Northern Ireland Assembly, 10 February 2015

520 contributions from 57 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

The motion will be treated as a business motion and therefore there will be no debate.

Resolved:

That as provided for in Standing Order 53(1), this Assembly appoints an Ad Hoc Committee to consider the Statutory Rule: The Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2004 (Amendment of section 8(4)) Order (Northern Ireland) 2015; and to submit a report to the Assembly by 18 March 2015. Composition: DUP 2 Sinn Féin 2 UUP 1 SDLP 1 Alliance 1 Quorum: The quorum shall be five Members Procedure: The procedures of the Committee shall be such as the Committee shall determine. — [Mr Weir.]

Committee Business

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

As the next three motions relate to amendments to Standing Orders, I propose to conduct the debate as follows. I propose to group the three motions as detailed on the Order Paper and conduct a single debate. I will ask the Clerk to read the first motion in the group and then call the Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures to move it. Debate will then take place on all three motions in the group. When all who wish to speak have done so, I will put the Question on the motion relating to Standing Order 20A(4). I will then ask the Chairperson to move formally the motions relating to Standing Order 4 and Standing Order 6, and I will put the Question on each of those motions without further debate. I remind the House that cross-community support will be required. If that is clear, I shall proceed.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I beg to move

Leave out Standing Order 20A(4) and insert – ‘The Speaker shall determine, by means of a random selection, the order in which questions are taken. However, the first question may not be from a member of the same party as the Minister to whom it is addressed, unless all the Topical Questions are from members of that party.’

The following motions stood in the Order Paper:

In the title to Standing Order 4 at the end add ": New Assembly" After Standing Order 4 insert – "4A. Election of Speaker: Assembly term (1) Where the Speaker gives notice in writing to the Clerk of his intention to resign from the Office of Speaker during an Assembly term, the Speaker shall continue to hold office until a new Speaker has been elected. (2) A new Speaker shall be elected in the manner provided for by Standing Order 4. (3) If the Speaker cannot take the chair for the proceedings to elect a new Speaker, the chair shall be taken by an Acting Speaker, who shall be the oldest member present at the meeting who is not seeking election as Speaker.".

Leave out Standing Order 6 and insert – "6. Procedure when Office of Speaker becomes vacant (1) Where a vacancy in the Office of Speaker of the Assembly occurs during an Assembly term, a Deputy Speaker shall report the vacancy to the Assembly at the opening of its next meeting and the Assembly shall, as soon as may be, proceed to elect a Speaker in the manner provided by Standing Order 4. (2) For the purposes of that election, the chair shall be taken by an Acting Speaker, who shall be the oldest member present at the meeting who is not seeking election as Speaker. (3) Where there is no agreement on the election of a Speaker, meetings of the Assembly shall be chaired by the Deputy Speakers in weekly rotation in the order in which they were elected in so far as this is possible.".

On behalf of the Committee on Procedures, I am pleased to bring these motions to amend Standing Orders to the House today. The first relates to topical questions; the other two relate to the election of a Speaker during a mandate. This may seem a strange combination, but it is purely for the sake of expediency, rather than any link between them.

The first motion relates to Standing Order 20A(4). On 9 December 2014, the Assembly approved the Committee's report on the review of topical questions. One of the recommendations in the report was that, as for listed oral questions, the first topical question may not be from a Member of the same party as the Minister. Today's motion will give effect to that recommendation by amending Standing Orders accordingly.

The other two motions relate to the election of a Speaker during a mandate. Standing Order 4 currently sets out the procedure for the election of a Speaker at a meeting of a new Assembly but is silent on the procedure to be followed if a Speaker indicates his intention to resign during an Assembly term. The proposed amendment will insert a new Standing Order 4A to address this, by describing how the Speaker resigns and clarifying the procedures for the election of a new Speaker during an Assembly term. The proposed amendment also commits the outgoing Speaker to take the Chair for the proceedings to elect a successor.

The final motion relates to Standing Order 6, which already sets out the procedure to be followed if the office of Speaker becomes vacant during an Assembly term, but does not specify who would take the Chair for the purposes of that election. The proposed amendment will insert additional text into Standing Order 6 to make it clear that an Acting Speaker takes the Chair in these circumstances. The amendments to Standing Orders 4 and 6 will address the gaps in Standing Orders and clarify the procedures for the election of a Speaker during a mandate.

In closing, a Cheann Comhairle, Mr Speaker, the three motions before the House are straightforward — famous last words — and on behalf of the Committee on Procedures, I commend them to the House.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Given that there have been no other contributors, I see no need to wind on the debate.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motions require cross-community support.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved (with cross-community support):

Leave out Standing Order 20A(4) and insert – ‘The Speaker shall determine, by means of a random selection, the order in which questions are taken. However, the first question may not be from a member of the same party as the Minister to whom it is addressed, unless all the Topical Questions are from members of that party.’

Resolved (with cross-community support):

In the title to Standing Order 4 at the end add ‘: New Assembly’ After Standing Order 4 insert – ‘4A. Election of Speaker: Assembly term (1) Where the Speaker gives notice in writing to the Clerk of his intention to resign from the Office of Speaker during an Assembly term, the Speaker shall continue to hold office until a new Speaker has been elected. (2) A new Speaker shall be elected in the manner provided for by Standing Order 4. (3) If the Speaker cannot take the chair for the proceedings to elect a new Speaker, the chair shall be taken by an Acting Speaker, who shall be the oldest member present at the meeting who is not seeking election as Speaker.’

Resolved (with cross-community support):

Leave out Standing Order 6 and insert – ‘6. Procedure when Office of Speaker becomes vacant (1) Where a vacancy in the Office of Speaker of the Assembly occurs during an Assembly term, a Deputy Speaker shall report the vacancy to the Assembly at the opening of its next meeting and the Assembly shall, as soon as may be, proceed to elect a Speaker in the manner provided by Standing Order 4. (2) For the purposes of that election, the chair shall be taken by an Acting Speaker, who shall be the oldest member present at the meeting who is not seeking election as Speaker. (3) Where there is no agreement on the election of a Speaker, meetings of the Assembly shall be chaired by the Deputy Speakers in weekly rotation in the order in which they were elected in so far as this is possible.’

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 28 May 2015, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Regeneration Bill (NIA Bill 43/11-16).

The Committee Stage of the Regeneration Bill began on 24 January 2015 and is due to conclude on 3 March. The Committee issued a call for evidence on 23 January, and this is due to end on 16 February. The Committee received a pre-legislative briefing from the Department on 8 January, and issues were raised at an early stage. The Committee must give those issues closer scrutiny with the Department and the stakeholders. The Committee will endeavour, of course, to complete the Bill in as short a time frame as possible. However, an extension will allow for the possibility of any delays due to conflicting Committee business, such as the Pensions Bill and other ongoing work. The Committee expects a greater response to the call for evidence for the Bill, given the nature of the content. Building in some extra time would ensure that it can give due consideration to any evidence received. As the House will know, it is, of course, vital that the Committee scrutinise the Bill effectively to a standard that the House would consider adequate and the public would expect.

There is no way of knowing how many responses from stakeholders will be received before 16 February or how many sessions will be required to hear oral evidence from witnesses on the basis of that. With all that in mind, the Committee agreed that it was important to build in sufficient time to address those various unknowns. The Committee, therefore, agreed to ask the Assembly for an extension to the Committee Stage until 28 May 2015. On behalf of the Committee, I ask the House to support the motion. However, the Committee makes it clear to the House that we will endeavour to complete our work before that date. Go raibh maith agat.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 28 May 2015, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Regeneration Bill (NIA Bill 43/11-16).

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Members should briefly take their ease while we get the Bill's folder organised.

Executive Committee Business

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I call the Minister for Social Development, Mr Mervyn Storey, to move the Consideration Stage of the Welfare Reform Bill.

Moved. — [Mr Storey (The Minister for Social Development).]

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are five groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn.

The first debate will be on group 1, which contains 23 amendments and oppositions to two clauses stand part. The group deals with duties on the Department, administration and assessments. The second debate will be on group 2, which contains 14 amendments and oppositions to nine clauses stand part. The group deals with entitlements. The third debate will be on group 3, which contains seven amendments and oppositions to six clauses stand part. The group deals with sanctions. The fourth debate will be on group 4, which contains eight amendments. The group deals with reports, reviews, pilot schemes and information sharing. The fifth debate will be on group 5, which contains 26 amendments. The group deals with Assembly control, commencement and technical issues.

Valid petitions of concern have been tabled in relation to amendment Nos 1 to 13, 15 to 22, 24, 26 to 29, 36 to 45, 48 to 50, 53 to 57 and 73 to 75. Each will, therefore, require a cross-community vote. I remind Members intending to speak that, during the debates on the five groups of amendments, they should address all the amendments in each group on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on each group is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and Questions on each will be put without further debate. The Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

No amendments have been tabled to clauses 1 to 3. I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group these clauses for the Question on stand part.

Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 (Basic conditions)

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

We now come to the first group of amendments for debate, which contains 23 amendments and opposition to two clauses. These amendments deal with duties on the Department, administration and assessments, and include amendments on matters such as the claimant commitment, frequency of payment and the taking account of relevant medical evidence.

Members will note that amendment No 1 is mutually exclusive with amendment No 3. Amendment No 13 is consequential to amendment No 12. Amendment Nos 18 and 19 are mutually exclusive. Amendment Nos 35 and 36 are also mutually exclusive. Amendment No 39 is consequential to amendment No 38. Amendment No 57 is consequential to amendment No 10 and amendment No 37.

Members will note that valid petitions of concern have been received in relation to amendment Nos 1, 3 and 4, 8 to 13, 17 to 19, 36 to 39, 43 to 45, 53, 57 and 74. Therefore, they will require cross-community support.

I call Mr Roy Beggs to move amendment No 1 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I beg to move amendment No 1:

In page 3, line 5, at end insert

"(8) Regulations shall provide, in circumstances where one member of a couple does not accept a claimant commitment within a prescribed period, that the claim may be considered as a claim by the other member of the couple as a single person.".

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 3: After clause 6 insert

"Joint claims where one party does not accept claimant commitment

6A. In a claim by members of a couple jointly, where one party does not accept a claimant commitment the claim shall proceed as if the party who has signed a claimant commitment had made a single person claim and payment shall be made to that party.".

No 4: After clause 6 insert

"Provision of Claimant Documentation

6B. Regulations must provide, if a claimant is unable to provide documentation required to process a claim, for the information to be provided by prescribed third parties to enable the claim to be processed.".

No 8: After clause 12 insert

"Frequency of payment

Frequency of payment

12A. Universal credit shall be paid twice monthly unless a single claimant or the members of a couple jointly opt, in making a claim, to be paid on a monthly basis.".

No 9: In clause 14, page 6, line 32, at end insert

"(a) in preparing, reviewing and updating a claimant commitment under subsection (2) the Department shall have due regard for the claimant’s skills, experience, caring responsibilities and physical and mental ill health.".

No 10: In clause 16, page 7, line 35, leave out "approved by the Department" and insert

"employed by a HSC Trust or who is a general practitioner".

No 11: In clause 16, page 7, line 41, at end insert

"(c) any decision taken under subsection (5) shall take account of relevant medical evidence including evidence of mental ill health.".

No 12: In clause 24, page 12, line 3, leave out "—" and insert

"or an incident motivated by hate—".

No 13: In clause 24, page 12, line 15, at end insert

"(9) For the purposes of subsection (7)?—

(a) an ‘incident motivated by hate’ has such meaning as may be prescribed;

(b) a ‘victim of an incident motivated by hate’ means a person on or against whom an incident motivated by hate is inflicted or threatened (and regulations under subsection (7) may prescribe circumstances in which a person is to be treated as being or not being a victim of a serious incident motivated by hate)’;

(c) a person has recently been a victim of an incident motivated by hate if a prescribed period has not expired since the incident was inflicted or threatened.".

No 17: After clause 37 insert

"The Independent Living Fund

37A. The Department shall bring forward within 18 months of commencement of this Act a fund to replace the Independent Living Fund, following consultation with the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.".

No 18: In clause 38, page 17, line 29, at end insert

"and any such assessment must take account of relevant medical evidence.".

No 19: In clause 38, page 17, line 29, at end insert

"and any such assessment shall take account of relevant medical evidence including evidence of mental ill health.".

No 35: In clause 79, page 60, line 27, at end insert

"(2A) Any person determining a question mentioned in subsection (1) or (2) shall take account of relevant medical evidence.".

No 36: In clause 79, page 60, line 27, at end insert

"(2A) Any person determining a question mentioned in subsection (1) or (2) must take account of relevant medical evidence including evidence of mental ill health.".

No 37: In clause 79, page 60, line 31, at end insert

"( ) must provide that a person carrying out an assessment under paragraph (a) or determining a question under subsection (1) or (2) shall be a health care professional employed by a HSC Trust or a general practitioner;".

No 38: In clause 80, page 61, line 19, leave out "9 months" and insert "6 months".

No 39: In clause 80, page 61, line 33, leave out "'the next 9 months' means the 9 months" and insert "'the next 6 months' means the 6 months".

No 43: After clause 100 insert

"Payment of awards in cash

100A. The Department shall ensure that a claimant under this Act who has no access to a bank account shall have access to any relevant award in cash.".

No 44: After clause 101 insert

"Payments pending appeal

101A. In Section 5(1) of the Social Security Administration Act (NI) 1992 (regulations about claims and payments) after paragraph (r) insert?—

“(s) for the making of a payment pending appeal”.".

No 45: In clause 103, page 71, line 30, at end insert

"(8) Subsection (1) does not apply unless it is determined that, whether fraudulently or otherwise, the claimant has misrepresented, or failed to disclose, any material fact.".

No 53: After clause 130 insert

"Impact of Regulations on Victims and Survivors

130C. The Department must ensure that regulations under this Act are prepared with due regard for the impact on victims and survivors of the past in consultation with the Northern Ireland Commission for Victims and Survivors.".

No 57: In clause 132, page 94, line 28, at end insert

"“general practitioner” means a medical practitioner providing primary medical services;

“HSC Trust” means a Health and Social Care trust established under Article 10 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (NI 1);"

No 74: In schedule 1, page 98, line 32, leave out paragraph 6.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I welcome this long overdue opportunity to open the debate on this next stage of the Welfare Reform Bill. It has been the most contentious and drawn out yet probably the most important legislation that this Assembly has ever considered. To date, we have had about £100 million of fines imposed upon us in reductions in the block grant. That has meant £100 million of reductions in public services. There have been clawbacks during this financial year, mid-year. Indeed, I suspect that has contributed to the lack of funding that would have been available to health.

In 2015, £114 million would have been set aside in potential fines, again from the block grant. However, you would not think that today is as important as it really is by observing the shameful actions of the DUP last night in tabling multiple copies of their pre-prepared petitions of concern against every single amendment that has been put forward, other than by their Minister. They have effectively killed off discussion and the decision-making process in this Assembly. Disgraceful. They are attempting to steamroller the Bill through as they would wish it to be. They are attempting to prevent this Assembly from having its say. They have single-handedly potentially blocked almost 50 amendments, including well over 20 in this group alone.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I wish to continue; I may give way later on. There is nothing that can be argued about what I just said. It is very factual. They have displayed the undemocratic nature of their attitudes as MLAs and as a party, which, of course, has the word "democratic" in its name. The other country that springs to mind that has the word "democratic" in its name was the Democratic Republic of East Germany, as it was at one time. Of course, that was a totalitarian state. It would appear that the DUP are much more akin with that attitude than that of normal Western society. That, unfortunately, sums up how they approach the whole issue of welfare reform. It is embarrassing enough how they tried to bring a copy and paste of the GB Bill across to Northern Ireland. They now, apparently, have no shame in preventing what limited amendments could have been made to the Bill by this Assembly. Their mechanism is making it virtually impossible for amendments to succeed. I look forward to hearing a shameful explanation from DUP Members who, presumably, all signed it and all have a responsibility in how they have, effectively, removed the democratic and more normal working of this Assembly.

