arts and Northern Ireland museums; (vi) allocating £1·5 million resource DEL to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to partially alleviate the reduction to the Fire and Rescue Service; (vii) allocating £15 million capital DEL to the Department for Regional Development to partially alleviate the pressures on Transport NI and to assist with funding Northern Ireland Water to the PC15 final determination.".

I will begin by acknowledging the remarks from the Minister of Finance and Personnel, particularly that the Budget is the bedrock — nobody will disagree with that, I am sure — and also his acknowledgement that it is not a perfect Budget. Is there a little room for improvement, even at this stage?

I am acutely aware of the fact that the Executive's resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) has been cut by 1·6% in real terms. That is a big issue, but so is debt.

Nationally, the UK Government now spend more servicing their debt than they do on public services here and in Wales combined. That is not a legacy that we should happily hand on to our children. There is no party with a realistic prospect of occupying 10 Downing Street on 8 May that is not committed to tackling that debt issue, so we know that we need to plan for continued pressures on our Budget. There is nothing new about that, so why oh why was this year's Budget rushed? That was entirely avoidable. The key fact that needs to be clarified by the Minister is this: the Executive were informed of their allocation for 2015-16 as part of the UK spending round in June 2013, yet it took the Department of Finance 18 months to produce a draft Budget. Somebody was clearly asleep at the wheel.

It gave us no pleasure, just immense frustration, when the 2011-15 Budget finally disintegrated. Many Departments were forced to make swingeing in-year cuts in order to provide emergency funding to prevent essential public services collapsing. In response to the worsening state of public finances, the Finance Minister had to turn to the UK Government for a £100 million bailout — embarrassing. It was against that dysfunctional backdrop that the Budget for 2015-16 had to be prepared. Yet it was all so avoidable. We warned consistently — generically and specifically. We specifically highlighted that year 4 in the health budget was the most acute pressure point. In 2011, Michael McGimpsey said that the budget could just about work on £4·8 billion. With Edwin Poots's last-minute Damascus conversion of asking for an extra £140 million in-year, his final figure for the year was £4·799 billion. If Michael McGimpsey can see it coming to within three decimal points three years out, why did we have to go cap in hand to the Treasury for a £100 million loan when the Department of Finance should have seen it coming 18 months out?

The last four years have been a missed opportunity to get our public funding in order. There was no major reform of the public sector. While the number of civil servants in England has been reduced by almost one fifth, Northern Ireland actually saw a rise. Had workforce restructuring been looked at four years ago, the sheer scale of the proposed voluntary exit scheme could have been much reduced, and be in no doubt that the success of the proposed exit scheme is far from guaranteed. The only certainty is that it should not have been necessary to bring on such a large-scale project with a timeline that leaves no wriggle room if anything should go wrong, such as failure to attract the right numbers at the right grades to make the scheme work to budget.

I now wish to address each point of our amendment in turn. First, there is the lack of transparency. There was a fundamental lack of openness in the determination of baselines. We note that they are predominantly benchmarked on previous years. However, I have heard on numerous occasions that, during the initial consideration in October, the Department of Education's baseline increased by £75 million in the space of a couple of hours. How come? If ever a Department lacked financial transparency, surely it is our Department of Education, yet that lack of transparency appears to have been rewarded. Even if it was part of the fallout of a previous agreement on the aggregated schools budget, that should have been laid out in public, not left to a Sinn Féin/DUP trade-off.

The next point is that the failure of many Departments to produce draft spending and savings plans weakened and invalidated the process. Departments such as Finance and Culture, Arts and Leisure failed to provide even the most basic information in their spending or savings plans. It was wrong that each Department was allowed to produce plans in a manner of its own choosing. It made it impossible to compare all or even most Departments in a like-for-like manner and thus weakened and invalidated the consultation exercise. By the way, we note that our call for DFP to reproduce its savings plan has been left out of the synopsis of responses on its website. How curious.

Next, we are perplexed at how the tens of thousands of consultation responses could have been processed in just two weeks. Can the Minister indeed clarify how many consultation responses there were? The Budget document presented to the Assembly referred to over 50,000, yet he has previously referred to a number more like 20,000. Either way, how can you give those respondents due weight and consideration in such a short time?

Next is our concern that the proposals have not been based on a revised Programme for Government. The decision to simply roll over the 2011-15 Programme for Government commitments demonstrates a lack of vision and determination, two points and values that, I am sure, the Minister would recognise in Winston Churchill. In essence, the Assembly is drifting for the next 12 months.

For those who wonder what we would have done differently, let us start by removing the £26 million DEL allocated to the social investment fund. Of the original £80 million, £50 million has now been spent. Does the Minister wish me to give way?

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I wish you to give way.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I am asking the Minister. I will give way if I have time.

As of last week's announcement of the additional £13 million, £50 million of the original £80 million has been spent. It was meant to be £20 million per year over four years. Until recently, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister could not give the money away: you know that, Minister. Whatever the intention of the social investment fund — there is a question about that — it simply has not worked. Be mature: say so and put the remaining millions to better use. Next, is the —

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I would give way to the Minister, but I will make progress —

[Interruption.]

Next is the relocation of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to Ballykelly. Quite simply, value for money has never been demonstrated, even though it is a £41 million project. It is like the head of a household saying to his family, "We are going to move house even though the mortgage lender says that we cannot afford it and half the family say that they do not want to go". Ballykelly should be delayed.

We called for £5 million resource DEL for the Health Department to partially alleviate the pressure on the health and social care trusts. Of course, in health spend, £5 million is not very much, but look at it like this: had the South Eastern Trust had an extra £5 million this year, it would not have had to close 20 beds in Bangor Community Hospital, six in Lagan Valley Hospital and nine in the Downe Hospital, as well as a swathe of other service reductions. We note that the Department believes that it can recoup £113 million in the form of cash-releasing efficiencies and productivity gains in trusts. I would like to put it on the record that the Ulster Unionist Party does not believe that this £113 million will be achieved in 2015-16. How are they meant to do this, especially in the absence of any strategic change from the Department?

We call for £3 million resource DEL for the Department for Regional Development to partially assist with the funding of Northern Ireland Water to its PC15 final determination. At present, there is an almost £15 million resource DEL shortfall in NI Water for reasons such as the impact of the ongoing non-domestic rate revaluation.

We call for £1·5 million resource DEL for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure to partially alleviate the reduction to arts and Northern Ireland's museums. We are all aware of the campaign around culture in Northern Ireland accounting for 13p per head of population in direct funding with many millions of pounds generated in return. Do we really want to create a society that merely functions, with no appreciation of culture and the arts? That is not my vision of a new Northern Ireland.

Finally, we call for £1·5 million of resource DEL for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to partially alleviate the reduction to the Fire and Rescue Service. It is bizarre that, even after the production of the spending plan, which itself prioritised front-line services, the Health Department has no final position on what those services are. Yet, it still managed to determine that fire and rescue is not front-line. That meant that the cuts to the Fire and Rescue Service, which overall accounts for 1·5% of the DHSSPS budget, have been exacerbated. They have been cut by 9·9% —

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

The Member's time is almost up.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I have merely scratched the surface. As the Minister says, the Budget is not perfect. Here are some recommendations to make it better.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I beg to move amendment No 2:

At end insert: "; notes with caution the flexibility to use £200 million borrowing for a voluntary exit scheme; and calls on the Executive to improve on their record of public-sector reform by ensuring that the voluntary exit scheme forms part of a published strategic plan, which outlines measures to improve the efficiency of the Civil Service and the wider public sector and generate reductions in administrative costs.".

