Northern Ireland Assembly, 30 June 2015

480 contributions from 70 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Ms Claire Sugden has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member will have up to three minutes to speak on the subject.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to present a petition of 13,599 signatures that urges the Minister to re-evaluate his decision to cut funding to early years services.

Early years education is a building block — an unsung building block — for the future of any child. The Minister's announcement of cuts of nearly £2 million to the early years fund stunned groups: it shell-shocked them. Many operate within the community and voluntary sector, which has already been an easy and nonsensical target for Executive cuts. The cut was not in the draft Budget. It was under-thought and an attempt to trim fat, yet, with early years, there was only skin and bones to begin with.

For some, this is the only funding that they will receive, and, without it, they will not be able to provide vital services for children, families and communities. I have heard from 16 funded groups in my constituency and other groups across Northern Ireland. This cut will devastate them.

I am concerned that the Minister does not fully grasp the impact of the decision. My biggest concern is that he does not understand the impact on early intervention. This is not about childcare, and if he believes it to be so, then he is more uninformed than the House realises. It is not simply a preschool issue either, because whilst 16,000 preschool places were provided under early years in 2014-15, there were also 900 crèche places for children aged nought to three. One hundred and seventy-seven jobs will be lost — jobs that were mainly for women — in the most disadvantaged areas of our communities. Mums who have been able to go back to work because of the early years provision, particularly in rural areas in my constituency and in constituencies across Northern Ireland, now face the prospect of being unable to stay in employment. That is not equality. Eighteen hundred single-parent families will be directly impacted, and 620 places for children with special needs and 250 places for children whose first language is not English will be lost. Those are the most vulnerable in our society.

There is no indication of funding beyond August 2015. Staff are being put on protective notice right now. They need to be able to plan for the year ahead. You cannot apply a clinical, quantitative solution to budgetary problems. It is not simply a £2 million saving; it is a decision that will impact on families and communities and that will shift pressures on other areas. The lack of thought for the wider ramifications of cutting the early years fund is severely counterproductive, and I urge the Minister to reconsider, as do the 13,599 people who signed the petition.

Ms Sugden moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

It is a very heavy petition. I will pass it on to the Minister of Education and to the Committee.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Members, in line with yesterday's ruling, if Members are more comfortable in the warm atmosphere that we are presently enjoying, they can feel free to take off their jackets.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

As with similar motions, the motion on Committee membership will be treated as a business motion and there will be no debate.

Resolved:

That the Ulster Unionist Party membership of Assembly Committees for Regional Development, Justice and Enterprise, Trade and Investment be changed in accordance with the proposals laid in the Assembly Business Office by the party on 29 June 2015. — [Mr Swann.]

Ministerial Statements

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement regarding a meeting under the auspices of the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) on cooperation on criminal justice matters held in Armagh on Friday 19 June. I represented the Executive at the meeting with Frances Fitzgerald TD, the Minister for Justice and Equality, who was attending her third meeting under the auspices of the IGA. It was the tenth formal ministerial meeting under the IGA since the devolution of justice in April 2010. As I have previously said in statements to the House, I am committed to keeping the Assembly informed of meetings held under the auspices of the agreement on the same basis as North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) meetings.

The meeting on 19 June provided us both with an opportunity to review final progress against the 2014-15 joint work programme, as well as to formally agree a joint work programme for 2015-16, which will run through to next summer. Discussions also took place about maximising opportunities to access European funding for justice-related initiatives, and it is hoped to revisit that area when we meet again later in the year. In the interim, officials have been tasked with undertaking further exploratory research into appropriate potential European funding streams.

It was pleasing to note the positive progress that has been made across the 2014-15 work programme. Recent negotiations between forensic science services have resulted in agreement in relation to the sharing of DNA profiles, and appropriate protocols are under development. The value of the relationships established between the police services within the criminal justice and social diversity project advisory group was evidenced when an Garda Síochána (AGS) and the PSNI shared extremely helpful insights into best-practice approaches to policing in minority communities.

The annual public protection seminar was successfully held for the fifth time, on 21 November in Dublin. The event also saw the launch of the eleventh edition of the 'Irish Probation Journal'. Plans are advanced for the sixth annual seminar later this year in Belfast. Through the work of the youth justice group, staff exchanges and information sharing between the juvenile detention facilities in the two jurisdictions continue. Those are just some of the examples that demonstrate the excellent ongoing cooperation between criminal justice agencies across the island.

I have attached to the printed version of this statement a copy of the joint work programme for 2015-16. That programme seeks to build on the 2014-15 programme and the progress made last year, but Frances Fitzgerald and I have also sought to sharpen the focus for the project advisory groups by assigning to each of them specific activities with anticipated outcomes. I intend to give a brief progress report in December following our next IGA. In the interim, progress will be monitored by the working group of officials.

In the years following devolution of justice, six project advisory groups have provided the mechanism by which work is taken forward. They have focused on the areas of public protection, registered offenders, youth justice, forensic science, support for victims of crime, and social diversity.

Following recent discussions emanating originally from the public protection and registered offenders project advisory groups, a proposal to merge those two groups was submitted to Frances Fitzgerald and me to consider and approve at our meeting. Our endorsement to the merger was given, and the 2015-16 work programme will be taken forward by five project advisory groups. This sensible merger creates an enhanced public protection group, optimising the use of resources due to the considerable overlap of operational and policy work areas. The public protection group will continue to be co-chaired by the heads of the two probation services, as well as having members drawn from the respective police and prison services.