Why should we not have the ability to debate the Bill, its individual clauses, and make amendments?

It appears to be their way or no way.

After two years of sitting in an abyss, after months of detailed Committee scrutiny of the proposals and after a huge level of engagement by organisations that deal with welfare issues on a day-to-day basis, the DUP has decided that it knows best. It appears to have its ears closed, certainly to other Assembly Members here and to this debate. No amendment is seemingly good enough for it, as it thinks it has the right to step in and determine what can and cannot be changed in the Bill.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I wish to proceed.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Is the Member afraid to give way?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I will give way later on.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Is the Member so sure he is accurate in what he is saying that he will not give way?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Of course. However, I have to ask whether this petition —

[Interruption.]

I obviously have touched a raw nerve —

[Interruption.]

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Order. All remarks should be addressed through the Speaker. If the Member wishes not to take interventions, that should be accepted by other Members because there are no restrictions on the debate at all. Everyone will have their opportunity to make a contribution.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can we have some assistance from the Chair? When a person who is speaking in this House also has the title of being a Deputy Speaker, is it right that he shows such inane inability to understand the rules of this House that he would seek to mislead the House into believing that they do not have the right to put down amendments and to vote on those amendments and that anyone who puts down a petition of concern can decide which way they vote on any amendment?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I have a point of order to respond to. The point that I made in my earlier intervention should provide the guidance. There is no restriction on debate, nor is there any restriction on people's ability to contribute to the debate. There were opportunities, quite clearly, for all parties and all Members to put down amendments if they so wished. Reference was made in some of the opening remarks about discussions on clauses being prevented. I make it clear that there are no such restrictions. If Members are prepared, they can wait their turn and they will be called if they so indicate. Let us have a measured debate. There is no point in starting cross-chatting; the election is not for several months, so let us deal with this very important piece of legislation.

I will take the second point of order.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. If I heard the Member for East Belfast correctly, there was an accusation that Mr Beggs was misleading the House. Will you review that, please?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

My advice is this: let us not get into words. I could have challenged some of the earlier comments but decided not to. If someone is a Deputy Speaker they are still entitled to be a Member, to act like a Member and to contribute on behalf of themselves and their party, and that is exactly what is happening. Mr Roy Beggs will be a contributor to this debate and he will not preside over any aspect of it. Your point about the language that was used, I would give as a general health warning to every contributor, but some of the opening remarks could have had the effect of saying, perhaps completely unintended, that some aspects of the Bill are not up for discussion at all. Every aspect of it is, and every Member will have an equal opportunity if they so wish. If they decide not to, that is their decision. It will not be the Speaker who will prevent that level of contribution or discussion. Let us resume the debate.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I obviously touched a very raw nerve there. I would have thought that what is happening is that rather than, perhaps, the normal warfare across the Benches there is a tag team happening. I would put that for others to consider. Is this tag team working in unison? Some put the petition of concern down and both will vote their separate ways, knowing the net result that will occur and knowing that some will be able to express their opinion and yet prevent the amendments going through. I simply ask Members to watch the rest of the debate, listen carefully to what everybody says, watch how people vote and watch the net effect of the petitions of concern which, I understand, have been signed by every member of the DUP Assembly party.

Given the amendments that have been presented in this group I am more surprised, perhaps, by the amendments that are not there. One would have thought that others who were very vocal in their comments some time ago might have put something down.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I have given you a considerable amount of laxity to set the context. You should not attempt to go back over the process. We are where we are; there is an Order Paper in front of us, and there is a Bill folder that we have all had access to. I am waiting on you to start to address the amendments that are down, not the ones that are not. Thank you.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was coming to that in the next section of my comments.

The Ulster Unionist Party tabled its initial set of amendments almost two years ago. This is not something that we have thought about lightly or suddenly determined that we will take action on. We saw difficulties in what was being proposed by the Minister some years ago, and in this particular group, we have tabled amendment Nos 1, 8, 18 and 35. Some of the initial points that we made two years ago remain to be addressed. Members will probably not be surprised to see us raising the issues in our amendments in this group, as we have been highlighting them for months and years as being of concern.

I will deal firstly with amendment No 1, which is on joint claims. The coalition Government's policy is that couples living in the same household will make a joint claim for their benefit. I accept the rationale of a claimant commitment. We agree that, in order to receive universal credit, a person should have to sign a pledge that lays out exactly what is expected of them and, in return, what benefits and support will be provided. However, it was a mistake in the draft policy to allow a situation where, if one member of a household failed, for whatever reason, to sign their commitment, the rest of the household would be penalised. Potentially, no benefits would go into a household as a result of a failure by one individual.

Why should a family, perhaps with a number of dependent children, be left without support just because one of the parents failed to meet their commitments? Unfortunately, there are households where that could happen. An adult, a parent or a partner who fails may put their own needs ahead of the needs of others, but surely their partner and children should not suffer. We must protect the most vulnerable from debt and the possibility of homelessness. Those are issues that would automatically follow if there was a complete end to the support and benefits available to a whole household. Debt would gather and housing costs would mount, with the possibility of landlords effecting eviction at some point in the future.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he accept that, as the law stands, which the Bill supports, where someone is incapable of making that commitment, provision is made for them? Does he recognise that the difficultly with his amendment is that it opens the door for those who choose to not make any commitment to seek a job? Under the shelter of his amendment, they may hide behind their family or their family's vulnerability so that they do not have to live up to the requirements that anyone would expect of someone who is claiming benefits?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I do not want vulnerable children to suffer because of an irresponsible parent or guardian. There is the potential for that individual to suffer by removing benefits that are going to him until he meets his requirements under the agreement. So, there still is the potential under what we are proposing for that individual to suffer, but his family, his partner and his children would not suffer. Society would be much fairer if it was done on that basis.

Were families to be ultimately made homeless by this, it would probably result in significant additional costs to the public through emergency housing, because vulnerable children would need to be looked after. So, not ensuring that there is adequate protection for the family of the irresponsible parent, adds huge misery to those who should not face it and huge cost to the public purse from emergency housing.

It was because of the iniquitous implications of what was being proposed that the Ulster Unionist Party decided that that would be one of the areas that we wanted to change. Let us be clear: when you change an aspect of welfare reform, there are financial implications, and there will be costs to the block grant, but it is responsible that we discuss the issues and weigh up the costs and the benefits. There are areas in which costs may not be excessive but the benefits to members of our society may be considerable. Therefore, we should be open to amendments.

The Department had indicated that, in cases in which one claimant refused to sign a commitment and left the household, that person would be excluded from the claim and the household would have to submit a new claim. There are other issues around that. Will the benefit then start from the date of issue of the new claim? Will that leave a period in which no housing benefit will be paid into that household? There are grey areas that need clarifying.

The Bill also fails to address the fundamental problem of what happens if the stubborn party does not leave the household. There are complications on which I want to hear certainty that vulnerable members of our community will not face difficulties. Social security offices and independent advice centres up and down the country will agree that, although that may sound improbable, it does happen.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way on that point?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Certainly.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Is the Member not arguing against the point that he made earlier? He indicated that, if one partner was not prepared to give a commitment, the answer was to remove the benefit and punish that person rather than the rest of the family. Now he is telling us that the potential is for the non-committing partner to stay in the house and still benefit from the housing benefit that will be paid to keep a roof over the family's heads, so, according to the Member's logic, there is no punishment.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

There will be punishment, because there will be a lack of funds to the household. The individual will face a degree of pressure.

The Member needs to reflect on whether he wants that individual's partner and vulnerable children out on the street. Is that the punishment that he wishes for? There needs to be balance and careful thought in all that we do. Whilst the numbers affected in that type of scenario may be relatively small, there will potentially be a huge impact on vulnerable individuals. Therefore, there is merit in what is being proposed in our amendment.

It is a sensible alternative. We are instructing the Department to allow certain cases to be considered carefully. In other words, assessors will have the flexibility to allow a claim to go ahead if it is for the benefit of the remaining members of the household, rather than it being rejected outright by another automated system or a computer. As it stands, staff do not have an ability to be flexible. They will be ticking boxes, and the system will tell them what is to happen, and, as a result, children will potentially be put out on the street.

Under our amendment, people refusing to sign the commitment will, of course, still not be entitled to support. Importantly, it means that their selfish, pig-headed approach will no longer prevent the rest of the household from receiving support. That line of thought complements what is already in paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Bill, but it makes it more explicit and clear, and removes any uncertainty that there may be.

The Department accepted my party's request for that in the Stormont House talks, so the amendment is simply reflecting that. I will listen carefully to what the Minister and others say. Can he assure me publicly in the House that he will honour, through guidance, what our amendment proposes? If he is able to do that, we will have to reflect further. It is important that this issue is aired and addressed, and it is for that reason that I moved the amendment. I remind him and the Department that my party has shown good faith by slightly revising the amendment from what was originally tabled to try to ensure the existence of something that is practicable and deliverable. I hope that he and his colleagues will not knock it out with one of their petitions of concern or allow anyone else to knock it out. Everyone in the House should be able to support this reasonable amendment.

I turn now to amendment No 8. The frequency of payments is another major touchstone issue that dominated the earlier Assembly discussion on welfare reform. I welcome the SDLP's decision to sign our amendment. As the Minister will be fully aware, his predecessor asked a number of voluntary organisations to investigate the proposal to move to monthly payments. They found that such a default system would have the potential to cause major difficulties for claimants, especially in being able to budget appropriately for their outgoings. Individuals already come to my office occasionally looking for emergency support and perhaps have to be referred to food banks.

There are good things happening in the community and voluntary sector. However, if we were to move to monthly payments flat out and with no variation, there would be a huge danger that the community and voluntary sector, given the good work that it is doing in assisting vulnerable people, would be absolutely swamped because many do not yet have the skills to budget beyond a relatively short period. We have to ensure that there is support to try to increase those skills. I particularly welcome the engagement in my area of Christians Against Poverty, which works with some of the food banks to try to empower people to live within their budget and avoid the necessity to seek emergency aid.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Yes, I will.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I am interested in his engagement with members of the community. Would Mr Beggs also tell them that his party's 2010 manifesto, which is identical to that of the Tories, is the unmitigated Bill that is presented to the House today and that it is the mitigations that are being presented to the House today that will actually deal with the issues that he is talking about?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I believe that the Member's sister party also had a hand in the origin of this Bill, so I find his comments very strange. Let me make it very clear that this is a devolved Assembly. We are Assembly Members, and we are accountable for our actions. I hoped —

[Interruption.]

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Order.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

— that we would not have petitions of concern, in order that the Assembly can make its decisions in a responsible manner.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I wish to proceed.

Fortunately, Ministers, both past and present, appear now to have accepted the proposal for twice-monthly payments as the default position. I welcome that, but I want the Minister to give clarity on the issue. It is important that we avoid using a criterion-based approach. That would undoubtedly save on administration costs in the short and long term, but, as I said, there are dangers in just ticking boxes and someone potentially not seeing a common-sense approach. Importantly, I understand that some households may prefer monthly payments, which is why my party wants to allow that to be an option. Opting out of twice-monthly payments and moving to a single payment, if that is what individuals wish, would minimise administration costs.

In recent days, my party has received some assurances that we previously sought on this. In part, we welcome the offering of choice to claimants of how regularly they wish to receive payments. I simply ask the Minister to, in place of our putting the question, reaffirm his commitment to default to twice-monthly payments. Not only that, I expect him to show the Social Development Committee the respect that it is due as soon as possible as regards any future proposed policy changes, so that its views can be taken on board.

I turn now to amendment No 18, on medical evidence for work-related activity. As Members are only too well aware, at present there are major problems with the system of assessing those who have limited work capability and, therefore, their entitlement to employment and support allowance. I will go further and say that the system is not fit for purpose. I accept that assessing claims based on whether health conditions or disability restricts the applicant's ability to work is an enormous task for the Department and its agency. However, it is a system that unquestionably needs to be improved. The transition from incapacity benefit to employment and support allowance (ESA) was chaotic and simply did not work. Many problems arose.

I have heard the Department boast that 67% of all appeals heard on ESA decisions were upheld, but that misses the point, which is that a third of its decisions were wrong. I came from the world of industry, where you should try to get it right first time. The concept of being happy with making a third of decisions wrong is not what most normal businesses would operate under, and it clearly needs to be improved.

Of course, when incorrect decisions are made, additional costs are associated with appeals, and we also have to pay for those. We all have experiences, through our offices, of what looks like a rather rational claim being rejected. The problem is that a person can present a different image during a so-called medical assessment rather than the realty that we know from having spent time talking to and observing them, perhaps more time than is available in the assessment.

There are few more difficult cases to assess on the day than those involving claimants who present with mental health difficulties. The Northern Ireland epidemic of mental health problems is connected to the legacy of our Troubles, so there is a real issue in our community of presenting on this. Is it any wonder that we have the world's highest rate of post-traumatic stress disorder? Such facts, however, are not reflected in ESA assessments. The Ulster Unionist Party's concern is that that will continually fail to be reflected in future limited-capability assessments for universal credit.

The absence of medical records will inevitably lead to wrong decisions being made and too many appeals going against the Department. Why can medical evidence not be reviewed before the formal appeal? I believe that, were that medical evidence available earlier, the need for the applicant to present at the formal appeal process would be abated. Remember that an appeal does not benefit genuine claimants or the Department. The delay in receiving benefits and the huge administration costs involved with appeals can cause problems for both parties. I do not doubt that, on the day, the Department does its best to make a fully informed decision that accurately reflects a customer's circumstances. However, without crucial documents, such as psychology reports, it is well-nigh impossible to make accurate assessments.

There is a real problem in fresh evidence supporting an appeal being becoming available only on the day of appeal. The Department states that, in four out of five appeals that were upheld in favour of the customer, new supporting evidence is produced by the customer that was not available to inform the Department's original decision. It makes far more sense to have that evidence, usually medical reports, available at an earlier stage during an earlier assessment.

Our amendment No 18 would ensure that any assessment of a person's capability for work or work-related activity would take relevant medical evidence into account. Whilst the issue of medical evidence has been settled for personal independence payment (PIP), no such understanding has been found for the transition to universal credit. I accept that the financial implications of our amendment may be significant and, given the costs encountered with the rest of the mitigation measures in the Assembly, we need to reflect on whether we should pass those additional costs to the Department. As the Minister has been made aware, the amendment was designed so that we can have that debate.

I am sure that every other party has concerns with the current arrangements, so it is clearly something that needs to be addressed. I and my colleagues will listen carefully to the Minister's response. I hope that he accepts the problems attached to work capability assessments and that he will lay out exactly what we are likely to see in the future with the universal credit proposals.

Our amendment should be fairly self-explanatory, yet it is hugely important. I trust that it will be accepted. Not only does it make perfect sense to have the right medical reports but it also appears that it is an idea that each of the main parties have suggested they would support. I welcome that. The transition from disability living allowance (DLA) to PIP will be an enormous task, so I welcome the decision to set up a fund that will, hopefully, allow for the required medical reports without imposing huge additional costs on those with vulnerabilities who may have difficulties paying for them.

I also have concerns about the wider issue of having to pay several million pounds to GPs for what many people believe they should already be doing. When you think that the average GP is on £94,000, it would not be an unreasonable task for them to take part of that responsibility on board. I fully appreciate the issues that our GPs face at the moment and that they are under pressure. However, I ask the Minister to provide an update on the preliminary discussions between his Department and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety about the shaping of GP contracts in future to include medical reports. Of course, that would apply equally to work capability assessments and personal independent payments.