I will make a few observations in opening and proposing my amendment. I welcome it that, at least, after the Stormont House Agreement, there seems to have been a rebooting of the relationship between the DUP and Sinn Féin and the First Minister and the deputy First Minister.

In my amendment I note with caution the £200 million for the voluntary exit scheme because I have very limited confidence that it forms part of a strategic vision for wider public-sector reform and efficiency. I am happy for the Minister to convince me of that when he replies.

The Minister has already admitted that he does not know the terms or conditions of the interest on the loans that he is taking out and has not carried out an economic impact assessment. The Executive have ditched the policy of investing in infrastructure with a long-term economic benefit or multiplier effect for one of borrowing to make people retire or, indeed, redundant. There seems to be no wider link to a strategy for public-sector reform. What happens if the Executive do not reach their targets for voluntary redundancies? How do we avoid a brain drain of our top civil servants? Will we end up in a position similar to that of the police after the Patten reforms, where we have to bring people back at a much higher cost because there is a brain drain, meaning that the Department and Executive have not gathered the savings they had hoped for? Half of Departments show an increase in administrative costs in the budgetary period to date, while PEDU, which the First Minister set up when he was Finance Minister, and the public sector reform division that this Minister set up have achieved very little in the eight years that the Minister and I have been Members of the House.

As Ulster University's economic policy centre stated in its submission on the Budget, the Executive have still not shifted their focus from defending Budget lines to evidence-based policy that delivers outcomes for the people of Northern Ireland. I suspect that the Minister would like to go to an outcomes-based policy but struggles to get Executive colleagues and the Executive as a whole to commit to that. The public sector reform division has in some ways outsourced its work to the OECD, but that will not report back until the end of this year, which is halfway through the period in which we are supposed to be implementing a voluntary redundancy scheme. That is why I am concerned and cautious and why I want to see a published strategy accompany the Budget.

I have to say that the Executive's record on major public-sector reform projects is woefully inadequate. We have been debating the Education and Skills Authority since the Minister and I arrived in the Chamber. We debated local government reform for eight or nine years before that, and the new councillors will only take up office shortly. Transforming Your Care has been going for three years. Then there is the rationalisation of teacher training, the shared future agenda, welfare reform, a police training college and DARD headquarters. All those policies to date have failed, stalled or been greatly diminished. At any rate, virtually no savings or improved outcomes for society have yet been realised from any of these major public-sector reform initiatives. That is why I am, rightly I think, raising the question with the Executive and the Minister of whether they have the ability to deliver on the size and scale of the public-sector reform that the Minister proposes to take on. I want to be convinced that they have.

I note that the OECD will also look at health reform. You have to ask this question: why? We are now three years into Transforming Your Care. Is it now stalled? Is it ditched? Is it over? Where is Transforming Your Care? We heard today that the Minister of Health was announcing another review under Sir Liam Donaldson. The one thing that the Assembly has been remarkably good at is reviews, but we are not good at implementing a strategy or reforming, when the challenge arises. The Budget debate goes to the core of the Executive's problem, which is a complete lack of collective responsibility or any sense of strategic direction. I ask the Minister and any members of the Executive these questions: during the Stormont House talks, did they go as one Executive to the Secretary of State with one negotiating position? Were the Executive members and party leaders involved in agreeing that around the Executive table in Stormont Castle? If they did not go as one to negotiate with the Secretary of State on Budget lines, why did they not?

I am sure this point will come up in the Alliance contributions. I have some sympathy with Alliance colleagues on revenue-raising proposals, but I apply one caveat to that: why would any member of the public — any of us who is a taxpayer or a ratepayer — want to sign up to paying further taxes or charges when you look at the record of delivery of this Executive? Why would you have confidence in doing that? Generally, if you are going to put a charge on something, the public will want to know that you are capable of spending that money wisely.

I also take issue with the Finance Minister's claim that we are a low-tax Assembly. We are virtually a no-tax Assembly. The only control of tax that the Minister has at the moment is over the regional rate. That accounts for something like 5% to 6% of what he spends. Therefore, 5% is raised locally, and £10 billion —

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Briefly.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Regardless of whether we are a low-tax Assembly, we are certainly a huge-borrowing Assembly. We now have the ignoble title of being the biggest borrower in any of the devolved regions of the United Kingdom. Has the Member any concerns about what that says about the burdens that we are placing on future generations?

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

Absolutely. The Member makes a very valid point, which I am coming to.

We are faced with a situation in which 5% of tax is raised locally, there is £10 billion of annual deficit with the rest of the UK and £2,000 more per head is spent in Northern Ireland. However, we still sound as if we want to reform only because there is pressure from the evil Tories. We have been very generously looked after by our fellow UK taxpayers, yet we still think that it is not enough. We would not have reform if we were not being forced into it. Therefore, why would anyone have the confidence to believe that we can manage the level of borrowing that we are heading towards?

We look to see whether there are any plans or strategies from the Minister and his colleagues to close the economic productivity gap. We look at corporation tax and at what Allstate NI's Bro McFerran said:

"Our Northern Irish politicians need to show that they can deal and resolve the existing issues before they get into the realms of corporation tax. I think if we introduce something where we need much greater understanding and nuance and sophistication, I'm not sure those are words that we naturally associate with our Northern Irish politicians, and I think that is something that we have to be very careful about."

The bottom line is that the First Minister is right when he describes the Executive as dysfunctional. He is right to say that it is dysfunctional, when we have members of the Executive agreeing to things in Stormont House and then voting against them and we hear people speaking out of both sides of their mouth at the one time. That does not build courage and confidence out there with the public. The people need to hear about the difficult choices, but they also need to be sure that the Executive and the Finance Minister have a plan to deal with them.

I know that the Minister has been keen on quotations. He quoted Churchill, and one of his opening remarks was about JFK. I will use a JFK quotation back to him:

"effort and courage are not enough without purpose and direction."

In his response today, I would like the Minister to prove to me that he and his Executive colleagues have that purpose and direction.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. It was clear from the Committee’s recent take-note debate that this Budget process has been far from ideal both in the time and the information available for consultation on and scrutiny of Departments' spending plans. A number of factors caused a rather exceptional set of circumstances and a truncated process. I hope that we can now look to improving future budgetary processes, which is a point that I will return to in closing.

First, I wish to pick up on some of the developments between the draft Budget and final Budget and reiterate some of the key recommendations from the Committee’s coordinated report. Following the Minister’s statement on the final Budget on 19 January, the Committee was briefed by officials at its meeting last Wednesday. In examining the changes and allocations in the final Budget, the Committee questioned officials on the detail of a range of issues including, for example, the provision to mitigate the worst impacts of Westminster's welfare proposals, the funding for bodies to deal with the past, the financial performance of the Health Department, to which the Finance Minister has drawn attention in the past, assurances in relation to financial transactions capital (FTC) and the applications to the change fund. It was noted that the change fund was oversubscribed by five times its value, and members have sought further information on the successful and unsuccessful applications.