Each of the project advisory groups has continued to promote and support cooperation across the broad spectrum of criminal justice agencies on both sides of the border. Examples include: work to develop proposals to improve cross-border information-sharing on persons unlawfully at large from custody; the exploration of opportunities for sharing knowledge and good practice in the area of diversity, specifically hate crime; consideration of relevant developments pertaining to the treatment of victims of domestic and sexual abuse and violence, including the outcomes from the Keir Starmer inquiry; examination of the potential for further PSNI/AGS cooperation on diversion in relation to young offenders; and increasing opportunities for enhanced cross-border awareness relating to policing minority communities.

In relation to the management of sex offenders, there continues to be excellent cooperation between the police services at an operational level. This work area has become embedded into normal policing business.

As the Assembly will know, it is not the purpose of the IGA to provide for discussion of cross-border security issues. However, I used the opportunity on 19 June to briefly discuss with Frances Fitzgerald some cross-border security-related issues. These included the work being done in the areas of tackling fuel fraud and human trafficking. I also relayed my appreciation to AGS in supporting the work to tackle ongoing security challenges, particularly the despicable attempted bomb attack on a PSNI officer in Eglinton the day before our meeting.

Following on from previous meetings, the Irish Justice Minister and I discussed ongoing investigations into sexual abuse carried out by paramilitaries and recent reports on how those were dealt with by the justice system in Northern Ireland.

The intergovernmental agreement provides an extremely helpful framework for supporting North/South cooperation on criminal justice matters. We are tangibly experiencing the true benefits of cooperation as individuals within the criminal justice agencies have developed positive and mature working relationships with their respective counterparts. It is that genuine and sincere type of practical cooperation that Frances Fitzgerald and I are both determined to further develop and encourage in striving to keep all the people of this island safe and secure.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

The Minister has highlighted the work of the project advisory groups in promoting and supporting cooperation across the broad spectrum of criminal justice agencies and cited the example of the potential for further PSNI/an Garda Síochána cooperation on diversion in relation to young offenders, an issue in which he knows I have taken a keen interest. Can he provide further information on the extent of the cooperation to date and outline any areas of future cooperation?

Will the Minister also elaborate on the work that is being done to tackle fuel fraud in a meaningful way, given the scale of the problem and the lack of convictions in the past? Can he assure the Assembly that full cooperation and information-sharing is taking place amongst all the agencies and organisations involved in tackling this crime to ensure that we get better results in the future?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Chair for his questions. I will turn first to fuel fraud. As Members may have seen, yesterday I opened a pan-European conference on fuel fraud in the Hilton Hotel. It built very much on the work that has been done over the three years since the last conference, which was also held in Belfast, and led by HMRC and the Irish Office of the Revenue Commissioners with regard to, for example, developing a marker and dealing with the issue of proper management of registered dealers in controlled oils and the equivalent scheme in the Republic. Of course, we have also seen that we now have the potential for referral of unduly lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal. That builds on the work that has been done to see cross-border cooperation since the majority, but by no means all, of the fuel laundering plants have been discovered in border areas, and has been part of ongoing cooperation between the PSNI and an Garda Síochána as they deal with their normal cross-border policing issues. I believe that the introduction of the new marker is showing some benefits. Members will also be aware that this issue was actually discussed at the NSMC as well as at the IGA.

Youth diversion is an issue not just for the police but for the two youth justice agencies. The respective youth justice agencies lead on that project advisory group (PAG). Again, it is a matter of sharing experience from the two sides of the border and learning lessons from each other. We have a lot to show from the work that we have done on youth engagement and recent initiatives across the justice system here, which will show benefits across the board.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas. I thank the Minister for his statement. He will be aware that hate crime is on the rise, particularly in this part of the island. His statement refers to:

"insights into best practice approaches to policing in minority communities [and] enhanced cross border awareness relating to policing minority communities."

Will the Minister expand on that?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Lynch highlights hate crime. I have one slight caveat: we know that the reporting of hate crime is on the rise, but we are not sure whether that is crime on the rise or the result of increased encouragement to ensure that people are more aware of it and report it. However, the issue needs attention from the PSNI as well as an Garda Síochána.

With regard to working with minority communities, Mr Lynch in particular will remember a recent murder in Newtownbutler in his constituency relating to a wedding in the Traveller community. There is no doubt that, in the response that the PSNI was required to make, it benefited significantly from work done in engagement with the Traveller community by an Garda Síochána. The cross-border sharing of information was of direct practical value in that operation. It shows that these are not always high-level discussions. These can affect day-to-day policing, and the PSNI dealt very well with a potentially difficult situation in the Newtownbutler incident, because of assistance from the gardaí.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement. I also endorse the valuable work being done between Ministers and Departments, North and South.

With regard to the management of sex offenders, the statement says that:

"there continues to be excellent cooperation between the police services at an operational level [which] has become embedded into normal policing business."

Is there anything more that you can say, Minister, about cooperation between North and South in this matter that could provide further confidence to the public that the free movement of sex offenders from one jurisdiction to another will be firmly restricted or, in the event of movement, properly supervised?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr Maginness for his endorsement of the work of the IGA. It is good to know that some Members sometimes appreciate things being done by Ministers. I know that that was a genuine comment on the nature of the good work being done on a cross-border basis.