I now move on to a few of the other amendments that have been tabled. Amendment No 3 deals with joint claims and was tabled by the SDLP. I think that it is unnecessary given what we have proposed. There is a subtle but important difference between their amendment and ours. The Ulster Unionist Party amendment proposes to allow the Department to show some flexibility to assess those types of cases on an individual basis, whereas the SDLP's amendment is much wider. It was agreed by all parties, including the SDLP, that flexibility through guidance was the preferred way forward. I ask Members from all parties, irrespective of the petition of concern, to support the general intent of what is proposed in amendment No 1, which stands in the names of Robin Swann and me.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Will the Member give way?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Yes, I will.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Why did you not give way to me?

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I do not know.

The Member is going through a series of amendments, not just his party's amendments but the SDLP's. Has he given any thought to the cost of the amendments if they were carried? Will he elaborate on those costs at some point in his speech?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I will listen very careful to the Minister. We have carefully calculated some areas as best we can, but, ultimately, the Minister and the Department will have much more accurate information. That is why we have built a degree of flexibility into our amendment. That will allow the Minister to use the information that he and others do not have to make adjustments and try to address real need without the need for potentially bureaucratic costs to be loaded in.

It is right that we consider how we can improve, and, as I said some time ago, it is also important that we have an understanding of any costs that may flow from amendments. Some of us will decide that some amendments are worth paying that money for; others may take a different approach, and that is their right. Certainly, it should be the decision, ultimately, of a vote in the Assembly to determine what goes on.

I wish to move on to amendment No 4 in relation to the documents through third parties. Again, we will listen with interest to how the Minister responds to the proposal. Our opinion is that charities, social workers and housing associations would be in a trustworthy position to provide required documentation. I am, however, aware that the Department has already confirmed that guidance will cover the acceptance of documents from third parties, something that I believe is already accepted practice. Again, I look forward to hearing what the Minister will say on that issue.

In regard to amendment No 9, it makes sense on a practical level, so much so that I would be surprised if the Department did not already propose having due regard for them.

Mr Agnew's amendments, Nos 10, 37 and 57, are, no doubt, well intentioned, but, unfortunately, I believe they also undermine themselves. There has long been concern about the work-focused, health-related assessments and those coming down the line for the personal independence payments (PIP). In our amendment Nos 18 and 35, we are opening up the debate on medical evidence. However, I wonder whether we want to go down the road of having to direct so many of our already overstretched GPs or experienced nurses to carry out those tests. I am not opposed to health-care professionals approved by the Department carrying out assessments as long as they take into account available medical records and they are suitably qualified to make medical judgements. Making sure that we have the right competence of assessors should be an absolute priority right now; not necessarily who their employer is. Nevertheless, I will listen to what the Member has to say on that issue, not least in regard to how he believes his amendments would be delivered within the existing pressures facing our GPs and trust staff.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. In the past, such assessments were carried out by in-house medical professionals. One way or another, we have to pay for those professionals, and, one way or another, we have to train them through our universities. It is simply a question of oversight and accountability. The record of Atos in England suggests to me that that oversight and accountability was not sufficient.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I agree that they have to be paid, but why do they have to be employed by the trust? They could be employed by the Department or by an agent of the Department. The Member has been very prescriptive in what he proposes.

At face value, the Ulster Unionist Party agrees with amendment Nos 12 and 13. People subjected to domestic violence have rightly been given additional protection in the Bill, and now we are being asked to expand that to incidents motivated by hate. Of course, Northern Ireland is only too well versed, sadly, in such incidents, in terms of religion, sectarianism and race, so, yes, we are open for them to be included in the Bill. However, and it is a big however, as the Members who will later propose the amendment will likely be already aware, there is currently no formal definition of hate incidents; some will be easily understood, but very many others may not just be as clear. I suspect that that is why the Members have passed the responsibility for categorising such incidents to the Department under clause 24(9)(b) of their amendment. Our concern is that, without the definition, we are potentially opening up a can of worms that the Department will face constant challenge on; perhaps, again, legal costs and delays. I trust that the Minister has sought the advice of suitably qualified legal minds in this regard, so I look forward to hearing what he has to say on this issue.

On amendment No 17, I first ask for clarification from Mr Ramsey, perhaps later on, who I thought had been previously assured by the Health Minister that the independent living fund in Northern Ireland was going to be retained in some form after June 2015. If that is the case, I welcome it as it would allow some 600 disabled people here who are receiving support from it to continue to lead their own independent lives in the community. However, given the almost inevitable ending of the scheme across the water later this year, I understand that ours, even if it was retained, would probably undergo some reform. If we decide that it should be for the Social Development Minister supported by DEL and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, it is better to give them the 18-month time frame, as stated in the amendment. If, however, this amendment has been tabled without the knowledge of the Health Department, the Department for Social Development or DEL, I have to question whether it really was the most appropriate time to make the proposal, not least because I suspect that its more natural home would be in the Health Department. Again, I will listen to the contribution of others on this issue.

Amendment Nos 19 and 36 from the SDLP are fairly similar to those that we tabled previously and which also appear on today's Marshalled List. Even the most objective observer would struggle to see what the difference really is between them. I fully expect mental ill health to be covered by the reference to medical evidence that we make. They each propose doing exactly the same thing; the important thing is to make sure that the issue is addressed.

I turn to amendment Nos 38 and 39 from Mr Agnew, who moved the debate into something new. He is proposing changing the prospective test and the length of time for which the personal independence payment claims are likely to continue in the future to meet disability conditions from nine months to six months. We must be conscious that it would be a fairly fundamental breach of parity if we were to accept this, and there is grave uncertainty about what the cost would be. Again, this would be raising an issue of unfairness across the UK.

In some cases, no doubt, it is very difficult to predict whether a claimant's condition is likely to improve within nine months, so maybe six months would lead to more accurate assessments, but I do have to ask this: what will be the additional costs in administration? The Assembly is likely to bear those additional costs. Again, I look forward to what the Minister may have to say on the issue so that we may all come to a judgement on it. I go back to what I said early in my contribution: we have the responsibility to assess the need and the benefit that will come from change but also what the cost will be and whether that cost is proportionate to the issue? Regardless of the amendment, I welcome the fact that terminally ill claimants will be exempt from this test.

I turn to amendment No 43, which proposes ensuring that the Department will issue entitlements in cash in cases where the claimant has no access to a bank account. I have concerns about this, as I believe that, in such cases, the priority of the Department and the advice agencies should continue to be to encourage the claimant to open an account, whether that is through a Post Office card or, indeed, a bank account. Without one, how are they realistically expected to budget and manage their outgoings from one month to the other? There are also benefits in not having people being over-reliant on carrying all their earthly belongings, potentially, in their back pocket. It is much safer if people have an account and are able to draw off as they need.

Having a bank account, a building society account or a credit union account does provide some level of security. I am also aware that, at present, when claimants do not have any of those accounts, arrangements are made for them to be paid using a Post Office card account. If that is not possible, payments can be issued through the simple payment service, so there are mechanisms to deal with very difficult situations when immediate payment may be necessary. I will listen to Mr Agnew to hear his rationale for amendment No 43, but, at this stage, the Ulster Unionist Party is inclined to oppose it for some of the reasons that I have just mentioned.

We will oppose amendment No 44, which proposes to allow for payments in cases that are pending appeal. Were the amendment to go through, it would set quite a dangerous precedent and would also entail cost to the Executive. I have not heard any explanation as to why that additional cost should be borne. Many will be entitled to other benefits. Our intention is to oppose the amendment.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Certainly.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

On a couple of occasions, the Member referred to cost — rightly so — and of course we have to take it into consideration. There is a top-up payment in the budget. My argument is that we should decide as an Assembly where those top-up payments should be in the legislation rather than relying on what comes from the Executive to decide how that money is spent. My proposal is that a top-up payment is budgeted for. I am putting forward amendments, some of which cost money, but the top-up payment should be used to cover them.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I look forward to hearing the Member’s contribution, and I hope that he will also explain where the money to fund all his amendments will come from. Other public services will be cut to finance them. There are real choices that could impact the health of some of the same individuals whom the Member might be trying to assist. There are choices and difficult decisions. That is what politics and government should be about. I look forward to hearing the Member's contribution and the Minister outlining what the costs may be.

[Interruption.]

I wish to proceed.

We will oppose amendment No 45. I understand that the proposer is coming at it from the angle of a claimant who has been at the receiving end of a departmental error. While fraud is deliberate, error is not. Unfortunately, it is probably inevitable that, given the scale of our welfare system, mistakes are sometimes made, maybe still too often. Yes, that is the case, but that is the reality.

It is useful to remember that there is quite a difference between customer fraud, customer error and official error. Customer fraud makes up 0·5%, customer error makes up 0·2%, and staff error makes up 0·4%. I assume that Mr Agnew's amendment seeks to address the 0·4% of staff error and maybe some of the 0·2% of customer error. Given that our welfare system costs almost as much as our health service, even though that is a very small percentage, it may end up as a very significant number, perhaps north of £15 million. Again, where is the money coming from? Is Mr Agnew seriously suggesting that we simply forget about the amount of money each and every year? If we do not withdraw it from our block grant, we can be sure that fines or costs will be imposed. Again, what will be the cost to other public services like health and education?

In drawing back overpayment, it is important that the Department is very sensitive, takes individual household circumstances into consideration and does so over a lengthy period so that undue hardship is not caused by that departmental error, but, nevertheless, potentially significant amounts may have been given to a household that was not entitled to it. I ask the Minister to address that issue. Regardless of whose fault it may be, it is public money, and I would expect nothing but the utmost caution and due regard to be shown by the Department. However, if a mistake has been made, it should be rectified, or other public services will suffer.

I believe that there is generally a strong emphasis on accuracy. However, in cases where there is not and people receive more money than they are entitled to, they should reasonably expect to pay it back.

If someone who is working receives an overpayment, you can be sure that, in subsequent weeks, their employer will point out the mistake and draw the money back. Equally, if someone in receipt of benefits receives an overpayment, discussions should occur and it should be paid back. Again, I urge the Department to not go immediately to legal action in the first instance. A range of options is open, not least that to draw back any overpayment through a deduction in future benefits.

I note the Minister's opposition to clause 129. I believe that last year's National Insurance Contributions Act has already restored what was being proposed. So, we, too, believe that the clause is unnecessary.

Amendment No 53 from the SDLP is sensible, and the Ulster Unionist Party will be happy to support it. That issue has always been one of our concerns, not least since the end of 2012 when the then Minister shamefully tried to steamroller the GB Bill through the Assembly. Thankfully, his attempts at scaremongering were ignored, and we now have the potential of a much improved Bill that, to a greater extent, acknowledges and mitigates some of the worst aspects for the victims and survivors of the Troubles. However, we will just add some caution to the amendment. If, as we hope, it is made, we will request that the Department works as quickly and helpfully as possible with the Northern Ireland commission for victims.

Many of the regulations will be technical and often difficult to assess at first hand. Assessing every regulation, as the amendment suggests, will put major strain on the commission for victims. We trust that the Department will act constructively with the body and its staff, especially now as it continues to operate without a commissioner.

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

I thank the Member for giving way. I am sorry if I have interrupted his train of thought —

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

You did not.

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

He is doing very well and making very valid points, and I hope that Members will listen to them. I believe that amendment No 53 is very important. It puts victims of the Troubles and people who have suffered grievously, through either physical or mental problems as a result of the Troubles, at the very centre of the welfare system. Does the Member agree with the general thrust of the amendment? Does he agree with me that it would be a terrible shame for the House to reject the amendment, particularly through a petition of concern? That would do a grave disservice to all those who have suffered as a result of the Troubles.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I agree with the Member. I am also very mindful that, when dealing with individuals in my constituency office, those victims who have been traumatised in the Troubles frequently feel that they almost have to relive some of their incidents and retell the horrors that they experienced to expose the damage that has been done physically and mentally to them so that they can receive the benefits that they are entitled to. That can set individuals back each time they relive that. We have been suggesting that there needs to be early engagement with the Northern Ireland commission for victims as soon as possible so that, where there is very clear documented evidence, the whole approach can be looked at to try to mitigate and minimise the impact on victims of the Troubles in the assessment process, which they may be required to participate in to gain their benefits.

Finally, the last amendment in the group is amendment No 74, again from Mr Agnew. It proposes removing the power from the Department to issue payment in the form of vouchers. I have to say that vouchers may play a role, as they could assist someone who has an addiction. At this stage, we have not heard any compelling argument either politically or in public which makes us believe that this clause deserves to be taken out. Surely that option should remain. If it is enacted and used in regulations, it is an area that needs to be carefully monitored and reviewed. At this stage, we are minded to oppose the amendment from the Member because we recognise that potentially this may have merits.

Again, I go back to the situation of vulnerable children in households where someone has an addiction. A voucher system could actually be beneficial to that family, ensuring that vulnerable individuals are not put excessively at risk. It is very complicated for social services to look at every case, to be there all the time and to try to look out for those in need. I certainly believe that vouchers ought to be considered as a tool. That may be reviewed with experience as time goes along, but I certainly think that it would be wrong to rule it out at this stage.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. I understand his argument. I have worked with people with addictions, so I know the problems. The problem is when we license supermarkets to sell alcohol. You give people food vouchers, but they can still use them on premises that sell alcohol.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member has highlighted a problem. That is a problem which, in turn, passes to the Minister and the Department to get round. It is not a reason why vouchers should be excluded. You are talking about addiction to alcohol in particular — there are many supermarkets and mini-markets that do not sell alcohol. There are ways and means. Again, I say that it is wrong to exclude this as an option at this stage. I would much prefer that this be held to be considered as a tool in the departmental arsenal.

Ultimately, it needs to be scrutinised and its outworkings followed, but I would much prefer that that option would remain to be considered by the Department and officials as a useful tool in dealing with some of the most vulnerable members of the community in order that some of the rest of their households, and maybe even they themselves, may be helped. I have certainly come across some constituents who have alcoholism and, I would say, are not making the best use of the support that is available to them and perhaps contributing to their addictions. I think that this should be left as an option for the Department to determine and for ourselves to scrutinise further down the line.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

The Assembly will be aware that the Committee for Social Development produced a report on the Welfare Reform Bill two years ago in February 2013. The Committee held 22 meetings to consider the Bill. We received written submissions from 55 organisations and individuals and took oral evidence from 31 of those organisations. The Committee therefore gave the Bill extensive consideration and made a number of recommendations on foot of the evidence that it received. In doing so, it also opposed a number of clauses, one of which, clause 99, is in this group. I will come to that in just a moment.

It is fair to say that during the Committee Stage, the Committee was unanimous in its views regarding the potential impact of the Bill. It is important to restate that obviously these concerns about the impact were shared across the political spectrum. There was deep concern across the parties in the Committee for Social Development at the time. That concern, which was shared by the wide range of stakeholders who gave evidence to the Committee, was that this radical reform of the welfare system, if left unchecked, could seriously impact on the most vulnerable groups in society: children, the sick, lone parents, persons with a disability and so on. The Committee was also very sympathetic to the arguments that were made around access by claimants to independent advice.

Indeed, Members may recall that the Committee was sufficiently concerned that it agreed a motion under Standing Order 35 to refer the Bill to an Ad Hoc Committee on conformity with human rights and equality requirements. However, the Committee was also acutely aware of the potential cost implications of making changes to the Bill, although it must be said that Committee members were never truly convinced that they had received definitive figures from the Department. It is important to note that the Committee adopted a flexible position, if you like, on the best approach to address the financial cost of possible mitigation measures.