While seeking assurance regarding any risk of underspend in the FTC diverted to the investment fund for 2015-16, the Committee also queried the basis for the significant reduced requirement from DETI in this regard between the draft Budget and final Budget, which amounted to some £27·5 million. A further point explored with departmental officials was the reference in the Minister’s statement detailing DFP’s plans to assess the financial performance of the Health Department. The Committee asked how the outcome of DFP’s in-year monitoring work in this regard would be reported. Also, clarification was sought of:

"the timetable for the longer-term measure involving a case study as part of the ongoing OECD review".

Perhaps the Minister could provide more detail on these measures today and an assurance of their effectiveness. I request this particularly in light of the key finding in the Committee’s report that, following devolution, DFP’s role has changed from:

"one of challenge to one of pure co-ordination".

This raises the question of whether the provisions for assessing the financial performance of the Health Department will have the desired effect.

A further recommendation from the Committee’s report that I would reiterate is the need for DFP and the wider Executive to provide complete information on all the options across Departments for raising additional revenue through charges and further devolved taxes and duties. This should include projected costs, benefits and risks and impacts to enable a fully informed and mature public debate on how best to help meet the further budgetary challenges in coming years. Again, I would welcome the Minister’s view on this proposal, particularly in terms of assuring ourselves of available options, in the event that they are needed, to meet the challenges that lie ahead and to deliver the services that the public rightly expect.

In the coming weeks, the Committee will consider the Department's response to the Committee’s report. Other areas that the Committee will be keen to see progressed include the memorandum of understanding between the Assembly and the Executive to improve future Budget processes. Also, as part of its ongoing scrutiny of public sector reform, the Committee will wish to closely monitor the work of DFP in overseeing the implementation of workforce restructuring, particularly how this will be managed in a way that safeguards the delivery of key public services.

I want to make a few comments from a party perspective. There are a number of amendments to the motion, and we will support John McCallister's amendment. Sinn Féin has concerns about the voluntary exit scheme, which needs to be thought through and prepared properly. Mr McCallister's amendment refers to ensuring that there is improved efficiency. Generating reductions in administrative costs is something that we return to again and again in our Committee work, so we will support Mr McCallister's amendment on the basis that there is concern about the scheme and it needs to be handled carefully in the weeks and months ahead.

We will not support the Ulster Unionist amendment. Yesterday, they were attacking the rural community of Dungiven, and today they are attacking the entire rural community of the north-west and rural public servants in general. We support the transfer of public service jobs to rural communities and to rural areas such as Ballykelly. There are 800 places available, and 1,600 people want to go there, so there is more than enough demand for that. It is a shame that the Ulster Unionists are using this Budget debate to try to deprive the north-west once again.

We have made it clear that there were opportunities to make more savings in the Budget. In recent talks, we have raised proposals that concern ourselves as Members of the Assembly. We need to take a cut as well. Sinn Féin wants to see Assembly Members take a 15% cut in wages. We want to see the same cut for special advisers. We want to see a 15% reduction in ministerial salaries and an end to remuneration for Chairs of Committees. It is important that the Assembly sends a message out to the public. People are suffering and having to deal with the rising cost of living and, until recently, the rising cost of oil. There is also the rising cost of food and so on. They expect that we should take some of the pain as well. That is something that perhaps the Executive should return to. My party would certainly have no problem supporting such a proposal and ensuring that the public see that the politicians are taking as much pain as the public.

I would be interested in the Minister's position on the Smith commission and developments in Scotland. Scotland looks likely to get the transfer of powers for air passenger duty. We need to see that here. We could get it if we had a more collective call from the parties here for the transfer of that power. Scotland is moving ahead; we need to do the same. Also, interestingly, full control of the Crown Estate is due to be transferred to Scotland. That is something that we need to see here.

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

The Member's time is almost up.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

That was raised by my party colleague Oliver McMullan, and I would be interested to hear the Minister's view on that.

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

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

The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 12.26 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions — Justice

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

1. Mr Allister asked the Minister of Justice to outline the terms of the transfer of Michaella McCollum, as agreed with the Peruvian authorities. (AQO 7418/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I understand that the Peruvian Ministry of Justice and Human Rights has yet to indicate that it has consented to Michaella McCollum’s repatriation. Therefore, the terms of her transfer have yet to be agreed.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Is it correct that the Peruvian authorities, as a term of the transfer, would have to agree the length of prison sentence she would serve in Northern Ireland? Does the Minister anticipate that she will serve less than she would have served in Peru?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I cannot go into the detail of that, but the expectation is that sentences will be worked out on the basis of our normal provisions from the time at which somebody is repatriated to Northern Ireland. That is a matter of detail that will have to be worked through if there is an agreement by the Peruvian authorities to repatriation.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

If this individual is transferred to Northern Ireland, will she be eligible for early release? Does the Minister intend to authorise expenditure on legal aid in the transaction?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am not sure of the circumstances in which the issue of legal aid would arise. There are set arrangements that apply to the way in which sentences are carried through, and the precise details depend on the nature of the sentence in Peru and how matters would be considered on the basis of a sentence in Northern Ireland. Those issues will have to be worked out, if there is consent on the part of the Peruvian authorities.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire chomh maith. Will the Minister provide us with any detail he might have of the costs to the local public purse associated with the transfer, repatriation and imprisonment of Michaella McCollum?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I cannot provide details of the cost in relation to Michaella McCollum, but I can outline the costs as they apply in the case of any prisoner who is repatriated. MPs and MLAs from a variety of parties have suggested a number of measures about the repatriation of prisoners in different circumstances. The costs are met by the receiving jurisdiction under the UK convention and bilateral agreements that the UK has. The expectation for any prisoner being repatriated to Northern Ireland is that they pay the cost of their fare. Once they are a prisoner here, their costs are met by the Prison Service from its budget.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. In the event that Miss McCollum's application for repatriation is successful, will the Minister ensure that his Department's emphasis will be on rehabilitation and training so that she can successfully integrate into society again on her release?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Without discussing any individual, the Prison Service's emphasis in general is on rehabilitation. One of the key reasons why prisoners can be repatriated to their home jurisdiction is to aid rehabilitation through maintaining family contacts. That is an established process under, as I said, the European Convention and a number of bilateral agreements, and that is the basis on which we seek to work with all those who are in custody in Northern Ireland.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Minister has been quite vague in his answers about this case. Has an application or request been made for the repatriation of Miss McCollum to a Northern Ireland prison? If so, who has it been made by?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I have not been the least bit vague; I have answered the questions that were put. The question related to the terms and conditions, which have not been set because there is no agreement. It is absolutely clear and a matter of public record that Michaella McCollum has made an application that has been accepted in this jurisdiction but has not yet been accepted in Peru.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

2. Mr Easton asked the Minister of Justice for an update on how he plans to deal with legal aid exceeding its budget. (AQO 7419/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I have set out my plans to reduce expenditure on legal aid on a number of occasions. In my response to the Member in November, I outlined some of the pressures facing the legal aid budget. I have already reduced the fees paid to lawyers by over £22 million, with further significant reductions to be implemented shortly. However, the demand for legal aid continues to increase, and, in reality, this cannot be addressed without reducing scope. I am consulting on a range of measures.