Members will recall that, whilst there are specific issues with sex offenders being required to notify travel outside the UK, for obvious reasons, it is slightly different in this jurisdiction, where it involves cross-border travel. Nonetheless, there is a requirement that people register if they are travelling for more than, I think, three days. There is an allowance that some people travel daily for work, but things are different there.

There is no doubt that there is good liaison, which is exemplified by the fact that the registered offenders and public protection groups have been amalgamated because of the crossover in their work. The fact that that work involves the two probation, police and prison services shows a very high level of cooperation. It also shows that, while sex offenders are relatively free to move across the island, they are subject to the same notification and supervision arrangements of whichever jurisdiction they are in. That is an extremely good example of a number of agencies on both sides of the border working closely together.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Minister, the work programme appended to your statement, under the heading "Support for Victims", states:

"Consider relevant developments around the treatment of victims of domestic/sexual abuse and violence".

Like the previous Member, I note the work being done by Ministers, North and South.

When did the Executive's ministerial group on domestic and sexual violence last meet and what recommendations will it feed into this programme advisory group?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I congratulate Mr Swann on what is, I think, his first direct question on a justice issue. I am not sure whether that means that he will now be on the Committee, given the secret nomination process that has just taken place. I congratulate him on his creativity in seeking to get a matter that is led by DHSSPS in this jurisdiction into a statement dealing with justice cooperation across the two jurisdictions.

To take his first point: the way in which we ensure that we look at how the victims of domestic and sexual violence are treated will be informed by the recent report to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) by Sir Keir Starmer; by the ongoing work of the Police Ombudsman here into investigating how allegations made by Mairia Cahill and others were treated by the police and by the PPS; and by the fact that related inquiries are being conducted by the Garda Síochána. All of that means that we will look at a process as we consider the best way of responding, whether together, in parallel, or separately, to ongoing work in the two jurisdictions.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for the work that is done with Frances Fitzgerald and the cross-border cooperation between a wide range of security and justice agencies.

I have a question about psychoactive substances, which have caused a great deal of concern in many constituencies, not least in my constituency of East Antrim. What active work will be undertaken, particularly by Forensic Science NI, and in the control of psychoactive substances on a cross-border basis?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank my colleague for his endorsement of the work of the IGA, although, of course, it is less significant when it comes from a colleague than when it comes from somebody else.

New psychoactive substances (NPS) are a major issue, as has been correctly highlighted, in both jurisdictions and on a wider spread across Europe. As Members will know, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is a reserved matter, but I am pleased that the Home Office has responded to a certain amount of lobbying, including from the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, to look at new legislation that has been introduced in the House of Lords, which builds on the Irish experience.

There will clearly be further pressure on forensic laboratories as they deal with these substances, but the fact that we are now working on a precautionary basis and not having to test each substance individually before it is banned will, I think, make life slightly easier for forensics. Ensuring that we get the best possible benefits of learning from the Irish experience will be an ongoing piece of work. I have no doubt that the fact that I was able to quote the Irish experience to the Home Office has helped to move matters on in the UK.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

How does the fact that the public protection and registered offenders project advisory groups have been merged, which seems to me to be common sense, and the fact that there will be respective police and prison services along with probation services involved in that advisory group, tie in with public protection arrangements in Northern Ireland (PPANI)? How will the introduction of a child protection disclosure scheme — Northern Ireland's equivalent to Sarah's law — affect that group and how it shares information?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Frew raises an interesting point, which is a euphemism for "I am not quite sure of the exact answer.". However, the merged public protection group will, in effect, be a North/South mirror on the way PPANI operates with the agencies that have been brought together in Northern Ireland. PPANI considers individual cases; the project advisory group (PAG) looks at the overall policy matters. It will undoubtedly help that there is a single PAG looking at the range of issues that will rate directly across to PPANI arrangements in the same way as we look at the development of a child protection disclosure scheme, in which the Member has a very legitimate interest. We will then have the opportunity to see how that ties in with similar work being done across the border. Again, it is all part of learning lessons because, as far as I am concerned, I want to ensure that the justice system in Northern Ireland is responsive to trends wherever we can learn lessons. If positive work is being done in any part of the world that can affect our work, we should learn the lessons from it. However, we will learn most from our colleagues across the border and across the Irish Sea.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The important subject of sexual abuse carried out by paramilitaries merits but one sentence in the statement. Can the Minister tell us a bit more about the discussion that he has been having with the Republic's Minister about the relocation of Provo perverts over the years? What advances have been made on getting to grips with that historic issue?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

In response to Mr Allister's point about the length of the mention, the simple reality is that, as I said to Mr Swann a few moments ago, inquiries are ongoing. Although the Keir Starmer report is now being considered by the PPS, work by the Police Ombudsman is ongoing. I hope that that work will be completed later this year. An Garda Síochána also has ongoing investigations. All of that means that there was very little that could be considered directly of relevance at this stage by the two Ministers. We therefore noted the ongoing work, but there was little that we could do in the way of decision-making. Mr Allister makes the entirely reasonable point that this is an issue of significant, ongoing public concern in both jurisdictions on the island, and we will need to ensure that we learn lessons from the work on reviewing what happened in Northern Ireland without wishing to create difficulties for the potential for prosecutions in further criminal cases, in whichever jurisdiction they might be.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

I apologise for my phone going off. I set it to silent, but my cyclometer decided to tell me how many miles that I had travelled from my home to here.