The Committee recognised the fact that the Department for Social Development could not fund those measures from its own budget. The Committee therefore agreed that any recommendations that had costs associated with them would have to be discussed and agreed by the Executive and all the parties represented on it. Therefore, where the Committee made recommendations that had associated costs, members agreed to oppose those related clauses, without prejudice to the outcome of the Minister’s discussions and individual positions that may be taken by members at a later stage of the Bill process. The Committee felt that that allowed the Minister the flexibility to engage with his Executive colleagues on the potential to fund its recommendations and, therefore, offered the best possibility for adoption of a range of mitigation measures to address the Committee’s concerns and those of stakeholders.

I do not think that any of us would have guessed that those discussions would only be finalised two years after the Committee published its report, but I believe that the outcome of the Stormont House negotiations has in many ways superseded the concerns highlighted by the Committee in its report. Indeed, the Committee met yesterday and was briefed by the Department on the Minister’s amendments. The Committee noted those. The Committee agreed yesterday that, given the time that has elapsed since the publication of its report and, more importantly, the fact that we have the five-party Stormont House Agreement, which has addressed many of the concerns relating to welfare reform, the Committee is content that it is for individual members to consider their position in relation to the Committee’s opposition to clauses, referred to in the Marshalled List of amendments.

I highlight to the House that the Committee opposed 10 clauses in total. In this group of amendments, the Committee opposes clause 99, which deals with payments to joint claimants. There will, obviously, be more detailed discussion of all those matters in the course of the debate. The Committee’s concern at the time related to the flexibility that could be applied to payments in terms of the regularity of payments and the splitting of payments. It favoured an approach where the payment would be made twice a month, with an option for a payment to be split between claimants in a household, rather than a single payment per household. In that latter instance, the Committee shared the concerns of stakeholders that having to nominate a member of the household to receive the payment could have a negative impact on the financial independence of women in particular and, therefore, a potentially negative impact on children, given that, in our society, it is still largely the case that women tend to be the main carer and/or the second earner in the family. However, there has undoubtedly been significant progress on this matter and others relating to the Committee’s opposition to clauses, which I will come to as the debate develops.

Therefore, as I noted, I leave Committee members to decide for themselves regarding the current position vis à vis that taken by the Committee two years ago. In other words, and very simply, given the fact that the Committee expressed opposition to a number of the Bill's clauses, it took the view that, in the light of the Stormont House Agreement, most — if not all — of those concerns have been addressed in one way or another. Whatever about the precise arguments around the legislation, either by way of legislation and amendments tabled by the Minister and/or the mitigation measures, most of the concerns of members have been met. On that basis, the Committee has mandated me, as Chair, to record to the House that it will not be formally recording opposition to any of the clauses during today's debate.

Let me place on record my thanks to the Committee for the very extensive deliberation it gave to the Bill at that time. An exhaustive amount of work was carried out to make sure that all aspects of the Bill were considered and appropriate recommendations made to the Minister on the basis of those discussions. I thank in particular all the stakeholders who came and gave evidence. I remind Members that that included people from the church and faith-based organisations, the community and voluntary sector, the advice sector, ethnic minority organisations, the Human Rights Commission, the Equality Commission and trade unions. A whole range of organisations made considered submissions, written and oral, to the Committee. It is important to record that the members unanimously agreed a report, which I have addressed in the last few minutes. Therefore, I thank all the people who participated and, in my view, helped to shape the debate from that time. Even though two years have elapsed, all of us will be very pleased to acknowledge that there has been considerable progress made against all the concerns expressed by the stakeholders and the Committee. There is no doubt that much work yet needs to be done.

The Committee and others will remain vigilant as to the effects of welfare reform as it progresses through the Assembly in the time ahead, after the Bill is dealt with and disposed of.

Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, I would also like to make a few remarks as an individual MLA on behalf of my party. Go raibh maith agat for that. I will be brief. I want to make a couple of points in relation to the remarks made by Mr Roy Beggs of the Ulster Unionist Party, who was the first to speak on this group. The remarks of the Member in the House this morning beggar belief. He is a Member representing a party that was joined at the hip with the Tory Government in London as UCUNF (Ulster Conservatives and Unionists - New Force), which promoted the policy and the pledge that has had the effect of imposing swingeing cuts, not only in terms of welfare but to public services, that people right across our community have had to endure. I am delighted to be able to say that other parties, standing against Ulster Unionist commitments at that time, addressed a lot of those concerns.

I want to place something on the record because it is important that the public are aware of all this. During the Committee deliberations on the matter, I conducted a number of bilaterals with all the parties represented in the House, including the Ulster Unionist Party. During those bilaterals, the Ulster Unionist Party never made one single commitment to address any of those issues. I personally had to go to Mr Mike Nesbitt and ask him to give support to his party colleague Michael Copeland, the Member on the Social Development Committee, who told us in the Committee that he was not allowed by the party to make any commitment in relation to the Welfare Reform Bill.

I stand and accuse the Ulster Unionist leader and his party of an absolute abject failure of integrity on that matter. That party stood on a pledge to slash public funding and slash welfare benefits to the most vulnerable people out there and was not prepared to make one single commitment to address it. In fact, only in the last number of weeks, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party was telling everybody, "We could not get any more money. There was nothing more that we could do. We had a good deal as it was". Unfortunately for the Ulster Unionist Party, which, in grandstanding —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Member is factually incorrect in what he is saying. I ask the Speaker to judge whether or not it is appropriate to say that the Ulster Unionist Party did nothing when, almost two years ago, amendments to the Bill were placed.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

It is a question of the cut and thrust of debate. The Member may well, in his remarks, simply be reflecting frustration at the lack of progress at particular times. That is his entitlement, as you were quite forthright in some of your commentary. It is cut and thrust. This is meant to be a debate. I think that we should try to avoid the practice of naming Members across the Floor because it is not conducive to good temper and moderate discussion.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I concur with your remarks. I had wanted to come here this morning in a position to welcome the fact that an agreement was reached by all the parties, in the days before Christmas, that represents a far better deal for the people who we collectively, as parties, represent. That deal allows an awful lot more money to be retained by the people who we represent, and that would not otherwise have been available except for the hard work that was carried out. I would have much preferred to have been coming into the Chamber this morning to give a very clear, positive and constructive message to the wider public that we collectively represent that we have managed to broker a deal that is far above anything anywhere else on these islands and that I am glad that we have been a very important part of that. Unfortunately, because others want to grandstand and, rather than look after the most vulnerable, want to promote themselves, I have departed from what I had wanted to do. As I say, all Members will have the opportunity to address all the issues today. I wanted to place on record the behaviour, attitude of and role that was played by the Ulster Unionist Party, which is leading the debate on this group this morning.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

I, too, welcome the opportunity to speak on the group 1 amendments at Consideration Stage. I join the Chair in thanking the Committee staff, departmental officials and all those who gave written responses and oral evidence.

Throughout the many hours of the Committee scrutiny of the Welfare Reform Bill, there was, as the Chair said, a consensus across all parties that the Bill required certain changes to meet the needs of our constituents in Northern Ireland. I also recall the many events and panel debates I attended, some of which I would like to forget, usually alongside those sitting opposite. At those debates we heard genuine concerns, not only from voluntary and community groups, but from individuals and the public across Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker, in this group we address the duties of the Department, administration and assessments. Having studied the fairly lengthy list of amendments, I am drawn to the conclusion that many are either not required or will be dealt with in the regulations. Indeed, Mr Speaker, if some proposers of the amendments had been members of the Committee for Social Development when we were scrutinising the Bill, they would have known that much of the detail will be dealt with in regulations rather than through amendments to the Bill. You will be glad to hear that I do not intend to speak on all the amendments — and I will keep the rest of my speech brief — but I want to address two of them.

First, I draw your attention to amendment No 4, tabled by members of the SDLP, which sets out a new clause where a claimant is unable to provide the documentation required to progress a claim. This was a concern raised in the Committee during initial scrutiny, particularly how it might affect the vulnerable and claimants who were homeless or living in temporary accommodation. As most of us know, from dealing with benefit claimants through our constituency offices, third-party verification is accepted under current claims and payment regulations. As we also know, this is being transferred over to universal credit claims and payment regulations, and it will allow for third-party verification to continue as it is at present. Mr Speaker, this is just one example of an amendment in group 1 that is not required.

I now turn to amendment No 8. This is another new clause, put forward this time by the Ulster Unionist Party, and relates to the frequency of payment of universal credit. Again, this was an issue about which there was great concern in the Committee and in both written and oral responses. There was grave concern that under the proposed monthly payments claimants would face financial hardship, which would ultimately be borne by the children in those families. It was also well-documented in the written submissions that, instead of having enforced frequency of payment, claimants should have the freedom to choose. Notably, Advice NI commented that the frequency of payment, whether weekly, fortnightly or monthly, should be geared towards meeting the needs of the person and not the system.

As most of us should be aware — and I do find it rather strange that the Ulster Unionist Party is not aware of this — payment frequency was agreed as one of the package of measures by the previous Minister, Nelson McCausland, with the Department for Work and Pensions some time ago. The current Minister went one step further last October by proposing that the default position be twice-monthly.

This is just one of the many amendments that should be dealt with in regulations rather than through amendments to the Bill. As we know, regulations will allow for greater flexibility and, therefore, the right place for much of what is listed in these amendments is in the regulations. Mr Speaker, these are just two examples —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

Yes.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member explain why flexibility over payment is needed? Why not put it in the Bill that the default position is twice-monthly? Why would you want to have flexibility to amend this at some point? Why would you not wish the option to go for the monthly basis to be nailed down in the Bill? Will the Member explain?

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his intervention. Flexibility allows us to make changes, as we all know and as you have also stated. For some people, two-weekly payments may not be what is required: we may want to change that, but we cannot do so if it is under primary legislation. It is therefore better to deal with it in regulations in case we need to make changes.

Mr Speaker, I look forward to hearing the rationale for the tabled amendments from all the proposers and, of course, how they propose to pay for some of the changes. I am happy to support amendment No 35 and the opposition to clause 129 standing part, but I will not be supporting any other amendments in group 1.

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

I am pleased to speak on behalf of the SDLP in relation to the amendments that our party has tabled. Members are, quite rightly, outraged at the petitions of concern against all the amendments. It is an attack on democracy; it is an attack on the House's opportunity to scrutinise fully the implications of the Bill. It is certainly not the reason for which petitions of concern were intended. We all know that petitions of concern were to be deployed only if it was felt that one community would suffer an adverse impact over another.

We all know that the sufferers under welfare reform as proposed by the Tories will be the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. In that regard, one part of our community is going to suffer more of an adverse impact than those who are relatively well off, but, of course, they will be right across the community. It appears that there are now more Tories in the DUP ranks than ever before. I know that a number of them were previously card-carrying members of the Tory party. I deplore the use of petitions of concern in relation to this matter. One might make the reasonable assumption that the late notice of petitions of concern was to save the blushes of the party to my right, which claims that it was stalling on welfare reform in order to get more money from the British Treasury. That money did not come; it is going to come from the other public sectors.

It is ironic that, on the day that we are discussing the Welfare Reform Bill, the media are full of stories about the tax avoidance used by the world's wealthiest companies and individuals in GB society. Last night, we saw the sorry spectacle of many of the wealthiest people tripping into one of the big Tory dinner dances. The Tories have looked after their interests, but they have failed to look after the interests of the poorest. Only four or five weeks ago Oxfam, in preparing for a summit of world leaders, made the case that over 50% of the world's wealth is now held by 1% of the world's population. Many commentators, including, more recently, Pope Francis, have stated that growing wealth inequality is bad for economic development and bad for good governance and is surely morally wrong.

With that backdrop, the SDLP has not been shy about the necessity of welfare reform and improvements to how the system operates; we have put forward amendments in the various groups with the intent of improving the lot of the people who require help through the welfare system. There is no shame in that; it is our responsibility. It has always been our stated intention in relation to the Welfare Reform Bill.

I also note that some Members' remarks and contributions referred to the Stormont House Agreement. The Stormont House Agreement contains no more than six lines on welfare reform, the introduction of the legislation and the flexibilities. At yesterday's Committee meeting, when officials explained the Minister's amendments, we learnt that agreement on how some of the mitigating measures are to be introduced has not yet been reached by the Executive, so we are operating in somewhat of a vacuum in relation to the Bill. It would have been much more useful, and we probably would not have been so sceptical, if we had the two in tandem before the House today. We could have spoken with greater information before us.

We are going to listen carefully to the Minister's commitments in relation to some of the amendments that we have tabled. We will see whether or not he will commit to bring forward regulations that will allay some of our concerns in relation to the new clauses that we are tabling today.

I will address our party's proposed clauses. Mr Beggs quite rightly said, in relation to amendment No 1 to clause 4, that the SDLP had a similar amendment. We are happy to support that amendment, which will help when there is a breakdown in a family relationship or a lack of cooperation so that one family member will not suffer.

I will move to amendment No 3, which proposes a new clause after clause 6. It is similar to the amendment that Roy Beggs proposed. We just felt that ours was in a different place in the Bill; it is more just a question of where it is positioned rather than any of the policy intention.

Amendment No 4 proposes a new clause that would allow third parties to obtain documents necessary for a claim where claimants cannot obtain it themselves. I think that is fairly self-explanatory. I note that there is also a petition of concern on that; you would have to ask why that is, other than that regulations might deal with it. We will wait to hear what the Minister has to say. Amendment No 4 inserts a new clause on the provision of claimant documentation when making a claim for universal credit. It provides that, where a person cannot provide all the required documentation to make a claim, there is provision made for third-party verification in lieu of required documentation, including identity documents, so that the claim can be made. As Ms Bradley said, this was something that the Committee had similar concerns about when it, some two years ago, scrutinised the Bill. Again, we will wait to hear how the Minister is going to deal with that issue.

We think that it is important to table amendments so that we can hear from the Minister and get commitments on the Floor of the House in relation to how we move forward.

Amendment No 9 relates to preparing claimant commitments and states that the Department must have due regard for the claimant's skills, experience, caring responsibilities and physical and mental ill health. This is important because we all, across our constituency offices, have concerns in relation to the types of jobs that people are being expected to undertake, where the skills and experience do not match the work that people are being asked to take up. I do not think that there are many people who would not express some difficulty and require retraining. We are seeing this against a backdrop of savage cuts to the DEL budget and to employment and training. Of course, given the number of redundancies that some people are experiencing, not least in north Antrim, where 800 people are set to lose their jobs, there is an obvious need to spend money on retraining. We have concerns that opportunities are not going to be there for people. We also have concerns about zero-hours contracts, which are on the increase. I think that they are totally immoral. We see an increase in temporary, part-time, low-paid jobs.

I think that the vast majority of people who find themselves unemployed want to get back into the workplace but for some who are in their 40s or 50s, it is difficult. I believe that there should be greater opportunities and that cognisance should be given to their life experience and job experience. The Government and Departments should be in a position to help people to retrain and prepare themselves for a different workplace.

I just want to make one other general point. We do not yet have a robust childcare strategy in place. Over recent weeks, we have heard about the soaring costs of childcare. It is all right for people who have never experienced unemployment to make assumptions about people being work-shy, but that is not so in the vast majority of cases. The majority of people want to get out to work because they think that it is better for their self-esteem and self-confidence, and it provides a better role model for their family. If family income is reduced to such a level that there are increasing levels of poverty and more children in the North of Ireland living in poverty, I can understand why people have to make the choice about whether or not they take up a job and how that impacts on their family.

The Tories' agenda of making work pay has not been accompanied by more robust measures for tackling some of the loopholes that employers use in the provision of terms and conditions for such employment. It is a matter of regret that the Executive have not yet got their head around providing good, affordable childcare to enable people to go back into the workplace.