I cannot, however, deliver the changes on my own. The reforms will be significant, and, as I have already advised my Executive colleagues, support across all areas of government will be required. I was disappointed that the reference to support for legal aid reform was removed from the Budget paper issued last week. I have made and will continue to make strong representations at the Executive for support. I hope that all Members will also support my reforms.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his answer. The Minister mentioned reducing the scope that he is going to look at. Can he outline what ways he will reduce the scope of how people can apply? What areas is he looking at?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

As I intend to speak to the Justice Committee on the issue tomorrow, I do not really wish to go into the detail of the potential. However, recognising that there will be a need to remove some items from the scope of legal aid, let me say that the emphasis will be on protecting those who are most vulnerable and ensuring that family cases, for example, continue to attract legal aid for the basic hearing; that, where we look at changing matters, it is because we are better implementing financial controls over, for example, criminal defence work, where there have been allegations of some defendants who have significant resources being supported by legal aid; and that, when money damages are being taken into account and there is the potential for payment through an insurance scheme or something similar, those are the areas where we will look to reduce scope. We will certainly do our best to ensure that we protect the vulnerable as far as is possible given the extremely difficult Budget that we now have.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. Will the Minister ensure that whatever plans he has regarding legal aid will go through an equality impact assessment?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am happy to confirm to Mr Lynch, as I confirmed to one of his colleagues at the Executive last week, that any changes will be subject to an equality impact assessment.

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

Can the Minister confirm that dealing with backlog issues belies the reality that there have been substantial reductions and a downward trend in legal aid cases of up to around £20 million in criminal defence?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The position is that expenditure in each year from 2010-11 has been between £101 million and £110 million. That is the estimate, obviously, for the current year. All of that takes into account the significant reductions that I have already referred to, with over £20 million being taken from the criminal defence budget. The reality is that it is an indication of rising demand that, even though significant sums have been reduced, the cost continues at a very similar level. That is why we need to look at further significant reforms.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

How big is the financial pressure on the legal aid budget and, therefore, his entire departmental budget? What would be the implications if the Executive and the Assembly did not support him when he brings forward further measures to tackle the issue?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

In round terms, the pressure that was anticipated for the incoming year is £36 million. With additional funding having been allocated in the Department's work between draft Budget and now, the pressure remains in excess of £20 million. That £36 million pressure on legal aid — not the total cost of legal aid — exceeds the cost of running the core Department. That is the scale of it. Given that the Executive's decision was to provide additional funding to the PSNI — ring-fenced to the PSNI — it actually gives very little room for manoeuvre in the 30% of departmental spending that is not policing. The pressure across the rest of the Department is unsustainable if we do not get significant reductions in legal aid. That is why I trust that I will see the Executive and the House support those necessary measures.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

3. Mr McElduff asked the Minister of Justice for an update on the implementation of the recommendations made in the independent assessors' stocktake of the regime in Roe House, Maghaberry prison. (AQO 7420/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I received the stocktake report from the independent assessors on 25 September last. The Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) accepted the nine recommendations within its responsibility and continues to work towards their implementation. Progress that has been made includes my appointment of an independent chair for the prisoner forum. The Prison Service has taken a first incremental step towards normalising the regime by allowing four prisoners onto each of the two landings. NIPS has also made changes, in line with the recommendations, to the approach to full-body searching, which is now more acutely focused on intelligence and risk. Those are clear signals that the Prison Service is prepared to normalise the regime offered to prisoners as and when it is appropriate to do so. However, that will be only in an environment where the security of the establishment and the safety of staff, visitors and prisoners remain the priority.

I made it clear when the stocktake was published that addressing the recommendations was a responsibility shared by the Prison Service and the prisoners. If momentum for change is to be maintained, I would and others with influence should encourage the prisoners to fully engage with that process.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. Is the Minister satisfied that the recommendations are being addressed to ensure that everyone is treated with dignity and respect? To be specific but not too specific, I am concerned that a prisoner from the Omagh area has been in solitary confinement for over two years. I have spoken to his family. Can the Minister undertake to investigate the background to that unhealthy situation and perhaps communicate directly with me on the matter?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr McElduff first asked whether everybody was adhering to the agreement. Sadly, it is the case that threats on Roe House and through social media continue against prison officers. If we are talking about everybody adhering to the agreement, let us be clear that a number of prisoners and their support groups are not doing that.

On the specific question of individuals, I believe that a small number remain in the care and supervision unit because they have not met the criteria for admission to the separated accommodation and have been unwilling to integrate into the remainder of the prison. That is clearly an unfortunate situation, but, if individuals do not meet the criteria, which are set not by me — they are for the Secretary of State — there is nothing else that the Prison Service can do to manage those prisoners safely.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

In recent weeks, I have met prison officers who are becomingly increasingly concerned about their safety and the arrangements in place at Maghaberry prison. Is the Justice Minister confident that the arrangements are adequate to avoid a major incident in the coming weeks and that prison officers are not under any threat because of them?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

My Committee's Chair asks a very serious question. There is absolutely no doubt that threats are being made, and there are concerns for the safety of prison officers outside and inside the prison. That should stop. Those who wanted the agreement to be reached in August 2010 should accept it, live up to it and encourage their colleagues outside to accept it as well. That includes ending any threats to any member of the prison staff, whether on or off duty.

The key issue of maintaining the safety of prison officers and that of all others outside the jail rests with the Police Service. I know that the Police Service is very active in its work to protect those most under threat.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I concur with the Minister's clear comments to the Chamber about threats. Given how sensitive and volatile the situation in Roe House is and given that one of the key elements in the stocktake report was the involvement of an independent chair, is the Minister content and confident that the arrangements put in place are such that the staff and prisoners would have confidence in that person?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

It is not always easy to have confidence in how other people will perceive things. I certainly believe that the individual who was selected has a background that shows a degree of independence and understanding of the way in which the prison operates, as well as the ability to do the task that was requested of him.

However, the issue of how confidence is carried forward in the operation of the arrangements on both sides will depend to a considerable degree on goodwill on both sides.

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

Question number —

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Four.

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

— four.

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

4. Mr A Maginness asked the Minister of Justice if he supports the campaign to see minor offences, committed before an individual was 18 years old, removed from their criminal record. (AQO 7421/11-15)

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

7. Mrs Overend asked the Minister of Justice for his assessment of the call for childhood offences to be removed from criminal records. (AQO 7424/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Always happy to help out, Mr Speaker. With your permission, I will take questions 4 and 7 together.

The campaign referred to, concerning the removal of childhood offences, is being led by NIACRO. I met NIACRO, with Bob Ashford and Simon Weston, when they launched the campaign. Bob and Simon's cases are compelling. However, it is a complex issue that requires the careful balancing of public protection with the need to ensure that young people are not stigmatised for the rest of their life because of a single poor choice, leading to a record for a minor offence at an early age. One aspect of that is disclosures by Access NI. I have already taken important steps towards achieving a more balanced approach. The filtering arrangements that the Assembly agreed last year have seen a significant number of old and minor offences removed from the standard and enhanced criminal record certificates issued to those who want to work or volunteer within regulated activities. Shorter timescales for removal are applied to those who are under 18 in recognition of their youth and the importance of their rehabilitation. As a further step, and one that goes beyond the position in England and Wales, I am preparing to bring forward a review mechanism for filtering as part of the Justice Bill. That means that people will be able to ask for an independent review of their case, even after the application of filtering, if they believe that the disclosure of the information is disproportionate. The new process will include an automatic referral for cases with offences committed only under the age of 18. I am happy to continue to engage with NIACRO and others on the issue to ensure that the right balance is struck.