I thank the Minister for his very full statement. Did he have any discussions with his counterparts on maximising European funding, and, if so, can he outline to the House some of the European projects that we can potentially access money for?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank Mr Douglas for highlighting that point, because it will be a significant issue as funding becomes tighter. It was indeed mentioned, and we have asked for a specific report for the next meeting in the autumn. My official who looks after European matters was present to outline some of the work that is being done at this stage, largely under the Horizon 2020 programme, as part of which I had the opportunity to launch what was effectively an all-Ireland publicity day back in April in Belfast, looking with people from different parts of the justice system on both parts of the island at what opportunities there will be in the Horizon 2020 security strand to develop funding opportunities for us. We have one significant advantage: if we cooperate with our colleagues 100 miles down the road, we get the benefits of cooperating with people from a different European state who speak our language, share a large part of our culture and understand our problems, as we then seek to build wider pan-European networks. There have been some very significant successes in that area, mostly led by the PSNI. Unfortunately, because of the tightening of funds, we have not been so successful over the past year or two, and we are hoping to ensure that the Department of Justice does its part —

[Interruption.]

— in the general Executive commitment to draw down European funding as far as possible.

It looks as though you are not the only person who was cycling this morning, Sammy.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I am glad to see so many Members keeping track of their fitness regime.

[Laughter.]

That concludes questions on the statement and interference from telephones. Thank you very much, Minister.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I have received notification that the Minister for Employment and Learning wishes to make a statement.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Today, I announce the outcome of our review of youth training and our final policy position through the publication of 'Generating our Success: The Northern Ireland Strategy for Youth Training'. At the outset, I emphasise that it was a significant root-and-branch review.

The outcome is not just a series of adjustments to existing provision, but, rather, it constitutes major changes that will culminate in a new system of professional and technical learning for young people in Northern Ireland.

The new system, as outlined in the strategy, will promote progression and greater social mobility by preparing our young people for higher-value opportunities and the jobs of the future. It will better match the needs of and provide a range of benefits to young people, parents and guardians, employers and the wider economy. It will constitute a high-quality parallel route to the traditional academic pathway and provide young people with opportunities for professional education at level 2 and training that will facilitate seamless career progression to sustained employment, an apprenticeship or further education (FE). That will be achieved through a broad curriculum and qualifications to support ongoing career development.

Through investing in the skills of our young people and integrating them into real working environments, we will develop their knowledge and understanding of chosen occupational pathways. Consequently, young people will be better skilled to meet employers' current and future needs, to sustain employment and to support economic growth. Employers are integral to the success of the new system of learning. They will be involved in the design of curriculum content and delivery requirements. Employers will assist with the delivery of the system and the development of the new skilled workers that they require through the provision of work inspiration activities to young people who are not yet sure of their career choice by offering work placements and by establishing a workplace buddy support system.

The new system for youth training should be considered in conjunction with the review of apprenticeships and the new strategy for apprenticeships, Securing our Success, which was launched in June 2014 and is now being progressively implemented. The apprenticeships strategy covers professional and technical training between level 3 and level 8. The new system of youth training presents a transformed offer at level 2. Fundamental changes to the apprenticeship model informed the focus and remit for the review of youth training. It is essential that young people have the opportunity to progress to the highest level, should they wish to do so.

Research has shown that, over the next decade, more than 70% of vacancies will require qualifications at level 2 or above, while employment opportunities for individuals with skill level 1 or below are predicted to decline. In addition, a level 2 qualification is regarded as the minimum prerequisite for further study. To prepare young people for the demands of the labour market, achievement at level 2 will therefore be critical, but there are challenges on the supply side in ensuring that young people reach that level. Last year, approximately two out of five young people left school without five GCSEs at grades A* to C including English and mathematics. That measure of achievement at level 2 is, in many cases, the minimum requirement for prospective employers. However, it is encouraging that the majority of young people do leave school with a level 1 qualification and have the potential to progress into the system of youth training.

The youth training review considered the professional and technical training currently provided at level 2, which includes training programmes such as Training for Success — Skills for Work Level 2, apprenticeships at level 2 and mainstream further education at level 2. One of the key challenges identified was the complexity of the current offer, with a variety of different options available to young people. Greater clarity on progression routes was also a key concern highlighted by stakeholders. Employers also expressed concerns about the rigour and relevancy of the qualifications available, as well as the number available at present. Many current options at level 2 only require that literacy and numeracy skills be developed to level 1, which subsequently restricts a young person's access to higher-level training or alternative careers. The review also recognised that the current options face challenges in delivering training that can respond to industry needs and deliver the breadth of skills, knowledge and experience that young people require.

Finally, at an individual and system level, young people require support to guide their choices through independent careers advice and guidance, supported by up-to-date labour market information. Greater monitoring of outcomes and destinations of participants is also required. The review therefore proposed a brand new youth training system to greatly expand the scope of training beyond its present boundaries and, consequently, replace the current options and address gaps to fully provide for the needs of young people who leave school without level 2 qualifications.

The review drew from international best practice in professional and technical education and training systems, a call for submissions and an employer survey. My Department published the interim report on the review for consultation in November 2014. The review benefited from a robust consultation process, engaging with a wide range of stakeholders including young people, employers and providers of training. Overall, the response to the consultation was very positive, with broad support for all of the proposals. The expert panel that I established last year has been particularly helpful in providing advice on the emerging proposals, and I am very grateful for their key contribution. Additionally, I wish to thank the Committee for Employment and Learning for its typically positive contribution to the review process throughout the development and consultation stages.