I will now turn my attention to amendment No 8, which introduces the default position of an award of universal credit being paid twice monthly unless a claimant or joint claimants opt to be paid monthly. I heard what Ms Bradley said, and I hope that the Minister will address this. We will listen carefully to that and make a judgement later in the day as the debate continues.

Amendment No 9 is about the Department's regard for a claimant's skills when completing a claimant commitment. We need to be assured that people have the right help at the right time, because we all know how complicated many of these forms are. In our constituency offices, we can hardly keep up because of the changing nature of such forms. It is true to say that, while a lot of welfare reform has to be agreed by the House, it is also the case that other welfare reform comes from Westminster. Some childcare and tax vouchers, for example, are non-devolved matters, so there is already a very changed landscape, and it is difficult for professionals to keep up, never mind people who find themselves being in circumstances in which they first have to enter that system and have never been unemployed before.

In amendment No 11, we ask the Department to:

"take account of relevant medical evidence including evidence of mental ill health".

I heard what others said about how that is currently the case, but, given the track record of Atos in particular, it is very clear to me in my constituency work and representational role that quite a bit of evidence is set aside. There are different interpretations by a number of health-care professionals who have medical evidence before them but disregard it.

I will give you one particular example as to why I am concerned. I represent a lady who has an arthritic condition called ankylosing spondylitis, which is a degenerative chronic condition. It means that she was not able to continue in her job as a home help, as it used to be known. The health-care professional who made the assessment was a qualified nurse, but she turned the lady down and gave her nil points for that disability. When I represented the lady at appeal, the GP on the panel was disgusted and absolutely shocked and could not believe that this level of medical evidence and knowledge was set aside. It would seem that some of the very energetic members of Atos, in their attempts to refuse people —

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will, yes.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I understand what you are saying, but I find it rather strange, given that it was your Minister who introduced the legislation that brought Atos into power. When it was appointed, there was the privatisation of medical support services, and, in the first year, from June 2011 to 2012, 13,740 claimants were removed by Atos. It was your Minister who brought it in, yet you are standing here today crying crocodile tears over it.

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

I do not see any crocodile tears in evidence. I am merely stating fact. I do not think that my colleague sent out a job description that asked all those healthcare professionals who would disregard the evidence and turn people down to apply. We certainly acknowledge that a job of work is required to be done, and we expect the highest professional standards in carrying it out.

The SDLP has not, in any shape or form, defended Atos's track record. I believe that the contract has now been awarded to Capita. Mr McCann's blushes will be saved somewhat later today by the DUP's petition of concern when he goes through whatever Lobby he chooses. So, I think that you have more questions to ask of your party colleagues.

The system has always been that people put forward medical evidence. We are asking that there is acknowledgement of evidence of mental ill health. I have represented people at appeal who have chronic and enduring mental health conditions for which there is no cure. Those people have management regimes that usually involve medication. I believe that there should be greater cognisance of that and that a greater onus of responsibility should be placed on the assessors. Some of them behave as though they are the red coats who run around doing parking tickets as though there is some sort of reward voucher scheme for turning people down.

I think that over 40% of appeals have been won. People are talking about the cost, but if we get it right and put the right people in to do the right assessments to get the right outcomes, costs can be reduced for appeals. More importantly, the people who are at the other end of those appeals will not have to suffer the stress and anxiety that goes with them. The number of people who I have had to take aside so that they can dry their tears before they even go in to the appeal is very humbling. Those are not occasions that anyone looks forward to, and we should not be robbing people of their basic human dignity. We should be there to support them. That is what the welfare state was created for. It was created to give human dignity to people and to put people at the centre of a society where they are treated more fairly and equally. It was not created to reduce them to snivelling wrecks as they go to an appeal to get what they are rightly due. That is why we are looking for tighter regulations, but if the Minister has something to say, we will listen carefully.

Amendment No 12 looks at, as Mr Beggs referred to, victims of hate incidents and at allowing some leeway in observing claimant commitment. We looked particularly at domestic violence in that context. Only yesterday, I had a victim of domestic violence having to go for repeat ESA interviews. I advised them that, as I understand, there is a commitment from Minister Storey's predecessor to victims of domestic violence. Given the huge rise in the number of domestic violence incidents that are coming to our police service's attention, the House should address and take seriously that vulnerable group's needs. I ask Members to think carefully about that.

I also ask that this amendment not be subject to a petition of concern. I think that that would be a very good statement from the House about our commitment to those people who suffer from such attacks. I remind Members that a person who comes forward to the police for help or to make a complaint will usually have suffered a minimum of 35 incidents of attack or assault. So, we are talking about people who are in crisis and at a very vulnerable time in their life. I ask Members to reflect carefully on that.

Amendment No 13 deals with similar issues.

In amendment No 17, we are asking the Department to bring in a replacement to the independent living fund within 18 months of the Bill's commencement. I note Mr Beggs's comments about commitments that my colleague Mr Ramsey got. Mr Ramsey will address that amendment later. I think that he had some discussions with the Health Minister about that. We will check that out, and Mr Ramsey will hopefully inform the House of where that commitment is and of how satisfied he was by what the Minister said.

Amendment No 19 deals with evidence of mental ill health. In a society coming out of conflict, there has to be recognition that instances of mental ill health are on the rise. People are suffering. A lot of workplace absenteeism is now noted as being as a result of stress and anxiety, so mental ill health is a cause for concern to me and, hopefully, to the House.

I have touched on victims in another amendment. A difficulty for some families who were victims of the conflict and who I have represented is having to relive and open their wounds again as they have to tell another person why they should get support. It really is opening up that emotive, raw state for them. That is one of the reasons why we want sensitivity in the Department in relation to these amendments. As a former occupational therapist who worked in a psychiatric unit about 14 years ago, I recall vividly a senior psychiatrist remarking on the numbers who were presenting at that time with mental ill health as a consequence of the Troubles, so we are only starting to see that pattern emerging. Her words were prophetic, and I think that has been on the increase.

You have to look to young people in particular and the level of suicides, so we have to take proper recognition of mental ill health. It is not something that someone glibly puts down who wants to be pigeonholed. I hope that the Department takes greater awareness and cognisance of any medical evidence in relation to mental ill health.

Amendment No 36 is similar and deals with the same subject as amendment No 19. We will listen carefully to what Mr Agnew says about amendment Nos 37, 38 and 39 in relation to the assessments and why he believes they should be carried out by a trust or GP. Some Members said that they already will be and that it might be some sort of agreement with the various trusts in relation to the release of health-care professionals. After speaking to Mr Agnew yesterday, I believe that some of the intent of the amendments was around accountability. I look forward to hearing further from him during the course of today's debate.

I met Mr Agnew also in relation to amendment Nos 43 and 44. Amendment No 43 is "cash" in its broadest terms. It is around the bank Giro cheque and the Post Office account. We all know that there has been a crackdown by the banks on people opening accounts and moving money about. They have to give greater explanation to their bank, and a minimum requirement is two utility bills. For people who find themselves homeless or in sheltered or hostel-type accommodation, that proves to be an onerous task. I believe that Mr Agnew will refer further to that. It is an amendment that we are minded to support in relation to the difficulties that people find themselves in when opening bank accounts. Again, we will listen carefully to Mr Agnew's contribution on amendment Nos 44 and 45 and the policy intent behind them.

Amendment No 53 is the one that I referred to a few moments ago in relation to taking account of victims and survivors. We have, over many years, given various commitments as a society to the victims of the conflict. Sadly, not very many of them have materialised. This would be an important statement by the House that special recognition is given by the Assembly to people who continue to suffer the trauma of the past. I ask the DUP not to deploy the petition of concern on this clause. I ask it not to deploy a petition of concern against any of the clauses, but, in particular, I ask for some recognition to be given to the sensitivities of this clause.

Amendment Nos 57 and 74 are from Mr Agnew, and we, as a party, give a commitment to hear him on the matter.

That ends my contribution on the first group of amendments. We, as a party, have shown responsibility and concern for the most vulnerable. We have done what we said we would do in the tabling of these amendments.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I will just take some time to welcome the long-awaited return of the Welfare Reform Bill to the House, two long years after its original introduction. In that intervening period, we have had nothing but crisis and deep anxiety across the community over this key piece of legislation: crisis from an Executive seemingly failing to reach agreement and putting the power-sharing institutions at risk of collapse, at not insubstantial cost to the community and certainly in excess of £100 million; and, as a result of scaremongering, a pervasive and unwarranted anxiety amongst the people who we represent, many of whom are the most vulnerable in our society.

It is for those two reasons that I commend the agreement reached at Stormont Castle and Stormont House to move this key piece of legislation forward. It is time to end the crisis and anxiety and to implement welfare reform alongside the concessions and the mitigation measures that were won and agreed. Those are agreed mitigation measures, yet, listening to some of the debate today, one would wonder whether anybody was ever at the game when the agreement was being made.

These concessions will protect the most vulnerable from the most unjust and harshest measures passed by a Conservative-led Westminster Government. For the record and for Mr Nesbitt, I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the Liberal Democrat party. I am a proud member of the Alliance Party. Those are the two feet that I am standing on in the Chamber. I also wish to state for the record that our Member of Parliament sits in opposition to that Conservative Government at Westminster. She voted in opposition to that legislation.

The Alliance Party considers that the Stormont House Agreement was a reasonable and honourable attempt to reach compromise. It was a five-party agreement, unless I hear disagreement in the Chamber today. We expect to see the whole agreement put in place. It is an entire process, and it is important that it is put back on track. I accept and understand that some of the agreement was made behind closed doors. The exceptional nature of the problems that are faced required exceptional responses. However, I have to call out the cynical attempts today of those using this legislation to do nothing but electioneer. Some who nodded this compromise through when the agreement was made have now decided to play politics in order to gain what they see as an electoral advantage or perhaps a chance to launch personal political ambitions; maybe there are a few leadership bids under way in the Chamber.

I wish to place on record my and my party's dislike of the unilateral use of petitions of concern, particularly by the DUP. Use of a petition of concern as a negotiating tactic is not what they were intended for, and I consider it unacceptable. Such actions could ultimately unravel the agreement and the hard-won concessions that neither Scotland or Wales have been able to secure. Nevertheless, I recognise the contribution of others in the debate and those who were not party to the Stormont Castle or Stormont House agreements. I have some sympathy for the proposals made by Mr Agnew, and I will listen to what he has to say. I think that a great many of the amendments proposed today can and will be dealt with by the Minister in his response to the House, but it is important that every one of them is costed.

On the amendments, the Alliance Party will honour the Stormont House Agreement. We made an agreement. We are an honourable party and will stick to our agreements. We can and will today support those amendments that are agreed, because to do otherwise would be to undermine an agreement that all party leaders accepted and signed up to. We also point out that many of the amendments relate to making regulatory powers for things that are already done or will soon be done. We are sympathetic to many of those amendments, but we expect the Minister to allow all-party input to them through regulations that will come to the Committee. We will listen to what he has to say. For Alliance, implementing this legislation in a way that protects the vulnerable, without stopping the legislation, will be done when the regulations are produced.

I turn to the group 1 amendments, specifically, the proposed amendments pertaining to the Department, the administration and assessments. During the Committee Stage of the Bill, the frequency of payments was often cited by those in the social sector as a serious cause of concern. It was stated that the proposed monthly payment arrangements, as implemented in the rest of the UK, would likely cause undue budgeting pressures on society's most vulnerable. The Department has taken that on board, and will apply a default fortnightly payment schedule for welfare recipients. A requirement, therefore, is not a necessary part of the Bill and contradicts the mechanisms agreed by the Executive parties. I am satisfied that progress has been made on this issue.

With regard to amendment No 12, the Alliance Party has been one of the stronger proponents of the more comprehensive support for people affected by hate crime. Sadly, hate crime is on the rise in Northern Ireland and has a serious and pervasive effect on the lives and families of those affected, many of whom require rehousing and a period of recovery. Therefore, not only are measures in our welfare system to accommodate hate-crime victims appropriate and just, it is important that we avoid inflicting further trauma as a result of welfare sanctions. The Department has indicated that such mechanisms will exist through good cause, a clause contained in the Bill. I am content to support this; however, it is only appropriate that we keep the operation of this under close scrutiny to ensure that it functions as intended and supports victims through their period of recovery.

Another issue that was highlighted repeatedly in welfare reform in the rest of the UK is the need for a solid medical basis on which to make assessments. We will therefore support the amendment No 35 proposed by the Ulster Unionists in that regard. This will ensure that the relevant medical evidence is taken into account when assessing a person's ability to carry out daily living or mobility activities. However, that raises the question of how the medical evidence is obtained, at what cost and how qualified is the assessor in interpreting the medical documentation. I believe that these questions are yet to be fully answered, but I think those matters will be dealt with through regulation.

To ensure a system that is fit for purpose, I call upon the Minister and the Committee to investigate these issues in depth and establish that appropriate and fair measures are put in place. In concluding on this section, it is vital that I highlight the mitigating measures in regard to such issues that have been agreed with Treasury. Anything else that is uncosted is not likely to proceed in the House today and would cause a further burden on an already over-stressed and stretched Budget. Furthermore, the terms of agreement are much more favourable than those presented in the rest of the United Kingdom. We must support the structures as agreed or face losing these concessions and returning to the crises, anxiety and inaction of the previous two years.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

The Business Committee has arranged to immediately after the lunchtime suspension. I propose, 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 12.34 pm.

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

Oral Answers to Questions — Enterprise, Trade and Investment

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

We will start with listed questions.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

1. Mr Ó Muilleoir asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment how her Department intends to incentivise transatlantic carriers to introduce new routes to Belfast International Airport. (AQO 7534/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

My Department works closely with Belfast International Airport to encourage new transatlantic routes with business and inbound tourism potential. That support is provided in a number of ways. For example, Tourism Ireland cooperative marketing support is available for transatlantic services. We also provide practical support for Belfast International Airport and our other airports by taking a stand at the annual World Routes conference. Another important factor in encouraging transatlantic connectivity has been the decisive action by the Executive to eliminate air passenger duty (APD) on direct long-haul flights.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat a Aire. Thank you, Minister. I recently spoke to the chief executive of Belfast International Airport. I also met the owners of the airport in Toronto and I met Massport, which owns Logan Airport in Boston. There is definitely interest in a transatlantic flight, but we are falling down at the minute because there are none out of Belfast.

Does the Minister agree that now is the time for a concerted and united push by the new owners of the airport, Tourism Ireland, Belfast International Airport and our many ambassadors to try to bring in the number of transatlantic visitors that we would like? That is especially the case given the success of Dublin Airport. As the Minister knows, the road is a big help, but it goes both ways.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his question. In his supplementary question, he acknowledged the importance of connectivity for us in Northern Ireland and the fact that we need more international flights. We are pleased that the Newark flight continues to be a success, although we were disappointed last year, when the flight was dropped to 10 months a year from 12.

I acknowledge that much work needs to be done, and I hope to meet representatives of some Canadian airlines again later this year. However, we are in direct competition with Dublin Airport. It now has four direct flights to Canada, and that is causing us difficulties in trying to achieve more connectivity, particularly with North America.

I welcome the increased connectivity with Europe and, if things go according to plan, that will increase again this year. I am very pleased about that, but we need to increase the connectivity with North America, in particular, and I would welcome any offers of help that would help us try to achieve that.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

When will the Minister, or will she, use her influence in the Executive to help create the enterprise zone at the international airport, with the tax incentives and infrastructure, and help make that airport not just the lead airport in Northern Ireland but possibly, one day, the lead airport in the whole of Ireland?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his question. Of course, he is referring to the new chief executive's ambitious plans, which I welcome, for the land in and around the international airport. He has talked about creating an enterprise zone, but, as yet, only one area here has been designated by Her Majesty's Treasury as an enterprise zone and that, of course, is in Coleraine. No other areas have been designated as enterprise zones yet. We are very happy to work with Graham and his team at the international airport to market the opportunities for having such close proximity to an international airport, and we will continue to do that.