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

I welcome the general thrust of the Minister's answer, which certainly indicates sympathy with the whole idea of removing minor offences from young people's criminal records. Would the Minister support the idea of a multidisciplinary panel to look at more contentious cases? Would he be supportive of that general concept?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I have to confess that I am somewhat reticent about the idea of a multidisciplinary panel to carry out what is effectively the review process that we are looking at introducing. There are clear issues around the complexity, the cost and the ease of getting a speedy decision for those who seek to be referred to the panel. If it can be done correctly by a single reviewer, there may be no need to look at the wider panel. The clear issue will be to recognise that significant progress is being made, and I am grateful to Mr Maginness for acknowledging that, and to ensure that we get a speedy way for individuals to have their case reconsidered that is not overly bureaucratic and that ensures that we make the right decisions as far as possible.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for his response so far. Does he recognise that the current and proposed filtering processes mean that young people cautioned or given a discretionary disposal for a specified offence will not benefit from filtering, contrary to the youth justice review's assertion that diversionary disposals should not attract a criminal record or be subject to employer disclosure?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mrs Overend for the question. It is a point that needs to be considered in detail. The reality is that diversionary disposals follow through from the youth engagement clinics, which are designed to ensure that the process is significantly speeded up. At those clinics, when the diversionary disposal is recorded, a clear explanation is given to young people as to the potential effects on that. Therefore, I am not sure that the concerns raised by some Members about the potential for that to be a disincentive have proven to be the case in practice. However, it is certainly one of the issues that we will keep under review.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. Alban Maginness referred to the particular campaign. Perhaps the easiest way in which to go forward is for the Department to define what it considers to be a minor offence and for it then to seek to legislate to ensure that such offences are not taken into account and, indeed, are taken off the record. Does the Minister agree that that is a sensible way in which to go forward?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr McCartney's idea certainly sounds simple, but in practice it is probably easier to define what is not a minor offence than what is a minor offence. A number of issues would have to be considered, as that would also relate to how many offences there were and how frequently they were committed. There are also differences of gradation and degree, even between what might be termed "minor offences". So, I am not sure that it is that easy to say that something is a minor offence and does not count. The important thing is to find those, and I believe that the potential for review means that we can test this in individual cases perhaps rather more easily than trying to legislate to specify, at which point we will always come across those cases that do not quite fit the system.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his answers so far. Recently, he referred to the filtering arrangements for minor offences, or so-called minor offences, and talked about reviewing them. Will he expand a bit more on how he will do that?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I have a feeling that this could end up in an entire Committee Stage of the Bill. The key issue is to ensure that, if, when the filtering process is applied, individuals still feel that inappropriate convictions remain on their records, they get the opportunity to request a review. This will mean that there will be a second examination to assess the appropriateness of those specific instances being kept on a criminal record for a period of time.

For younger people, the filtering out will be at half the length of time than it will be for adults. Secondly, there would be an automatic referral when offences were only committed before the age of 18. So, those who have committed offences when they were young would not have to specifically apply and there would be automatic referral. I believe that those two processes working together give us the opportunity to ensure that we get things done right; but, as I said to Mrs Overend, we will clearly have to keep that under review.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Mr Gregory Campbell is not in his place.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

6. Mr Beggs asked the Minister of Justice what assessment has been made of the value for money of Policing and Community Safety Partnership grants to the community and voluntary sector. (AQO 7423/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Policing and community safety partnerships evaluate the projects they fund, including those delivered by the community and voluntary sector, as part of an assessment of how the partnerships have met the strategic objectives set for them by the DOJ/Policing Board joint committee.

The recent Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) review of PCSPs highlighted the need for a post-project evaluation to be made against a recognised baseline of agreed measures. While there were some examples of successful projects that represented good value for money, inspectors noted the lack of evidence of value added by others and recommended the development of baseline measures against which projects can be assessed.

The Department and the Policing Board want to ensure that PCSPs make a positive difference to local policing and community safety issues through effective and efficient interventions and welcome CJINI’s recommendations. My officials are working with colleagues in the Policing Board to develop a joint management response, with an action plan, by mid-February.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I declare an interest as a member of the Carrickfergus Community Drugs and Alcohol Advisory Group. Given that many voluntary groups provide value for money and value to the community and community safety issues, how will the Minister ensure that very worthwhile projects will not adversely affect the community by their absence during the transition to the new PCSP arrangements within the new council boundaries?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I appreciate Mr Beggs's point. At this stage, it is unlikely that the PCSPs will be fully operational, with the appointment of independent members, before June, whereas the new councils, which will supply the elected members to PCSPs, will be in place from 1 April. Work has been done between the Department and others to ensure there is a joining up so that work can continue during the three months in which PCSPs will not be fully operational.

I have also made arrangements to meet council chief executives and others who are involved on the community safety side of the partnerships to look at exactly how we will implement this. That will put the best possible arrangements in place for the transition period and ensure that it does not delay the introduction of workable plans for the new partnerships when they become fully operational in the summertime.

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

The grants that are available are very important to the community, particularly within our elderly population. What percentage or assessment do we have of the grants that are given for the security and protection of our elderly?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I cannot give Mrs McKevitt a precise figure for the proposals for grants, as details for budgets around that are being worked out. It is, of course, the case that councils will have the ability to put funding into PCSPs as well as the grant that is received from the joint committee, so there is a range of opportunities. There are also issues about building the widest possible partnerships with potentially other providers, so that, whilst I fully accept the value of the grants, in many cases, the value is from the voluntary effort and the joined-up partnership working, rather than the money that appears from the centre, because there cannot be an expectation, sadly in the current position, that grants will continue at the current level.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Has the Minister given any thought to expanding or developing the role of PCSPs in the broader community?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

It is not entirely for me to develop the role of PCSPs, but Members may recall that when the Justice Bill was going through the legislature and the Assembly had to consider the concept of PCSPs in the first year of devolution, there was talk about community planning on the horizon for councils, and I made it clear that I saw the PCSPs as being set up in a way that would aid the transition into community planning. It seems to me that the real question now is the wider community planning responsibilities and how they will fit round the existing pattern of PCSPs. It will be a challenge for the councils and the other responsible agencies to ensure that that joining up, which has happened at PCSP level, is extended into the wider community planning process.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

8. Mr Brady asked the Minister of Justice when he will be responding to the Scoffield report regarding injury on duty awards for the PSNI. (AQO 7425/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I will not be responding to the Scoffield report, as it was a report commissioned by, and submitted to, the Policing Board. My Department is taking actions to address issues relating to the injury on duty (IOD) scheme, including reviewing policy and regulations. The Department also provided new guidance on reassessments to the Policing Board on 19 December. The Policing Board also has steps to take to ensure that it meets its statutory responsibilities, including its role as the decision maker in the scheme.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Is he aware that a number of the recommendations in the Scoffield report relate to new regulations or legislation that is required? Given the vast sums of public money involved in the injury on duty awards scheme, when will the Minister bring forward proposals to implement those recommendations or reform of the scheme?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Department issued guidance on reassessments to the Policing Board in December last year. The wider issues, such as looking at the potential for change, are being reviewed in relation to the IOD scheme generally by the Department. However, the specific issue at this stage is to ensure that the current arrangements are carried through, and the Scoffield report made those recommendations to the Policing Board in terms of its responsibilities.