The review resulted in the strategy that I present to the Assembly today, and which will also be published online. Entitled 'Generating our Success: The Northern Ireland Strategy for Youth Training', it is not just another initiative simply to replace existing programmes. It is an innovative and revised system of professional and technical learning for young people aged between 16 and 24. It provides equality of access, irrespective of entry point, that will take youth training at level 2 into new areas. In essence, young people who traditionally may have found themselves trapped in low-paid jobs can now access a pathway to progression that will allow them to move forward, should they wish to do so.

The extensive research base of stakeholder feedback enabled the refinement of the 26 proposals in the interim report, and there are now 22 key policy commitments under four themes: the core features of the youth training system; supporting young people; delivery and employer engagement; and ensuring quality.

The first theme ensures that the new system will be underpinned by a set of core features defining the target group, the routes of progression, the curriculum offered and the expected duration for participants.

All young people aged between 16 and 24 who require training at level 2 will be offered the opportunity to participate in the new system. It is a significant departure from the current provision, as it widens the focus of the new system beyond the current emphasis on training 16- and 17-year-old school-leavers not yet in employment. The offer will be extended to those in employment, those starting a new role and those who wish to change occupation, as well as those not yet in employment. The system will also provide distinct routes of progression: an employed route, designed to cater for those in employment or starting a new job role; and a non-employed route, for those who wish to change occupational area, or who have not yet secured employment. There will be a shared curriculum across both routes, providing considerable flexibility.

The new system will provide a broad-based baccalaureate-style professional and technical award at level 2, equating to a minimum of five GCSEs at grades A* to C, including level 2 English and mathematics qualifications, with additional qualifications deemed relevant to the needs of individual sectors. That will provide a solid foundation and ensure that young people are recognised as having the knowledge and skills required to enable progression in employment, training and education, and that they can meet the current and future needs of employers.

In addition to the breadth of learning, the youth training system will deliver structured work-based learning to all participants, whether through existing employment or a work placement. That will further broaden the young person's knowledge and experience of the real working environment in their chosen sector. It will enable them to develop sector-specific skills in addition to employability skills. Employers will benefit by having the opportunity to train young people following the employed route, in line with their organisational culture and the exact requirements of the role, whilst addressing skills shortages and benefiting from new ideas and fresh thinking.

Work inspiration activities, including short project-based work tasters, will be widely used to help to engage young people not yet in employment. They will make learning about the workplace dynamic and attractive, providing positive experiences to assist informed decision-making on study options and potential future careers.

To ensure that a young person is ready to participate in a full level 2 programme, and to better align provision, there will be one common minimum entry requirement for youth training: namely, a full standard of achievement at level 1, to be defined as four GCSEs at grades D to G, including English and mathematics at grades D to F. Equivalent qualifications or alternative evidence of a young person's potential to achieve at level 2 will also be recognised. Young people not yet ready to start youth training, or who have not yet reached a full standard of achievement at level 1, will continue to receive support from my Department through a range of targeted initiatives and mainstream further education to assist their progression into youth training.

The new baccalaureate-style award for youth training will normally be designed to take a maximum of two years to complete. There will, however, be some flexibility within that. Temporary breaks to facilitate a withdrawal from the system for a period may also be authorised for those who want an opportunity to return and complete their qualification.

The second theme of the strategy focuses on support measures to help young people to successfully complete their training and progress into employment or higher-level training or education. Each young person will receive impartial careers advice and guidance before starting and upon completion. My Department is also developing a Northern Ireland skills barometer that will enable labour market trends and potential future skills shortages to fully inform young people’s choices.

A dual-mentoring approach will be delivered through the provision of a one-to-one buddy system in the workplace with pastoral support mechanisms, including mentoring, being offered by providers of training. Workplace buddies will help the young person to integrate into the workplace by giving practical advice and assistance relevant to their skills development. Pastoral support offered by providers of training will mainly focus on non-workplace or study-related issues that many young people face.

Young people following either the employed or non-employed routes will receive financial support to contribute towards the costs of transportation, equipment and living expenses. My Department is reviewing funding arrangements, and the current level of funding will be the starting point in developing an appropriate level of financial support. Current provision recognises that some individuals have additional requirements, such as a disability, for example, and may require extra support and flexibility. The existing arrangements already provide for extended duration, additional funding and specialist support services, and those arrangements will be bolstered by the additional development opportunities and support provided by workplace buddies and the pastoral support offered by the new system.

The third theme of the new strategy recognises that the new youth training system will be effective only if it meets the needs of all parties, all stakeholders are engaged and employers are actively involved in its design and delivery. Following the approach being implemented through the apprenticeships strategy, a strategic advisory forum based on a partnership comprising employers, government, providers of training and representatives of young people will enable the new system to learn from experience and to adapt to changes and differing demands. A common forum for apprenticeships and youth training will help to ensure that the two systems are aligned. However, the forum’s roles for each system will be shaped around that system’s individual needs.

In accordance with international best practice, sectoral partnerships comprising industry representatives and curriculum experts will be established. They will help to determine the overarching expectations of work-based learning and define the qualifications to be delivered as part of the curriculum for each sector. They will also advise on mechanisms to increase and maintain participation, particularly for small and microbusinesses. Depending on each sector’s needs, sectoral partnerships may be shared between apprenticeship and youth training provision or established to carry out that function specifically for youth training.

A central service will be established to help facilitate the sourcing and managing of opportunities for work-based learning across all sectors. It will provide an online location to advertise training opportunities, provide promotional tools and signpost to careers advice and other support. A central register of participating employers who meet the required quality standards will also be available. That will provide young people, along with their parents and guardians, one central point from which to obtain information and to connect with employers and providers of training.