We will also continue to work with Graham and the other airports to look at the opportunities that have been presented by the Department for Transport fund that has been made available for regional connectivity throughout Europe. The House will know that there have been quite stringent guidelines in relation to helping airports develop their routes. This has been slightly relaxed, and we are looking forward to encouraging the airports and airlines to bid into that Department for Transport fund and try to bring some of that money to Northern Ireland.

David McIlveen (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answers so far. She will, of course, not be surprised that I entirely support the Member of South Belfast's sentiments and his call for greater transatlantic connectivity. However, we would perhaps struggle to encourage direct connectivity to areas like China, India and Russia that we are seeking to do business with. Would the Minister support the proposed expansion of Heathrow Airport, and would she see it as having a long-term benefit to Northern Ireland's economy, as well as to the south-east of England?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I do think that the expansion of Heathrow will bring greater benefits for Northern Ireland because it is the hub for us in the UK; it is important for us. I welcome the fact that the British Airways flight from Belfast goes into terminal 5, because that allows easier connectivity for travellers. Indeed, I flew into terminal 5 for the first time last week since the changeover, and it was very smooth and easy, even if it was a point-to-point access to London. I have written to the airport's commission. Sir Howard Davies came over and met the Minister for Regional Development and me in 2013. I have written to him again to stress the importance of Northern Ireland's connectivity into that UK hub, because, of course, he is absolutely right to stress that we will not have a direct link into those onward international travel destinations, so we need to be able to access those in as easy a way as possible.

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

I thank the Minister for her comments so far. I, too, recognise the importance of transatlantic flights. What recent discussions has she had, if any, with the British Government in London on reducing APD rates on short-haul flights? While long-haul flights are important, short-haul flights are doubly so, as a lot more people use them, and the cost of those flights is prohibitive in some cases.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his question. He will, of course, know that the Executive were successful in devolving APD for long-haul flights. We have a zero rate for long-haul flights, so the flight to America does not attract any air passenger duty. I have had meetings with two airlines in the past two days, and each of them raised the issue of APD and the fact that it is a barrier to growth in UK markets. I say to them, as I say to you, that I absolutely support them in their campaign to have air passenger duty abolished across the United Kingdom, because it is having a disproportionate impact on regional airports outside London. London will always have the throughput of traffic, regardless of air passenger duty. However, it presents a problem for those of us in regional airports, and, therefore, we need to continue to push. I welcome the Member's support to continue to push against air passenger duty, and I will certainly raise it with the Government in future.

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

2. Mr McGlone asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to outline any recent discussions she has had with her Executive colleagues and others on the cost to the block grant of reducing the rate of corporation tax in Northern Ireland to 10%. (AQO 7535/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Ultimately, it will be for the Northern Ireland Executive to agree on what any new rate should be set at. The push for the devolution of corporation tax powers has tended to be viewed with a perceived move to a rate of 12·5%. As a result, discussions on the block grant adjustment for a reduced rate have also tended to focus on the public finance consequences of moving to a 12·5% rate. An even lower rate of corporation tax would require a bigger adjustment to public finances but would also be more attractive to investors.

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

Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire chomh maith. My thanks to the Minister as well. Given that the Minister had introduced the notion of the reduction to 10%, what costing was made around that as to what the further reduction might cost in monetary terms and its potential impact on the block grant as a consequence?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am very pleased to hear that the Member thinks that I introduced the concept of a 10% rate. It was not me; I would like to take the credit for that, but it was not me who introduced it. That has been DUP party policy on the rate of corporation tax for quite some time, because we believe that we should undercut our nearest competitor instead of going to the same level as it. However, I am a realist, and I understand that the Executive take the decision on corporate tax. If you were to ask me where I think it will settle, I understand that it will settle in and around 12·5%. The lower rate, of course, would bring us more potential for jobs, but it would cost more to the public finances; there is no point in saying otherwise. That has to be taken into consideration as well. I believe that we will settle in and around 12·5%, but, of course, that is a matter for the Executive.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I think that it is right that we welcome the Minister back from her travels, where she was selling Northern Ireland to Dubai. I think that we all recognise the excellent work that she does and the energy and commitment that she puts into it. As there is no doubt that the rate of corporation tax will be an added incentive to attract new companies into Northern Ireland, does the Minister believe that companies will be attracted in advance of the rate being reduced?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Some of the work that has been carried out by the Northern Ireland Centre for Economic Policy points to the fact that we will see a benefit, albeit a small benefit, before the rate is reduced. That is because, once the rate has been settled by the Northern Ireland Executive and the date for implementation has been settled, Invest Northern Ireland will start competing for those new types of jobs. It may be the case that some of those companies might like to relocate or set up a new business in Northern Ireland before the rate kicks in. That is because business plans and investments are normally set two to three years in advance. We should have a clear view on which companies will come in that first year if we get out and start selling the rate and the date in the near future.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a freagraí go dtí seo. Is the Minister advocating a proposition similar to that of the Smith commission in Scotland, which talks about the local retention of any increased tax take as a result of a change in local policy on corporation tax?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Of course we are going to gain from the corporate tax take because we are paying for it through our block grant. We will gain the benefit from whatever increase in corporation tax we get. Obviously, there will be a cost initially, and that will not come all in one year. That cost will be tapered up to 2020. That is why we need to get out and start getting the benefits of a lower rate of corporation tax as soon as possible.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Does the Minister recognise that the issue is not just about matching or undercutting the Republic's rate? Rather, does the Minister agree that there is a need to ensure that Northern Ireland has a full basket of measures to accompany the lower rate of corporation tax, including a super-skilled workforce and a major expansion of A-grade office accommodation?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for her question. I have never indicated that it is corporate tax alone that will bring a more sustainable economy and give us the growth of 10% to 12% that we will believe will happen if we have a lower rate of corporation tax. That will only happen if we have the correct infrastructure in place, be that telecoms, hard infrastructure — road infrastructure, in other words — or the softer infrastructure that we need, by which I mean skills. We also need to have the appropriate messaging going out as well because we want to send out a very positive message about Northern Ireland as a place to invest in and to do business in. Whilst we have always had a very talented workforce here in Northern Ireland, as I said on many occasions, we now have the tax proposition as well, so we have tax and talent. We must concentrate on that messaging and get it out across the world.

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

3. Mr Attwood asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for her assessment of the impact on foreign direct investment of reducing the rate of corporation tax in Northern Ireland to 10%. (AQO 7536/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Ultimately, it will be for the Northern Ireland Executive to agree on what any new rate should be set at. Research to date has focused on moving to a reduced rate of 12·5% and demonstrates the significant economic benefits that this can bring, not just in encouraging foreign investment but investment from local firms. An even lower rate of corporation tax would likely be more attractive to investors but would also require a bigger adjustment to the public finances.

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

In answer to the previous question, you rightly referred to the talent of our people in terms of their skills. That point was recognised last week by one of our entrepreneurs, who acknowledged that, because of the skills in Belfast, it has now become a digital capital. Does the Minister recognise that, on the far side of any reduction in corporation tax, there is a risk that regional imbalance will be compounded as businesses are attracted to Belfast because of the cluster of talent in Belfast, which may not exist in other parts of Northern Ireland? Do you recognise that as a risk that is proven by international experience, and will you outline how that risk might be mitigated?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for raising that issue. He will know that capital cities are always different to the regions. That is recognised in the Republic of Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom as well. He mentioned the risks about skills, which is why we must have strong further and higher education colleges across Northern Ireland and for them to be aware of their skills base, what they need to grow their skills base and how they can develop a unique selling point for their regional area.

I do not think that every regional area should go after the same types of job, because it will then become a race to the bottom. It is important, therefore, that everybody identifies their unique selling point. We are starting to have that discussion in the Executive subcommittee on regional opportunities, which has met for the first time. Since that meeting, I have had a very good engagement with Londonderry Chamber of Commerce and many other players in the north-west to try to find out what they feel their unique selling point is. I hope that that will be replicated around Northern Ireland so that we can have differences across Northern Ireland but strongly send out a message of talent and tax.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for her answers so far. Does she believe that we have sufficient skills in the Northern Ireland workforce, especially in my East Londonderry constituency, to attract more foreign direct investment into Northern Ireland?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Skills are vital to attracting high-value foreign direct investment. Our workforce is a key part of that and is what makes us a very successful story for foreign direct investment in the United Kingdom. Now that we have, or will have, corporation tax as a tool in our box, we need to further implement that tax and talent message. That will happen not just in East Londonderry but right across Northern Ireland.

It is a collaborative effort that needs to be taken on not just by Invest Northern Ireland but by other members of the Executive to look at the whole picture of what a constituency has to offer and to work with the super-councils. Invest Northern Ireland is now working more proactively with the new chief executives of the super-councils. It is certainly down to the fact that, for example, regional support initiatives are being devolved to the councils, so there will also be more economic powers for the councils. It is a collaborative effort, and I look forward to working with councils across Northern Ireland.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

I did not intend to quote the Minister's response, but here goes. Does she agree that, along with corporation tax, Project Kelvin and the imminent enterprise zone will create a global unique selling point for Northern Ireland, which happens to be in my constituency in Coleraine?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yes, and I hope that the lower rate of corporation tax will make local areas look at what they have to offer, how they can package that together and market it, and how they can make it better. The Member is right to mention Project Kelvin, because it is an absolutely fabulous story to tell, particularly to our American counterparts, so that they know that information can leave Northern Ireland and get to the east coast of America more quickly than it can go from the east coast to the west coast of America. That is a fabulous story, so I hope that that is the sort of collaborative thinking that will go on across Northern Ireland.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

4. Mr McKay asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for an update on her efforts to secure additional jobs in North Antrim. (AQO 7537/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Invest Northern Ireland continues to support job creation, business growth and investment in North Antrim. Between 1 April 2011 and 30 March 2013, it made 661 offers of support to companies in North Antrim, offering £14 million of assistance, which contributed to total investment in the constituency of over £70 million. That has led to the promotion of 848 new jobs in the area. Invest collaborates with local stakeholders to review the features and benefits of North Antrim to maximise opportunities to secure additional jobs.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Does she agree that Invest NI could do a lot better for North Antrim, especially in comparison with constituencies around Belfast? Will she also agree that, to arrest the decline, North Antrim and, indeed, Ballymena should be prioritised, given the jobs that have gone at the Patton Group and the jobs that will go at Gallaher. Does she agree that North Antrim needs to be a priority area for investment?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I hope that every area is a priority area for Invest Northern Ireland. Indeed, when the Member and other colleagues look at the figures for economic activity in their area, I implore them to look not just at the jobs created through foreign direct investment but at those created through local indigenous companies and, indeed, at start-ups in their own area. North Antrim has had a huge number of start-ups — 1,554 — over time. That is 178 indigenous start-ups per 10,000 of the population. That shows a very entrepreneurial spirit in North Antrim. The unemployment rate is one of the lower rates in Northern Ireland, sitting at 3·6%, as opposed to the Northern Ireland rate of 5·7%. So, I am sure that the Member will want to be positive about his constituency and what it has to offer.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Can I quote the Minister some other figures that came from her in answer to Assembly questions? In the last five years, North Antrim has had eight foreign direct investment visits. In the latest figures, which are for 2014, North Antrim had one of the lowest levels of Invest NI contribution, at 1·9% of the whole of what was invested in Northern Ireland. In the last three years, North Antrim has had —

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

Sorry, can the Member please come to a question?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— 574 new jobs compared with 1,310 in the Minister's constituency. Why is she not playing fair by North Antrim?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Again, I say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that Members need to look at the whole picture when they are looking at their own areas and should not pick out statistics that suit their negative agenda. It is disappointing that Members do not want to be positive about their own area, because when foreign direct investors look at an area, they look at what its representatives are saying about it. That is true not just for North Antrim but, indeed, for other areas in Northern Ireland. So, if a negativity is coming out of that particular area, they will know that the people are not pro-business, that they do not want to move ahead and that they are looking at the negative points in their constituency. The Member needs to look at all the statistics on North Antrim, not just some.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Eight visits.

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

Order, please. I remind Members on both sides and at the back of the House not to make remarks from a sedentary position.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Whilst other representatives of North Antrim play the area down, I most certainly will play the area up. We have some great indigenous companies in North Antrim and throughout County Antrim, which benefits all our constituents. What is the Minister doing to help those companies to grow and to find new export markets?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I think that the emphasis should be on looking to those new export markets for our indigenous companies. That is why we spend a lot of our time looking for new markets and bringing companies through to new markets. Just today, SDC Trailers announced that it was doing significant business in Saudi Arabia. Whilst that is not a company from County Antrim, it is from not too far away. That is a very good pointer to other firms that they need to get out and to sell into those markets, because that brings jobs to the local area. I have seen that happen with Wrightbus, obviously, which is a stellar company in the Member's constituency. I have also seen it with Randox next door in South Antrim, which recently announced 540 new jobs for the area. That is not just for the town of Antrim, of course, although it will very much welcome it; it is for the wider area as well. So, there is some very good news about indigenous companies in Northern Ireland.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

5. Mr Campbell asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, following the staging of several high-profile international events, to outline how Tourism Northern Ireland plans to build on visitor numbers. (AQO 7538/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

International events such as the Irish Open and Giro d'Italia attract large numbers of visitors, showcase Northern Ireland on a global stage and give us the opportunity to drive further visitor numbers through the positive perception that they create. Tourism Northern Ireland has successfully used major events to profile Northern Ireland as a visitor destination through award-winning marketing campaigns.

However, marketing and promotion is just one aspect. To grow visitor numbers and, more importantly, visitor spend, we need to ensure that we invest in the product offering, develop visitor-inspired experiences and increase the capacity and competitiveness of our tourism industry. These are key work streams for Tourism Northern Ireland, which will continue to successfully use global iconic events as a catalyst for tourism development and growth.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

There is nothing like being prepared. The Minister will be aware that the Open is due to come to Royal Portrush in the next few years. Hopefully it will be a very successful event for all of Northern Ireland. Will she plan not just for the preparation for the Open, which I know is well under way, but for the success that would follow such a magnificent event?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yes, absolutely. It is appropriate, when the Member asks me a question, that I mark today the passing of one of tourism's great ambassadors in Northern Ireland, Martin McCrossan. Let me pass on my deepest sympathy to Martin's wife Sharon and his family. He was a great ambassador in the Member's city and brought many tours around the city's walls. We will miss him dreadfully from tourism in Northern Ireland.

Work has already begun on the infrastructure for the Open. Indeed, some money is set aside in the budget this year for infrastructure works. That will continue, and then we will look to build on that. I hope that it is not a one-off, Mr Campbell. I hope that it is the start of our being on the rota for a good number of years. I have every confidence that Royal Portrush will be able to deliver that.

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

As the Minister well knows, when you are trying on an all-island basis to attract the likes of sporting tourism etc into areas, particularly around south Down, where a fine example will happen now in May, the lack of available bed space to attract major events is a huge problem. What will Invest NI do to try to open up investment to those who are looking to bring extra bed space to the likes of south Down in particular?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As the Member knows, Invest Northern Ireland deals with tourist accommodation grants. Of course, it is ready and willing to work with any private sector company that comes forward with a tourist accommodation programme. Unfortunately, there have not been any to date. I did notice that my ministerial colleague has been doing some work in and around Portrush on tourist accommodation. I have not had the opportunity to speak to him on whether he intends to look elsewhere as well. Maybe that is something that the Member would like to follow up with him.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

6. Mr Elliott asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for her assessment of the economic legacy of hosting the G8 summit held on 17-18 June 2013 at the Lough Erne Resort, County Fermanagh. (AQO 7539/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The G8 summit provided Northern Ireland with the opportunity to reach a new and diverse global audience with an entirely new message about Northern Ireland and its people, landscape and economy. The benefits associated with an event such as the G8 summit are focused on the increased investment, tourism and trade opportunities that the global exposure might present.