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

Will the Minister outline his Department's responsibilities in the matter, because it is my understanding that that is where the real decision and the responsibility for the decision lies?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

With due respect to Mrs Kelly, that is not my understanding. My understanding is that the Policing Board has the statutory responsibility for carrying out the reviews. The Department has issued guidance, but the Policing Board has the statutory responsibility for all issues relating to decisions, and it is one of those issues that needs to be carried through there with support from the Department, but not with the Department taking responsibility.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

That ends the period for listed questions. We now move on to topical questions. Mr Dallat is not in his place.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

T2. Mr McCallister asked the Minister of Justice whether he will ensure that the policy of community policing is continued, given that he will be aware that the Chief Constable is on record as saying that, with budget cuts, the Police Service might be unrecognisable. (AQT 2002/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr McCallister's assumption in his question is correct: that is what the Chief Constable said. However, it is not up to the Minister to ensure that community policing is maintained. It is up to the Minister from the Department to set the budget for the Policing Board and the Police Service, and it is up to the Chief Constable to implement the budget that he is given in the way that he sees will best meet the needs and statutory duties that apply to the Police Service. Many Members will be concerned about community policing in their constituency, but it has to be for the Chief Constable to assess how resources are applied.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I am grateful to the Minister. There are many great examples in my constituency of where contact with the police in helping to address issues like antisocial behaviour has been vital. I wish that the Minister would at least give his commitment to and support for the continuation of that to make sure that it stays as a priority for the police.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am tempted to say, "Thank goodness this is topical and we won't now have five supplementaries praising five separate constituencies". Mr McCallister can make the point, but the Minister of Justice cannot direct the Chief Constable. Mr McCallister, as a constituency MLA, can meet his local police commanders to talk about how they respond and meet the needs there. I am sure that he is not the only person who has already done that or is contemplating doing it. As a constituency MLA, I met my two local commanders recently to talk about the way in which they manage local issues, but I probably need to be even more reticent than any other MLA in case there is any suggestion that it was anything other than an MLA and councillors meeting the local commander. It is one of the difficult issues that flows from the Budget that was set and the budget given to my Department, which, even allowing for the additional money given to the Police Service, leaves it in a very difficult position at present.

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

T3. Mrs Hale asked the Minister of Justice what steps he has taken to improve the safety in Maghaberry prison, which has been raised with her at several meetings with prison staff from her constituency who have highlighted serious issues about staffing levels at Maghaberry and the resultant increase in prisoner-on-prisoner assaults. (AQT 2003/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Concerns about that are certainly being addressed. One key determinant of safety in the prison seems to be overcrowding. That is why, with the reopening of one of the blocks, there has been a reduction in overcrowding, which is providing some benefits. However, it is almost like the answer that I have just given to Mr McCallister: the Prison Service is managing with a significantly reduced budget this year and next year. That means that the work done previously on rehabilitation cannot always be done as well or as optimistically as was the situation a couple of years ago.

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Given that Maghaberry houses every category of prisoner within its walls — you have already touched on this in answer to my colleague — what do you intend to do to ensure the safety of prison officers so that it is a priority in Maghaberry prison?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

As Mrs Hale rightly points out, Maghaberry is one of the most complex prisons anywhere in these islands, given the number of prisoners. As a result of the prison review team (PRT) report, work is being done to reconfigure it into three mini-prisons so that those on remand are kept in different circumstances from those who are sentenced and those who are seen as requiring top security are managed in a different way. That makes it easier to provide support to the broad range of prisoners who are less likely to create major difficulties, but, because Maghaberry is a single prison coping with such a range of people, it is quite difficult to manage all that. I make the key point that the work that is being done on overcrowding, even against the cost problem that we face at the moment, means that there has been some reduction in internal assaults.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

T4. Ms McCorley asked the Minister of Justice whether he welcomes the fact that murder investigations have been reinstated for Bloody Sunday. (AQT 2004/11-15)

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí go dtí seo.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

That, again, is an operational issue for the Chief Constable. It is an issue that was being looked at anyway, and, as part of the work that is being reconfigured around legacy, that work has been reinstated. Of course, the key challenge for this House and, indeed, potentially for Westminster will be to look to the formation of the historical investigations unit agreed in the Stormont House Agreement and to ensure that we find the best way possible of dealing with the legacy issues from the past so that they do not obstruct the good work being done by the police, the ombudsman and other agencies for the present day.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat. Will the Minister not agree with me that this will have an immediate impact on raising confidence in policing and justice structures?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I suspect that, certainly amongst those most affected by Bloody Sunday, the work being done will add to confidence. The problem is that, as we have heard at community policing level in south Down and as we hear about a number of things, confidence in policing has to be an overall package. That requires difficult prioritisation decisions in difficult circumstances. Those who are waiting to see the investigation flowing from the Saville inquiry operating fully will have the opportunity to see that work being done, but, as I said before, there will be real challenges to ensure that we get the HIU functional as quickly as possible and meeting the needs of those who have concerns about the past.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

T5. Mr G Kelly asked the Minister of Justice to reconsider his controversial proposals for the reconstitution of the Policing Board, which will limit the independence and effectiveness of independent members and will prevent the board, as a corporate body, from working together and retaining current working relationships; and to explain why he issued the selective consultation on 19 December, which was just before Christmas, and announced then that he would seek appointments to the board at the end of January. (AQT 2005/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Was that the supplementary question as well, Mr Speaker? The answer is that I am consulting at the moment. I will consult the Justice Committee tomorrow afternoon and am keen to hear what it says. It is a bit rich to be asked to reconsider something on which I am consulting. I do not believe that some of Mr Kelly's points accurately represent what is proposed, because I believe that the potential for having a rolling reconstitution of the independent members actually provides for better opportunities for continuity and for experience to be built up and kept at a high level, rather than the situation that we faced four years ago when the Policing Board was reconstituted with only three of the 19 members having any previous service on it. That was not conducive to getting the Policing Board off onto a good footing four years ago. The important issue is to find the best way of maintaining continuity, and the concept of a rolling replacement is fully supported by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, who believes that it is preferable to the blanket appointment that is currently the case.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for the answer up to now. It is interesting that he says that it is out for consultation and then tells us what his view of it is. It seems that the Minister has already come to a conclusion about rolling change or rolling appointments, and, of course, that is the great difficulty in it because you will have independent members. Is the Minister aware that a number of councillors have already rejected this idea? He puts it to the front himself, and he will know that this will have an impact on the independence of independent members on the basis that they will be reviewed on a yearly basis. How can they be independent and maintain that position?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am sorry, Mr Speaker, but Mr Kelly has got it utterly wrong if he is suggesting that there is a review on a yearly basis. What I have suggested is my preferred method, on which I am consulting, and it is not entirely unknown for Ministers to put forward recommendations when they do consultations. I seem to remember OFMDFM occasionally doing it in the past when Mr Kelly was a junior Minister. I have proposed that individuals be appointed for three years with a potential further three years. That is not an annual review, as was stated in a letter that Mr Kelly and colleagues sent to me recently; that is an appointment for three years. Others will be appointed after a year, but those who have been appointed will be appointed for a three-year process. It is utter nonsense to suggest that that would have any effect on their independence.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

T6. Mr McCarthy asked the Minister of Justice for an update on recent developments in his Department to improve the work for and experience of victims of crime in Northern Ireland. (AQT 2006/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Members will know of a number of bits of work, but perhaps it does no harm to remind people of some of the work that has been done, much of which flows from work previously done by the Justice Committee in its inquiry into the needs of victims and witnesses. First of all, we formally launched the new victim charter on 14 January. That is a major step forward in defining the services to victims of crime, and it was shaped by that work of the Justice Committee and by feedback from victims and those who represent them. It is a pretty comprehensive document, so there is an easy-read version and a young person's version. I believe that it shows the right way to set out those kinds of points.