To further support employer participation, dedicated industry consultants will complement the central service. Industry consultants will possess extensive knowledge of training provision and local employment opportunities and will build and maintain good relationships with key organisations. Most importantly, they will liaise with employers to provide advice, encourage their engagement, source work placements and, critically, provide practical support to minimise bureaucracy for employers wishing to engage. Through their efforts, they will raise the profile of the new system and promote its benefits. Incentives will be provided to promote and maintain critical participation by employers, particularly small and microbusinesses. Financial and non-financial incentives will be considered.

A final key aspect of engagement to support the new youth training system is clear branding and marketing. A clear brand will engage and secure buy-in from employers, young people, parents and guardians and will raise awareness of the new system’s baccalaureate-style award.

The final theme recognises that quality will be the foundation of the new youth training system. The new system will be successful only if it is recognised as a high-quality alternative to the traditional academic pathway, providing clear progression into sustained employment, full-time education or training at a higher level. A range of measures will be implemented to ensure that the highest standards of quality for training are embedded and maintained and that the new system will be respected nationally and internationally by employers, further and higher education providers, young people, parents and guardians.

At a system level, to ensure that prescribed quality standards are achieved, only providers who meet the set quality standards and curriculum requirements will be funded to deliver youth training.

To ensure that quality standards are maintained, tutors delivering the non-work-based elements of youth training will be required to have recent experience of their industry and relevant qualifications.

In order to clearly delineate responsibilities, maintain quality standards and ensure requirements are not onerous for any party, a specific and easily understood tripartite contractual agreement will underpin relationships between young people, providers of training and employers. The system will be informed by ongoing robust data collection, analysis and evaluation, and it will feature mechanisms for young people to provide regular qualitative feedback on their experience of training. It will include not only analysis of qualifications achieved but employment outcomes and levels of progression.

It is my ambition that the new youth training system will form a key part of a seamless range of opportunities for professional and technical education that will facilitate progression for all young people. This strategy establishes an ambitious system of professional and technical training at level 2, which, when fully implemented, will have a transformative impact on the economy and opportunities available for young people.

A time-bound implementation plan, also published today within the strategy, will ensure that the new model of youth training is in place by September 2016. That implementation plan will, where appropriate, build upon some of the projects and pilots already in place through the apprenticeships strategy.

Given the scale of the changes and the requirements for new and creative solutions, piloting of elements of the apprenticeship and youth training projects will commence in September 2015. That will enable lessons to be learned and allow development to upscale in time for full delivery of the new youth training system in 2016.

My Department is also developing a suitable financial model to take account of the considerable commitment and investment required from employers, the costs incurred by providers of training and the support required for young people in training.

I commend this statement to the Assembly.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his detailed statement. I think it recognises the trouble we have in Northern Ireland with our large number of unemployed young people. I welcome the Minister's commitment that this will not be just another initiative to replace existing programmes. I think that he has been genuine in some of the work that he has done on this.

My concerns relate to the work-based learning. Recently, we have heard about how important that is to young people and employers. Where exactly will the central management of that process rest to ensure that there is the quality and the quantity to meet the needs of the large numbers of young people who are going to look for work-based learning and to ensure that the incentive for some employers will not become more important than the experience of the young person? What is the timeline for the establishment of the baccalaureate?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Chair for his comments, and I join him in recognising the significance of what we are announcing today and the potential that it has to transform the landscape of training for young people at level 2. Of course, given what the Chair has said, it will deliver that transformation only if we are effective in its delivery and implementation. That now becomes our central challenge.

Again, he is right to focus on the large numbers of young people who are unemployed. Indeed, youth unemployment is a problem across the European Union. We tend to be somewhere in the mid range. Nonetheless, we have an immense challenge ahead of us. That is why the Chair is right to focus on the importance of work-based learning and how we can place a much stronger focus on that. As we have sought to learn from evidence from across Europe to inform the strategy that we are announcing today, we have looked at societies that have been most successful with vocational training systems. Without stating what is not a coincidence, they have also some of the lowest figures of youth unemployment. So, there is a very clear lesson to be learned.

There is a challenge to ensure that we properly coordinate all of this. That engagement will probably take place in three elements. First, we have the strategic advisory forum, which will build upon the existing forum. It is established on an interim basis and is chaired by Bryan Keating, and it is looking at the apprenticeship strategy.

This is not going to be a bolt-on; this will be a genuine integrated partnership looking at both youth training and apprenticeships. It will advise Government and others on the high-level policy interventions and how to wider engage employers in the process. Beneath that, there will be the sectoral partnerships that will look at the need for individual sectors, combining industry and curriculum experts. We then have the central service, which will be based in my Department, or whatever successor is determined in due course by the Assembly, that will work with and assist the employers.

I want to highlight the role of the industry consultants. They will be a critical element in sourcing the new opportunities. In that regard, we will have a challenge to create the opportunities for young people. It is important to stress that this has to be seen as a win-win situation both for employers and young people.

While there may be some sense that this has a wider social responsibility to Northern Ireland, there is a very hard-edged economic reality for employers. They need to be investing in their skills and planning for the future. This is the means by which they will access the young people of Northern Ireland who will be their future employees and make their businesses and organisations a success well into the future. They have a real self-interest in nurturing that fresh talent and making sure that they are investing and delivering the technical skills that they require, and also the employability skills.