Northern Ireland immediately capitalised on the exposure generated by the G8 summit by hosting a very successful investment conference in October 2013. I was also encouraged to note in the final evaluation report that 71% of the Northern Ireland tourism industry believe that the G8 will impact positively on the future growth of tourism in Northern Ireland.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for that update. Prior to the G8's coming to Fermanagh, was the Minister given any assurances about improvements to mobile telecommunications? If so, was that borne out after the G8 was over?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We were given the assurance during the event that there would be the appropriate telecoms in place to deal with such a major event, because one thing that we wanted to ensure was that people did not leave the event feeling that they were in a backwater and were not able to use the telecoms there. That worked very well indeed, through BT and other providers. I have been somewhat disappointed by the level of infrastructure that was left after the G8 summit. I am hoping that the mobile infrastructure project, which of course is a national project, will enhance that coverage again. We will keep a very close eye on that project to ensure that it delivers for us.

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

That ends the period for listed questions. We will now move on to topical questions.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

T1. Mr Craig asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for an update on the increased roll-out of high-speed broadband in Northern Ireland, which makes rural businesses competitive on the national and international stage, meaning that the Minister should be congratulated on the broadband roll-out in Lagan Valley, where 400 homes have received the service in Annahilt, with a further 200 homes benefitting in the Temple area and, more importantly, 20 businesses now able to compete internationally. (AQT 2081/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his question and for letting me know that he wanted to address this issue. It is important that I give the House an update on the broadband improvement project. The project is being delivered in eight phases with the objective of providing basic fixed-line broadband services of at least 2 megabits per second, in areas that previously have had no service, and improvements in the availability of superfast fixed-line broadband as well. By 31 December 2014, over 17,500 premises had benefited from the improvements being delivered. The project is on track to deliver benefits for 30,000 premises by 31 March this year, and we anticipate that in excess of 45,000 premises will have benefited by the completion, as of 31 December 2015. It has been a good intervention to try to help those people who have not, to date, been able to access the appropriate level of broadband support.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister very much for that answer. The project has been very successful. I can testify that I have had a 148 fourfold increase in my own internet speed, so thank you Minister.

What impact does the Minister believe that this will have on rural businesses in particular?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

We still use pigeons in east Antrim.

[Laughter.]

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am aware of five businesses in my locality that are now doing international business because of that connection. Do you feel that this will have a benefit for other businesses in other rural localities?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Such as east Antrim? Yes. Obviously, we pride ourselves on being able to do business across the world, but to be able to do that we have to have a presence online. I have been to many small businesses that are growing at a very fast rate and that is down to their telecoms infrastructure. When I talk about infrastructure and the need for good infrastructure across Northern Ireland, I do not just talk about roads infrastructure, although that is of course critical; I talk also about telecoms infrastructure, because it is important that we communicate with the rest of the world, and we are hoping that this will enable many businesses to do so.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

T2. Mr Spratt asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to move from pigeons to the creative industries and join him in congratulating the creative industries in Northern Ireland, particularly those that have had major success in recent days. (AQT 2082/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Let me send my congratulations, first of all, to those behind 'Boogaloo and Graham'. From what I have seen of the two chickens, I very much want to see the rest of the film, which had such success at the BAFTA awards for best short film on Sunday. It was a tremendous endorsement of the creative industries here in Northern Ireland, and I understand that the short film has also been nominated for an Oscar at the Academy awards. Just today, we learn that Sixteen South, which is a Belfast-based animation company, has won a television award as well for its preschool children's series, 'Lily's Driftwood Bay'. It took the best preschool programme category in the American broadcast awards this week. So there has been a tremendous international endorsement of our creative industries in Northern Ireland.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for that answer. Will you continue to work with the industry to make sure that there is continued success in that area?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Absolutely, because, of course, 'Boogaloo and Graham' was funded by Northern Ireland Screen. Invest Northern Ireland is the single largest funder of Northern Ireland Screen. The Member is probably aware of the fact that, last March, we launched the Opening Doors strategy for Northern Ireland Screen, and, through that, we intend to continue to grow our creative industries, for the sector itself and also for the tourism benefits that we receive from the creative sector. I will, of course, mention the impact of 'Game of Thrones' on the tourism sector. That continues to grow month on month, and I very much welcome that.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

T3. Mr Wilson asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment what money her Department has made available to BT to improve broadband and fibre-optic cables across Northern Ireland, given that, unlike in Lagan Valley, which was praised by Mr Craig, in parts of East Antrim, broadband is unheard of to the extent that, rather than using broadband, people would be better sending messages by shooting them using an elastic band. (AQT 2083/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am sorry to tell the Member that I do not have the total amount here, but I will, of course, write to him with the total amount that we have funded because, over my time, we have made a number of interventions in the telecoms infrastructure and the broadband infrastructure. I know that he is frustrated about some of the areas in East Antrim, but the Northern Ireland broadband infrastructure project will roll out across East Antrim as well. It may not be in the early stages of the project, but, as I indicated, there are eight phases to the project and, therefore, his area may be in a later stage.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

When she is looking at how the programme will roll out in the future, will the Minister be cognisant that there are eight industrial areas in Northern Ireland — enterprise estates etc — that do not have access to fibre-optic broadband and, indeed, many rural industries and firms that do not have access and that that prevents their expansion? Will she ensure that BT gives some priority to those kinds of areas and activities?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I cannot force BT to acknowledge that because it is a commercial organisation, but, in the contract under which it operates for government funding, yes, we can certainly encourage it to look at those areas. The Member is right to mention the industrial parks, because we need to look at our industrial parks to make sure that we have the correct telecoms and roads infrastructure. Electricity infrastructure in our industrial parks is another area that I think we very much need to look at because — this is a big issue — if an area does not have the appropriate level of electricity supply, that can very much put somebody off investing in that area. We need to look at that, and I have been talking to Invest Northern Ireland about how we can bring all those issues together and try to address them.

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

T4. Mrs D Kelly asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment how customer satisfaction with the supply of rural broadband is measured, albeit that she hates to labour the issue of rural broadband but it is a big issue in her area, part of which — Aghalee — is shared with the Member for Lagan Valley who will be well aware that, in Aghalee, Aghagallon, the Birches, Maghery and many other rural areas, broadband continues to be very poor. (AQT 2084/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Often through Members addressing me in the House in relation to their constituents reflecting that they do not have the appropriate level. We have come a long way with broadband in Northern Ireland. We are often held out as an exemplar region in the UK for how broadband has been rolled out. As we reach those harder-to-reach areas, it will become more and more difficult to provide the service that those people want. I had an instance in my constituency where a business was located very close to the motorway but, because it was attached to a different cabinet than the cabinet just up the road, it was not getting the appropriate speed. A re-engineering solution is often needed, specifically to ask BT which cabinet the customer is connected to. Again, I am happy to have any conversations or receive any representations in respect of that.

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

I welcome the Minister's commitment to hearing our concerns. Could she outline how the contract is monitored and whether or not any penalties are to be incurred by the successful contractor, which I believe is BT?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It has to provide the appropriate level of Internet speed to a certain number of houses. It is a black-and-white issue. It has to supply Internet speeds at that level. That is why I talked about figures in my answer to Mr Craig and outlined the number of houses and businesses that will be connected. That is how it is monitored. I can accept that the Member is frustrated about pockets in her constituency, but, as I say, I am happy to discuss those with her.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

T5. Mr Newton asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment whether she believes that there is still room for additional hotel space in the Belfast area, given that the number and quality of hotels in Northern Ireland has seen a significant increase in what is offered to tourists and the business community. (AQT 2085/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I believe that there is still room, as does the market. A number of developers are looking at hotel opportunities in the Belfast area. There are currently 29 hotels in the Belfast City Council area — there are probably more in greater Belfast — providing over 6,500 rooms. We would like to encourage more hotel space. Obviously, we have benefited from not having the over-provision that there was in the Republic of Ireland. That is good, because, now that we are in a more stable environment, we can have sustainable growth. I certainly hope that that is what is happening.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

Will the Minister confirm whether there is still general interest in the iconic building in which the Titanic was designed, known as the Harland and Wolff drawing offices, and whether there is potential to convert it into a hotel?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I understand that there is still potential and that an application has been made to the Heritage Lottery Fund for £5 million towards the restoration of the historic building and its conversion into a boutique hotel. Negotiations are under way with the private sector regarding the remainder of the money. That would really open up the building, because, unfortunately, it is accessible at the moment only as part of a walking tour or organised event. It would be marvellous to see that building opened up to the public so that we could benefit from the fabulous heritage and, indeed, architecture.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

T6. Mr McCartney asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment how she believes subregional business development and job creation will inform the corporate plan, about which the chief executive of INI had a very constructive meeting in Derry last Friday, which included a wide-ranging discussion about the corporate plan going forward. (AQT 2086/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The chief executive was following up on a very successful visit that I made to the city a couple of weeks beforehand, when I met with business leaders. I was very impressed with their very positive approach to developing the region. They, of course, welcomed the fact that we had set up an Executive subcommittee to look at regional opportunities. It is going to be a good vehicle, not just for Invest Northern Ireland and my Department but for a number of other Departments, particularly when it comes to infrastructure and skills.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for her answer. We all recognise the importance of the ministerial subgroup. Does she believe that a subregional approach is the best way in which to tackle regional disparity?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The super-councils will provide us with an opportunity to look at the 11 parts of Northern Ireland and their plans. Obviously, how they wish to see their area develop economically will be part of their new community plans, and, because of that, there will be more collaboration with Invest Northern Ireland. I plead again with Members to work proactively with their council and Invest Northern Ireland to find a unique selling point for their area, which we can then sell across the world and use to bring in inward investors.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

T7. Mr Ross asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for an update on her recent trade mission to the Middle East. (AQT 2087/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The trade mission was a hugely successful one. We had a number of companies out with us for Arab Health, which is a very large trade promotion from the health industry. We were also with Queen's University when it signed an important contract with Dubai Healthcare City that allows Queen's to develop the Dubai Healthcare City campus. That is going to be really fundamental for that area. We also took the opportunity to work with some other sectors, such as food and, as I already indicated, manufacturing, through SDC Trailers. It was a hugely successful trip, and I was very pleased with the number of people on it.

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

I am afraid that time is up. We must now move on to questions to the Minister of the Environment.

Oral Answers to Questions — Environment

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

Questions 4, 10 and 15 have been withdrawn.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

1. Mr Douglas asked the Minister of the Environment, following the work being undertaken through the Connswater Community Greenway project in East Belfast, how he plans to assist the efforts of local communities to achieve good water quality outcomes for the Connswater, Knock and Loop rivers. (AQO 7548/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

In December 2009, DOE published the 2009-15 'North Eastern River Basin Management Plan', which identifies where the water environment needs to be protected or improved, the time frame to make those improvements and how that can be achieved. As the first 2009-15 cycle is drawing to a close, a second cycle management plan will be published in December this year, and the draft is available on the DOE website.

The plan is implemented at a local level through a Lagan local management area action plan, which covers the Connswater, Knock and Loop rivers. Those rivers are contained in the Connswater river water body, which has been modified due to extensive flood-risk management. The water quality is classified as poor, and the objective is to improve it to moderate by 2021.

The Belfast and Lagan catchment stakeholder group provides a public forum for stakeholders, such as the East Belfast Partnership, to discuss water management issues and work in partnership with government agencies to address them. My officials have been involved with the partnership, Rivers Agency and Belfast City Council on improvements in the Victoria and Orangefield parks and on the Knock river, such as the realignment of the river channel, introducing natural meanders, bank projection and marginal planting to help to improve water quality. My Department is also working with Rivers Agency to help to ensure that the Connswater Community Greenway flood-alleviation scheme delivers maximum benefits to water quality.

I am pleased that, through my Department's challenge fund and support, the Connswater Community Greenway team and the Field Studies Council have been able to develop outdoor classroom materials for schools and community groups to access.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his answer and extend to him an invitation to visit the Connswater Community Greenway. I know that he tried to get there before, but there was bad weather. Does the Minister have any other measures planned to improve the water quality of the three rivers that he outlined?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr Douglas for his question and supplementary. He is quite right: I intended to visit Mrs Wendy Langham, the programme manager of the East Belfast Partnership, last month, but the visit was cancelled due to snow. However, I will endeavour to get back out there as soon as it warms up a bit.

As for other measures that we have planned to improve water quality, my officials will continue to support the local communities by following up on and investigating pollution problems in the area. My officials will continue to liaise with the East Belfast Partnership to include the pollution hotline number on interpretive signage in the area. River catchment investigations will continue to be carried out by my officials to monitor the impact of agricultural practices and industrial discharges. Information leaflets have been distributed at events in East Belfast to help householders to improve the water quality in their area.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

2. Mr Allister asked the Minister of the Environment how current planning provision allows for the evaluation of large-scale solar farm applications. (AQO 7549/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

My Department determines planning applications for all renewable energy developments on a case-by-case basis against the provisions of planning policy statement 18 on renewable energy, its supplementary best practice guidance and all other material considerations. PPS 18 provides for the evaluation of all development that seeks to harness energy from renewables, including energy derived from solar. It aims to facilitate the siting of renewable energy generating facilities in appropriate locations in the built and natural environment.

The best practice guidance for PPS 18 also provides background information and guidance on active and thermal solar technology. I am aware of the benefits of solar energy. The sun is a natural energy source; it does not require the burning of fossil fuels and the associated air emissions. The energy produced from the sun does not deplete any natural resources. Therefore, it is considered to be environmentally friendly. Active solar photovoltaic technology can generate electricity from daylight. It can be freestanding, roof-mounted or used as a building material in its own right. My Department's policy and guidance ensures that, while the wider environmental, economic and social benefits of renewable energy developments will be given significant weight in determining whether planning permission should be granted, the environmental, landscape, visual and amenity impacts associated with such developments also need to be assessed.

I am aware that large-scale solar energy development is a matter of growing concern and it is my intention to ensure that the final strategic planning policy statement (SPPS) provides an appropriate level of strategic direction in relation to solar energy development.

I have also recently instructed officials to prepare practice notes for planning staff in relation to the handling of renewable energy proposals, including wind and solar developments. That will greatly assist in dealing with these proposals.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Does the Minister, therefore, accept that PPS 18 is not fit for purpose when it comes to dealing with large-scale solar farm applications such as the intended 250-acre application at Kells? In light of that, and the fact that he speaks of the need for further guidance, would it not be appropriate now to impose a moratorium on considering such applications until an adequate policy is in place?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for the question and the supplementary. The application to which he refers is, to my knowledge, not yet an application. We have, however, received indications of a forthcoming application. When or if it arrives, it will be assessed by my Department using PPS 18 or its successor in the SPPS. My Department is currently finalising the strategic planning policy statement for Northern Ireland, which seeks to shape clear and concise planning policy, setting out the purpose of planning and core principles for the new two-tier reformed planning system.

As I said in my initial answer, large-scale solar energy development is a matter of growing concern, and I intend to provide an appropriate level of strategic direction for solar energy in the final SPPS. Hopefully, that will be published within the next six weeks. It remains my intention to finalise the SPPS, as I said, in the very near future. As I have also previously indicated, I have instructed officials to prepare practice notes for planning staff in relation to the handling of solar energy proposals.