Other things have been done recently under the five-year strategy. As well as the victim charter, we have seen the establishment of the victim and witness care unit to provide a single point of contact as much as possible for the criminal justice process. We have just seen the second batch of registered intermediaries in place. So far, they have assisted over 300 children and adults with significant communication difficulties. We have formalised the use of victim personal statements. We have extended remote live links. There is a lot of extremely good work that, frequently, does not get noticed but in which the Assembly and, in particular, the former members of the Justice Committee should take the same pride as I do.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. He mentioned the charter for victims. Can he confirm that that will be put on a statutory footing to ensure that it becomes a fundamental part of our justice system?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Yes, subject to the approval of the Assembly for the Justice Bill as it is currently in place, I hope that it will — looking across to the Chair of the Justice Committee, I see no suggestion that it will not — receive the support of the Committee at least and that the victim charter will be on a statutory footing by the end of this year, after Royal Assent to the Justice Bill. That will be a further underpinning of that work with a clear statutory basis, not just a policy document setting out intentions.

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

T7. Mrs D Kelly asked the Minister of Justice whether he shares the concerns of many in the community about the on-the-run letter that was given to the alleged killer of Gareth O’Connor; if so, what conversations he has had with the British Government about the matter; and has he expressed his disgust at this happening, particularly in relation to a post-Good Friday Agreement murder. (AQT 2007/11-15)

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I suspect that Mrs Kelly knows what David Ford's personal opinion is on the issue. As Minister, I have made it clear that the on-the-runs (OTR) scheme was nothing to do with the Department of Justice, has been nothing to do with the Department of Justice and will be nothing to do with the Department of Justice. I made known my displeasure with the way that the scheme functioned post devolution to Lady Justice Hallett, to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in the House of Commons and to the Secretary of State on more than one occasion. There are real issues of challenge, given that, as the Member put it, the dreadful murder of Gareth O'Connor was significantly after the Good Friday Agreement. I certainly expect to follow up the issues that flow from that with the Chief Constable when I next speak to him about general issues.

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

Given that your permanent secretary had a role in the NIO at that time, what confidence do you have in his ability to inform you of the scale and nature of the letters that were delivered by a Member of the House, Mr Gerry Kelly, about whose role in the matter the coroner has serious concerns?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

It is not for me to answer for Gerry Kelly, but let me repeat what I have said in the House before: the permanent secretary of the Department of Justice did not have a role in the scheme. The individual who is now the permanent secretary of the Department of Justice previously worked for the Northern Ireland Office. Just as I do not expect senior officials who have worked in the DOJ and transferred to another Department to tell Ministers from other parties what I am up to, I would not expect anybody who transfers into the DOJ to break the confidence that they had with the Minister whom they served during the time that they were in another Department. That is the practical reality of the way that civil servants operate. That is how the code of conduct applies, and that is what I would expect. I believe that the behaviour of my permanent secretary was entirely proper.

Oral Answers to Questions — Regional Development

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

1. Mr McCallister asked the Minister for Regional Development if his bicycle strategy will include amendments to the design manual for roads and bridges. (AQO 7433/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

In publishing my draft bicycle strategy, I set out my commitment to develop specific design guidance for cycling provision in Northern Ireland, which will encourage more people to adopt cycling as an everyday mode of travel. That work is ongoing, and I am keen to explore best practice elsewhere to develop the most appropriate cycling design guidance for Northern Ireland. That is why my Department facilitated a training seminar on cycling for Transport NI engineers as part of a round of visits to Northern Ireland by the Cyclists' Touring Club and the Cycling Embassy of Denmark to promote new design concepts in 2012. Sustrans also delivered training to Transport NI engineers in August 2014 on its new design guide, 'Handbook for Cycle-friendly Design'.

More recently, I hosted a very successful conference in Belfast to promote cycling. As part of that conference, Transport NI engineers attended a training workshop with Transport for London to discuss and debate new standards for cycling design.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I am grateful to the Minister and encouraged by some of his response. No doubt he will want to spread the cycling revolution out beyond urban areas. Does he agree that it might be time to look at shifting the investment decisions for cycling and other non-motorised forms of transport from just assessing past or current use to possibly building in growth potential?

Will the Minister also reflect on the two-metre minimum standard width for footpaths? Does he feel that that puts walkers and families off using them? Will he look at reviewing that standard throughout Northern Ireland?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question and, indeed, for the encouraging noises that he appears to be making on cycling. He knows that I am greatly seized with the opportunity that Northern Ireland has to exploit cycling to its maximum, not just for sport but for broader, healthier lifestyles. There are huge opportunities, and that is what we are seeking to do with the cycling revolution. We do not want just to have it in place in the greater Belfast area but to present opportunities through the use of greenways. The Member knows about the exciting proposals for a greenway between Newry and Mourne, which is part of his area, and the Cooley peninsula, and there are other opportunities.

We continue to look at opportunities whereby infrastructure can be improved. The Member knows that Transport NI recently completed a section of shared cycle track and footway from the Burrendale Hotel towards Newcastle, which is part of his constituency. Transport NI is in the process of completing the necessary legislative requirements to designate that new facility as a cycle track.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the Minister's response. Whatever the manuals may say, and given that you have invested a huge amount of time in cycling, are you satisfied that good progress is being made in the design of roads and footpaths to ensure that, over the next decade, there will be a serious increase in the number of cyclists using them?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for the encouragement that he offers for the overall cycling strategy. It will take time and, if you like, a change of culture. However, the benefits of adopting more sustainable modes of transport are huge for the environment, the economy and saving people money. Huge and positive tourist consequences may flow from that, and we had a flavour of that with the Giro d'Italia. Overall, we can tap into great opportunities for lifestyle and, in particular, health style. I think that we are winning the public argument and encouraging more and more people to see cycling not just as a sport or a leisure activity but as a possible means of affordable transport.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Minister give the Assembly an update on progress on the Belfast public bike hire scheme and the Sustrans on-road cycle training, which will be available in conjunction with that scheme? How does he believe that that will help to promote cycling as an active and sustainable mode of transport?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for the encouragement behind his question. He will know that my Department has funded Belfast City Council to bring forward the cycle hire scheme. We very much hope that it will be in place later this year, in the coming months, and, hopefully, within weeks. That will give people the opportunity to see that we are serious about transforming not only public transport in Belfast, in conjunction with Belfast rapid transit, but the enhancements that we have made to rail and bus transport and the greater opportunities for more sustainable modes of transport to be used, including cycling and walking.

If it is an encouragement to the Member, I have now taken to taking serious exercise around this complex at lunchtime, and he is welcome to join me at that so that we can show a healthier lifestyle to everybody concerned.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

2. Mr Ross asked the Minister for Regional Development what proportion of street lighting is currently in need of maintenance. (AQO 7434/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Following the Executive's agreement to meet my Department's bid in the January monitoring round for additional funding to repair street lights, I can confirm that I reinstated the use of external contractors on 19 January 2015 to carry out street lighting repairs to supplement my Department's internal resources. Last week, some 4,359 job cards were issued to external contractors and, together with internal resources, I estimate that my Department has already reduced the backlog of outages by some 3,000. Currently, the total number of street lights out is around 20,000.