We know that there is a real issue, and we have heard from employers about the quality of employability skills. However, with this switch to a much stronger focus on work-based learning, the young person will know that they are getting the skills that they require to be successful in the workplace and to find and sustain employment, rather than doing something in a classroom situation where the direct links to what is happening in industry may not be as clear-cut.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his statement. The key in all of this is that it is delivered on the ground in a way that is beneficial to the employers. Will the Minister advise whether there will be a cap on the numbers, should more young people apply for the uptake of this than was anticipated? The Minister mentioned the dedicated industrial consultants complementing the central services. Will they be employed by your Department and, if so, will they be remunerated for the role that they play in this?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Deputy Chair of the Committee for his comments. I will look at the first issue around the numbers, and that will, to an extent, gravitate into financing. At present, across the three different elements that the system will be replacing — when I say "replacing", I stress again that this not a like-for-like replacement. The new system will be covering a lot more in terms of entry routes, age groups and different types of approaches to training. Across Training for Success, Apprenticeships NI at level 2 and mainstream further education, we are talking about 10,000 young people. However, if we look to the number of young people who are leaving school without level 2 qualifications, we see that that is in the multiples of tens of thousands. We also know that, at present, there are between 30,000 and 40,000 young people who are not in education, training or employment, so there is a bigger market out there for this system beyond the immediate headcount that is going through the existing provision. We have no plans to cap provision, because we want to expand this into new territory, although, obviously, the issue will be how far budgets can stretch in that regard.

To give a scale of the commitment that we are talking about, if we take the current budgets around Training for Success Apprenticeships NI at level 2 and what we do around further education, we are talking in excess of £50 million a year that is spent. Notwithstanding the cuts that my Department has had to face this year, we have not cut any of that provision. Where things have been notified to the Committee and others around savings in those areas, that simply reflects changes or fluctuations in demand. All things being equal, I am committed to at least that level of funding going forward. It is worth stressing that that is supported by the European social fund, where 40%, in common with the practice previously, is earmarked for work on apprenticeships and youth training collectively.

We also have access this year to the £7·5 million change fund that was authorised by the Executive and which can be used to take forward pilots, so we are looking to expand and see where that goes. If we have difficulties, we will look to see whether we need to make further interventions.

The precise location of the industry consultants has yet to be determined, but they will be people who are employed for the specific purpose of engaging businesses and working with young people to source opportunities and provide support. The precise location will be determined through the implementation phase. They will be dedicated people who are there to service this particular programme, this new system of learning, for young people at level 2.

Bronwyn McGahan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement. How will the needs of young people with disabilities be integrated into a system that starts at level 2?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for her comments. She is right to say that this is a system at level 2, and that will include many people with disabilities. As the Member well knows, there are people with disabilities who are more than capable of engaging with the world of work at a whole range of different levels, and it is incumbent on us to give them full support. In parallel with this strategy, my Department is also finalising a disability employment and skills strategy, which will be issued for public consultation shortly. That will complement the work that is taking place on youth training. As she also knows, within some of the existing provision there is additional support available for people with disabilities. At a minimum, that will be replicated in the new system.

We also see the additional focus that there will be in the buddy system in the workplace, which is there as a form of mentoring. We are trying not to use the term "mentor" because we do not want to create a sense of bureaucracy for businesses, where they feel that this means that a lot of training has to be put in place. That would almost act as a deterrent. The system is there to provide a friend in the workplace for all young people, whether or not they have a disability. There is also a focus on pastoral care to be delivered through the off-the-job training providers, which will give further support for people with disabilities.

Beyond that, we recognise that there will be a need for assistance for those who have not yet reached the level 1 qualification, which is required to access the level 2 provision. Work will continue through the existing channels, whether through the FE sector or the community and voluntary sector, which deliver a lot of projects at level 1 and also, when we talk about the disability sector, at level 2. We will work with them to ensure that we have strong progression routes. The Member will appreciate that we will be talking in more detail about the European social fund (ESF) at the Committee meeting tomorrow.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I warmly welcome the statement from the Minister and commend the Department's staff as well for taking on board a lot of Members' comments. I warmly welcome the robust data collection and information gathering, which is necessary to prepare for the future. However, I am concerned that this statement is mainly about those who are achievers and who are going into level 2.

I am more deeply worried — the Committee has always been more challenged on this — about those who are furthest away from the market and who are on the same ESF programme that you talked about. Large numbers of young people are not able to achieve level 1 and will not be able to progress to this new youth training programme. Like Bronwyn, I want to see how we are going to help those furthest away who have not achieved in post-primary, either because they have been unable to achieve it or because they have a learning difficulty or disability.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for his comments and I reflect on the contribution that a very strong team has made on the delivery of this strategy over the past number of months. The Member is right to focus first on the importance of data collection, monitoring and evaluation. It is fair to say that there can be legitimate criticisms of some of the outgoing programmes in that regard; we have not had sufficiently strong results in progression into work or proper monitoring of where people are going as leavers on the far side of programmes.

I appreciate that the bulk of the Member's comments have been about the entry point to the new system and how we can facilitate people in that regard. It is important to recognise that we have a large pool of people who are leaving school without a level 2 qualification.