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

Go raibh math agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire chomh maith as a fhreagraí go dtí seo. Can the Minister give us any indication as to the time frame for the Minister's review and the production of the SPPS? Can he also tell us if measures are going to be built into it around renewables and the context of how policy may apply in protected areas or areas of outstanding natural beauty?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

As I already outlined, it is my intention to finalise the SPPS prior to the transfer of functions in April. We have most of the work done. There are still bits of it that need tweaked — in my opinion, improved — and one of those areas is around PPS 18. Of course, the issues that the Member raises around sensitive and special landscapes are taken very seriously by my Department. That will be reflected in the final SPPS in how we deal with current applications on renewable energy and how councils will be expected to deal with renewable energy applications in the future.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

As the Minister knows, most renewable energy comes from wind turbines. What measures is he taking to encourage alternative sources so that there is a mix of different renewable energy potentials?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Chair of the Committee for her question. She is quite right to identify that the majority of our renewable energy comes from wind. Currently, of the energy produced in Northern Ireland, 19·6% comes from renewable sources, and the vast majority of that is from wind. As for what I am doing as Minister of the Environment to encourage alternative sources, I believe that I can do that through planning policy and guidance. While we encourage, and we all should embrace, renewable technology, it is vital that, in planning policy statements and guidance issued by my officials and me, we protect the natural environment as well as recognising the wider environmental and economic benefits of renewable energy. Incentives are offered by another Department for various renewable energy initiatives, and questions as to exactly how that is done would probably be better directed towards Minister Foster.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I speak as a supporter of solar energy; however, there is a remarkable lack of regulation for these applications. There are applications in the system for Rasharkin, and there is a forthcoming application for Kells as well. Can the Minister give an assurance that they will not be considered under PPS 18 alone, and will the views of the residents in those areas be fed into the publications that you will put out in the next six weeks?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I would like to think that the views of residents, objectors and stakeholders across the North have already been factored into the SPPS; it was subject to extensive consultation and attracted over 700 responses. Of the applications to which the Member refers, one has been made, and the other is yet to arrive. I know that the Member had sought a meeting with me on that project, which I was not able to grant, given that there is no existing application. However, if an application comes in I will be more than happy to meet the Member and, indeed, the local people whose concerns he believes should be taken on board. As well as visual amenity impacts and landscape issues, the views of objectors and supporters are all material considerations when dealing with any planning application. Planning applications for renewable energy are no different in that regard.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

As one who sees the potential of solar farms, particularly on an industrial scale, I want to know whether the Minister is assured that there is expertise in his Department and the Planning Service to deal with these applications. Can he tell the House that there will be specific measures in the new SPPS on proximity to homes and a measurement for that? In addition, has he done any calculations on what large-scale solar farms will mean for the bills that industry has to pay?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his questions and welcome his support for solar energy. The issues that he raises, such as separation distances and so forth will, obviously, be incorporated as they are currently for wind energy. People in the Chamber and outside it have different views on whether the separation distances enshrined in that policy are sufficient. However, the SPPS has given us an opportunity to review those matters, and we will have to wait and see what the outcome of those deliberations is in the next six weeks. I am hopeful that my answers on this subject have shed some light on the issue, and I look forward to discussing it further upon the publication of the SPPS. The issues raised by Members today will be taken on board in the finalisation of that document.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

3. Ms Boyle asked the Minister of the Environment how councillors in the shadow councils are being trained ahead of assuming greater planning responsibilities. (AQO 7550/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

A series of training events was rolled out across councils from early September 2014 to late January 2015. The sessions covered an overview of planning for councillors; development plans and working with the community; practical planning and propriety; and outcomes for the code of conduct. The training was facilitated and delivered by senior planning staff, staff from other Departments and outside bodies, including the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, and representatives from other jurisdictions with knowledge and experience of similar planning systems. The training programme was developed to help to prepare those attending to understand the new planning system, the processes involved in making planning decisions, and the need to comply with ethical standards.

At a local level, the Department continues to work closely with the new councils to provide training and guidance through, for example, working with the shadow planning committees or facilitating mock planning committee meetings, which planning staff and councillors have attended.

The area planning managers are also taking responsibility for preparing, training and educating their staff for the change. Ongoing training for planners on the new two-tier planning system will continue to be delivered over the coming months to ensure that all involved in the new system have the necessary skills and competence to ensure the system is delivered effectively from day 1. Locally, each new council has developed a training plan and has been allocated £100,000 to meet the needs identified in that plan. That will provide training to cover new councillor induction and governance arrangements as well as organisational design.

As well as the training given by councils and planning headquarters, regional training continues, covering areas such as community planning, via a contract with Community Places, and the new councillor code of conduct. Funding has also supported community planning workshops for all stakeholders involved in the process. Added to that, funding has been made available for developing a communications strategy in preparation for the transfer.

Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for his answer. Can he outline how councillors are being trained and skilled to specifically address issues of flexibility that may or will affect rural councillors and will apply to rural councils when adjudicating on applications from non-farming dwellers?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for the question and the supplementary. Obviously, there will be different needs in different council areas and for different councillors. Until now, the training has focused on the core ethics of planning and the basic knowledge that councillors, particularly those on the planning committees, will require to discharge their new responsibilities.

I am very aware of the issue that Ms Boyle raised. I notice that Mr McElduff is sat beside her; he probably gave her a kick to ask about non-farming dwellers. Flexibility will be afforded to councils in the formation and formulation of their new local development plans so that they can reflect very specific local needs in those final plans.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

How confident is the Minister that a level of maturity exists within the local councils to reach planning decisions that will affect the entire community? I ask that, given the level of immaturity that has been displayed in some councils in trying to arrive at the name of the council. I am particularly thinking of the nationalist councillors who seem to 100% oppose unionism in Londonderry and Strabane, and in one or two other councils.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I very much welcome a question on immaturity from an expert on it.

[Laughter.]

I am confident that, through the guidance issued by my Department, the ongoing training — training that I am sure councils will be willing to continue after the transfer of functions — and through the establishment of and adherence to the code of conduct, the councillors will adhere to that and make their planning judgements based on planning policy and planning guidance. Should they not, they will be leaving themselves open to legal challenge.

I do not anticipate the transition being easy. As someone who has recently enough made the transition from lobbying on planning issues to making planning decisions, I recognise that a huge degree of growing up is required.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answers so far. I imagine that he is not satisfied with how all the training is going, because in the comments we are getting from councillors, particularly about DETI and DSD, there is concern that little powers are being transferred because there is little contact between those Departments and the councillors. Will the Minister work with his Executive colleagues to make sure that more training happens and that it is all up to scratch?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for the question, which is very pertinent. A lot of focus has been on planning as a transferring function, but there are other functions that are transferring. Last week, I chaired the second meeting of the partnership panel, which allows for political discussion between elected members of the 11 new councils and Ministers.

They had and will continue to have a lot of questions on other transferring functions, one of which is the transfer of off-street car parking. In a lot of instances, the councils are not overly enamoured with the funding that comes with that function. From a DOE perspective, however, I have ring-fenced the planning budget to transfer with that function, so it has not been subject to the cuts imposed throughout the year in monitoring rounds and budgetary cuts and has actually had a detrimental effect on the rest of my departmental spend.

DRD is transferring. DETI is transferring an important function in local economic development and tourism, and I believe that councillors also require further training in that field. However, the best training that anyone can get for any job is to do it. I have every confidence that what councillors do not know on 1 April, they will not be long finding out.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

5. Mr Elliott asked the Minister of the Environment what discussions he has held with the Minister of Finance and Personnel in relation to ratepayers who are facing increased rate bills because of the amalgamation of council areas and the redrawing of local government boundaries. (AQO 7552/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

As Members will be aware, my predecessor secured a commitment from the Executive of £30 million for a rates convergence scheme specifically to alleviate the impact on ratepayers who would have experienced a sudden increase in their rates as a result of the formation of the 11 new councils. In addition, my officials have been working closely with colleagues in DFP and local government to ensure that the immediate impact on ratepayers as a result of reform will be minimised. Last November, the Minister of Finance and Personnel announced the details of the scheme, which will provide direct support to domestic and non-domestic ratepayers who would otherwise have faced sudden and excessive increases in their rates bills because of the current differences between the rates set by the existing councils. It will be phased in over the next four-year term of the councils, with an 80% reduction in the increased portion of the next year's bills, followed by subsidies of 60%, 40% and 20% in the remaining years of the scheme. Upwards of 200,000 ratepayers will benefit, with discounts automatically applied.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for that update. Has he any recent information or has he received an update on the difference between Fermanagh and Omagh councils? If so, does he have any idea how much finance will go into that area out of the £30 million this year?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I wonder did the Member wonder whether I had any further information since he asked me that during my last Question Time.

The rates convergence scheme will address only the increases in rates bills that are a direct result of the creation of the new, larger councils. Over the years, differences have built up in the district rates chargeable by Fermanagh District Council and Omagh District Council. The district rates chargeable by Omagh District Council have, as the Member is well aware, been higher than for Fermanagh District Council.

By the use of the funding increments that I outlined of 80%, 60%, 40% and 20% over the next four financial years, the rates convergence scheme is expected to benefit 30,000 Fermanagh ratepayers whose bills may experience a slight increase as a result of merging with Omagh council. In real terms, that will translate into a discount of £40 or £50 off their rates bills.

Phil Flanagan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answers. Will he indicate when ratepayers in Fermanagh will know their final rates bill, given that the district rate has not yet been set and the Executive have not set their regional rate, so ratepayers will have to wait for the convergence fund to be rolled out? Does he have any indicative time when people will know exactly how much they will pay?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for that question. I am not sure when the councils intend to strike their rate. However, I have furnished them with any information that I can to allow them to do so before the 15 February deadline that is statutorily imposed on and expected from all councils. I have, therefore, told them what they will get from my Department by way of the rates support grant. It is regrettable that that has had to be cut by 15·1% this year. Again, that is an issue that quite a few council representatives on the partnership panel raised.

The striking of the regional rate is clearly an issue for the Minister of Finance and Personnel, but it is vital that we move quickly so that people can have that certainty as early as possible.

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

Will the Minister indicate the impact of rates convergence and reductions in rates support for Derry City and Strabane District Council, given the brutal reduction in the Department of the Environment's funding?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for that question. I recently met and, indeed, regularly meet representatives of that immaturely named council. At my most recent meeting with them, they raised the impact of the revaluation of non-domestic properties, as well as rates convergence and the rates support grant that will be payable to Derry and Strabane in the next financial year. Subsequently, at my request, the council sent me a detailed case study setting out the specific details. There is a real anomaly in that area due to the rates revaluation that has seen a huge hike in Strabane's non-residential rates. That matter was also raised with the Finance Minister at the partnership panel meeting last week, and I believe that he is meeting a deputation from that council this afternoon.

As the revaluation of non-domestic properties and rates convergence are rating policy issues, I have written to the Finance Minister asking him to consider the details that the council has raised. I indicated to him that I would be receptive to any constructive proposals that he may have to resolve the matter.

Given the financial pressures that my Department faces — I know that, as a member of the Environment Committee, the Member is well aware of them — including a pressure of an estimated £3 million in payment of the de-rating grant, it has not been possible to protect the rates support grant from cuts. Therefore, the budget for rates support has been reduced to £15·5 million this year. That means that Derry and Strabane will be getting just over £3 million in real terms, but that is a reduction of over half a million pounds from what they were getting last year.

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

6. Mrs Cochrane asked the Minister of the Environment what measures he is taking to improve road safety for motorcyclists. (AQO 7553/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

My Department has lead responsibility, working with our road safety partners, including the Department for Regional Development and the PSNI, for Northern Ireland’s road safety strategy to 2020. Action measures in the strategy for motorcyclist safety include establishing a motorcycle safety forum comprising representatives of relevant public-sector organisations and groups representing motorcyclists; researching the conspicuity and visibility of motorcyclists; improvements to training and awareness techniques; and consideration of technology to help improve safety.

I can report that my Department has convened the motorcycle safety forum, which is now working on the development of a motorcycling safety strategy. I am confident that, working with other statutory agencies and the motorcycling groups, we can make significant progress to address this important road safety issue. Action measures relevant to motorcycle safety that have already been implemented include compulsory basic training for new riders. Staged testing for new motorcycle riders dependent on their age was also implemented as part of the third EU directive on driver licences.

My Department is acutely aware of the rise in motorcyclist fatalities in recent years. There were four motorcyclist deaths in 2012, which is the lowest figure on record. Since then, there has been an increase, with 10 motorcyclists killed in 2013, rising to 13 riders and one pillion passenger last year. In the light of that increase, I commissioned a statistical review to determine early areas of intervention to address casualty levels. In addition, my Department commissioned research to support decisions on early interventions to improve motorcyclist safety. A range of possible interventions was explored. The outcome of the research was that campaign advertising, as an early intervention, was the best way to address the issue. I have therefore commissioned a new motorcylists' safety campaign.

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

I am afraid, Mrs Cochrane, that we do not have time for a supplementary. We need to move on to topical questions.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

T1. Mr Hazzard asked the Minister of the Environment why all the beaches on the north Down coastline have been granted EU bathing status, while only one beach from the dozens of beaches on the Lecale coastline in south Down has been granted such a status. (AQT 2091/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his question. We are blessed across the North to have so many beautiful beaches, and it is incumbent on us all to do what we can to keep them beautiful and, in many cases, make them more beautiful. Regarding the designation to which the Member referred, I am not sure why that is the case. I am personally familiar with the beautiful beaches of the Member's constituency, and I will establish the rationale behind those designations and why more awards have not been made in south Down. I am happy to meet the Member at a later date — or a sooner date — to discuss that with relevant officials.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his response. Of course, one reason why bathing status has not been granted is the unacceptable situation that raw sewage is still being pumped into some of the waters, especially around Ballyhornan. It is an indictment of the Department of the Environment that, in 2015, in a tourism-heavy area such as south Down, only one beach out of dozens on the Lecale coastline has that EU status. I would like to see a project of work from the Department of the Environment to bring this subject forward. Will the Minister be willing to do that?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for that supplementary. I am certainly prepared to do anything, as I said, to improve the standard of beaches and bathing water, not only in south Down but across the North. I am, indeed, aware of the issues regarding water quality to which the Member referred. My Department has been working on the issue. We have been working with many other partners, not least DRD and Northern Ireland Water, which have quite a bit to answer for regarding water quality or lack thereof in some of the areas to which the Member referred.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

T2. Mr F McCann asked the Minister of the Environment to outline the extent of any discussions between his Department and the Department for Social Development on the need to zone additional land in west Belfast for social housing. (AQT 2092/11-15)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his question. Having sat on the Social Development Committee with the Member for a couple of years, I am sure that he will be aware that I share his passion for social housing provision. The planning system, as the Member is aware, does not deliver social housing, which is largely a matter for DSD, the Housing Executive, the various housing associations and others. However, the planning system can assist by allocating land for social housing and development plans and by taking decisions on planning applications having regard to existing planning policy, such as Planning Policy Statement 12, 'Housing in Settlements'.

The Member has raised before the fact that he would like to have seen in, for example, the Belfast metropolitan area plan (BMAP), more land zoned for social housing. At that time, I referred to the fact that just because land is not specifically zoned for social housing but is zoned for general housing does not mean that it cannot or will not be used, ultimately, for social housing. If an application for social housing were to come forward on any of those zoned areas, it would be treated just the same as an application for general housing on those areas. It is our belief that, in BMAP, there is sufficient zoning for social housing, albeit that I am well aware of the demand for social housing, not least in the Member's constituency. It is a demand that is shared by my constituency.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Minister for his response. He will know that my constituency has the worst housing waiting list: over 3,000 people are waiting for housing. Hostels in and around the general Belfast area are packed with people from that constituency. It has the highest number of pensioners and young people waiting for houses, but it is continually squeezed by the lack of land.

It is a matter of urgency that the Minister and the Minister for Social Development sit down and look at ways —