Members will be aware that, due to pressures on my Department's resource budget, I had to suspend the use of external contractors for routine street lighting repairs on 8 August 2014. My Department continued to bid for that money at every possible opportunity. Although my Department's staff continued to fix as many street lights as possible, a backlog of defective lights has been developing since last August.

Members should understand that it will take time to catch up. Nonetheless, I am committed to having the backlog cleared as quickly as possible. Contractors have been on the ground since early last week. I want to make it clear that the funding provided in January monitoring is for this financial year only.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I am sure that the Minister is grateful for the allocation from the Finance Minister to help work on that backlog. Can the Minister advise the House when the existing backlog will be finished or when he anticipates that he will be able to catch up on the backlog of some 20,000 lights? Is he introducing any new mechanisms into his Department to ensure that there is better budgeting of his resources to ensure that it does not happen again?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question. I will say at the outset that I need no lectures on how to manage a budget; if the budget is properly funded as it should be, there will not be any problems. I hope that the Member can bring that message back to his colleagues and that some of the games that we have seen being played out recently can be stopped.

In the period since 8 August, my Department has been notified of almost 32,000 street lights that were out. Of those defective lights, my staff repaired close to 10,000, or approximately 30%. I want to acknowledge the good work of the staff involved; they were doing their best to provide a service to the public in very difficult circumstances. As I outlined in my original answer, since I ramped it up last week, we are now repairing approximately 600 per day, and we hope to continue with that progress.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answers so far. You have probably to some degree answered the question that I was going to ask, which was this: could the Minister confirm the number of lights repaired through DSD on grounds of safety?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

"Through DSD", the Member said. I was not —

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Sorry; DRD.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

As I indicated, this is where we are. The current backlog of street lighting repairs that has accumulated since last August is effectively my Department's street lighting contractors' normal workload over a five- to six-month period. However, to clear the backlog as quickly as possible now that I have secured the necessary funding, I have asked that all available resources are put to the task so that that work can be expedited.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

Does the Minister agree with me that, had Mr Ross's colleague the Finance Minister made the adequate funding available in October or maybe budgeted better when it was first requested, the backlog might have been avoided?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for his question, and I agree. The records will show that I bid for resources to cover the shortfall as far back as last year, and certainly in October. Had additional resources been provided then, some of the misery that people experienced as a result of this could have been avoided. If people want to play games, let us hope that they can be a bit more responsible in the future.

Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for his answers thus far. Given the importance of street lighting in deterring antisocial behaviour, has the Minister done any studies to find out what impact the cuts have had on antisocial behaviour and public safety in general?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for his question. I am not aware of any significant impact at this stage — clearly, the Department of Justice may assist with the evaluation of that — nor am I aware of any significant increase in claims against the Department because of defective street lights. As I have made plain since August, I was never content or happy with this situation, and I am very pleased that my requests for proper funding for the service were finally heard and that we can now address the situation and move forward. As I outlined in my original answer, there are challenges with the new financial settlement in the Budget next year. I hope very much that we are not heading towards any repeat scenario. Everyone should have learned the lessons of this, which are that we need to keep front-line services funded and properly working for the people whom we seek to represent.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

3. Mr Elliott asked the Minister for Regional Development for his assessment of the outcome of the January monitoring round for his Department. (AQO 7435/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

January monitoring provided my Department with allocations of £5·2 million resource and £3 million in capital. The resource allocation came with the stipulation that it was to be used solely for addressing street lighting repairs and the operation and maintenance of roads and bridges. It was not to be used to meet the pressure arising from the £20 million release of value from Belfast Harbour Commissioners, for which I put forward an £18 million bid. As a consequence of the Executive not meeting either in full or partially the £18 million bid that I put forward for the release of value and despite the Budget review group's recommendation that the issue should be addressed in monitoring rounds, my Department faces the very real prospect of breaching its control total. I find that position astonishing, particularly given that the Finance Minister's paper identified £13·9 million of non-ring-fenced resource DEL that was available for further allocations but recommended that it be taken forward to next year.

I have made considerable efforts to reduce my Department's spend to address the pressure identified. In addition to the £19 million of cuts that the Executive's 4·4% reduction required, I have identified a further £6·8 million to go towards the release-of-value pressure, although that is not without risk. The remaining £13 million could be achieved only through service reductions that would damage core services severely and have an impact on public safety. They include stopping winter services and all routine road maintenance. As a consequence, I issued my accounting officer with a direction to continue to provide such services.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Minister mentioned the £20 million shortfall regarding the harbour: can he outline some of the background to that and, indeed, the impact that it has on his ongoing spending in the Department?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question. It is somewhat ironic that my request for the funding gap to be plugged because of the release of value was not met. It is ironic that funding was released against street-lighting repairs, possibly in the expectation that it could not even be spent on street-lighting repairs because of the issues surrounding the port and the £20 million that was extracted from my budget. I remind the Member and the House that £20 million was extracted from my budget this year and last and was spent at the centre. The previous Finance Minister replaced it last year, but, this year, the current Finance Minister has not, despite money being held at the centre to do so. My instinct is that some people are playing games and rather juvenile ones at that.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

Does the Minister deem it necessary to look for monitoring round funding to deliver what are key functions of the Department for Regional Development?

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for his question. In fact, he makes a reasonable point on my behalf — one that I have made consistently — about proper funding and the timing of that funding. With that in place, it makes more sense. A Department such as the Department for Regional Development gets better value for money when it is able to plan ahead with its resource budget and even its capital budget for schemes that it would like to do, including repairs and structural maintenance. All that work is better carried out at times of the year when it is warmer and there is better weather. Generally, the Department for Regional Development has always been treated like a Cinderella Department and given money at a late stage in the financial year — money that could and should be released earlier and that would allow greater value for money to be deployed for the important schemes that we want to see and the repairs that need to be carried out.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Mr Paul Givan is not in his place.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

5. Mr Spratt asked the Minister for Regional Development for an update on the Glenmachan sewer project. (AQO 7437/11-15)

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

NI Water has advised me that phase 1a, the upgrade of Sicily Park and Marguerite Park, and phase 1b, Greystown and Upper Malone Road, of the Glenmachan strategic project are planned to commence in May 2015, with a construction period of two years, subject to obtaining statutory approvals and concluding third-party land issues. The estimated combined cost of the projects is £11 million, with phase 1b being part-funded by the Rivers Agency. That part of the overall Glenmachan strategic project was advanced following the flooding of June 2012 and required extensive investigation, design and stakeholder engagement owing to the complexity of the solution. There are still some third-party land issues to conclude and statutory approvals required for this phase of the project, but progress is being made.

The attenuation of storm water in Balmoral Golf Club is integral to the scheme, and there has therefore been ongoing engagement with the golf club to reach agreement and enable commencement of the project in May 2015. The remainder of the work to complete the Glenmachan strategic project is a longer-term commitment, currently estimated to cost in the region of £110 million. I can confirm that NI Water has included sufficient development funding in its PC15 business plan to progress the feasibility, planning and design work, which will take up to three years to complete. It is important that sufficient time is taken at development stage to ensure the best solution for this significant capital investment.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he confirm that the temporary fix work, as it was described, to alleviate the problem in Sicily Park has now been completed? Some folk there have been flooded out three or four times, as the Minister will know, and, certainly, they do not want it to happen again.