That is a major challenge for us as a society. The programme is open to those individuals. We should recognise, however, that, through our school system, we are seeing some improvement in the figures for level 2 qualifications. The Department of Education is getting things right on an incremental basis in that regard, but, nonetheless, we have a large pool of young people for whom the school system is not delivering for a host of reasons. Within that, there will be a large cohort of people who have, at the very least, achieved level 1, and they can move into the new level 2 offer straight away. The Member and Ms McGahan's focus has been on the young people who do not yet have a level 1, and that is where what can be delivered through the European social fund is so important. We will have a detailed discussion on that tomorrow in Committee. We face some challenges, but I will bring solutions to the attention of the Committee tomorrow. As a society, we have a challenge to ensure that we are sufficiently resourcing all the skills profile that we need to invest in every young person.

We will also continue with the provision of mainstream FE to work with young people, particularly those who are on the margins of getting into the system. We can do dedicated work to give them a real incentive to get into the new system, which should offer a range of new opportunities for young people to progress into work.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for a very detailed statement. It is very much his style. He is always thorough and puts thought into his statements. I also welcome the new system following the thorough review of youth training in Northern Ireland. The Minister also published the apprenticeship strategy recently: how will the new system complement the apprenticeship strategy?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for her comments. She is right to identify the fact that the new system of youth training should be reviewed almost as the sister strategy of our apprenticeship strategy. They share a new approach to vocational training in Northern Ireland and a commitment to investing in professional and technical skills from level 2 right through to level 8. In the outgoing system across apprenticeships and youth training, we have an offer that covers level 2 and level 3. It tends to stop at level 3. We know that, as a society, we have much more pressure on higher-level skills as a whole if we are to grow our economy and take full advantage of the opportunities that lie ahead.

We want the system of youth training to be part of a progression route that may lead into apprenticeships. There may be other pathways. Young people will exit youth training into full-time employment or go back into mainstream education or other forms of training, but we see this as a means for young people to gain a foothold from which they can move into a formal apprenticeship.

Given the commonality across the two strategies, it is intended that a lot of the structures will be common to both strategies. There will be a single strategic advisory forum. There will be a common set of sectoral partnerships, where appropriate, and there may be some sectoral partnerships that are only for apprenticeships and only for youth training, depending on whether there is a critical mass of skill pressures at higher levels or at level 2. The central service will also be common across both strategies. In that way, there will be economies of scale, and we will fully maximise the potential for synergy between the two strategies and systems.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I also thank the Minister for his speech this morning. I have said that anything that enhances youth training has to be welcomed. I was reading some statistics from Include Youth, and I sometimes think that Pat looks over my shoulder and picks up on what I am about to say and then uses it. The statistics raised a couple of interesting points. Include Youth deals with people at the coalface, where most of the difficulties are, and it sometimes does that one on one. How does that fit into the new regime? How can we ensure that it will not be left behind as it has been in the past?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for his comments. I know that he and Pat are often a double team, in that they come at issues from the same angle. He is right to stress that this is about ensuring that no young person is left behind. If we are to maximise our potential as an economy and a society, we need to make sure that we utilise everyone's talents. Everyone has the ability to make a contribution, and the challenge for us, as a Government, is to ensure that we have the systems in place that will draw out everyone's talents to the full.

I will focus a lot on the workplace buddy system and the pastoral care to be provided by the off-the-job training providers. This is about ensuring that we train people as individuals and do not simply see them as yet another number going through a system. We need to treat people as individuals who have particular challenges and barriers and different aspirations. We are also putting a much stronger focus on careers advice, both at entry level and when they are about to leave the system, to make sure that we properly signpost individuals to the most lucrative opportunities for them, whether it is employment or further training opportunities.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

I wish that the Minister had not said that this was not just another initiative, because the cynic in me says that that usually means that it is. On a serious note, I welcome the policy, because it offers a lot of opportunities for young people and for the local economy.

A significant barrier for those not in education, employment or training has been the cutting of the pathways education maintenance allowance (EMA). The Minister mentioned financial assistance in the statement, so, further to the review, is he minded to continue pathways EMA?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

First, let me address the point about this not being just another initiative. This is a new system of learning. It is not about a like-for-like replacement of programmes; it is about a systematic approach to training at level 2. We are not simply replacing Training for Success apprenticeships at level 2 with this provision; it covers a much wider range of areas. For example, it will cover a much wider age group, including, for the first time, young people who are in work but are trapped in low-paid jobs and do not have the tools and skills to find new employment opportunities for themselves. We are talking about a fresh baccalaureate-style qualification, a very broad-based qualification that includes technical and employability skills alongside core qualifications, particularly in maths and English. That will be shaped by employers and other experts. That is all radical change in the system. Of course, it will make a difference only if we can deliver it.

We have recognised that we will be continuing financial assistance directly to young people. As the Member will appreciate, that exists in the Training for Success system. Obviously, those enrolled in apprenticeships receive a wage in connection with that, which is a different concept. Young people going through the employed route, which is almost like a traineeship in the forthcoming system, will receive a wage, and those going through the non-employed route will receive an allowance that is at least the same amount that they currently receive.

The pathways EMA is a different issue. I will give a foretaste of what I will say to the Committee tomorrow. We have considerable pressures on what we are doing to support young people not in education, employment and training. As the Assembly will know, we had a dedicated funding stream that expired in March 2015. It has not been renewed by the Executive, so we are scratching around — I use that term deliberately — to find what money we can to make the biggest impact for young people not in education, employment and training, particularly in addition to the European social fund (ESF).

We have a choice to make between what we do on the delivery of match funding, on which there is huge pressure across all Departments, and the payment of the pathways allowance. If my Department pays the pathways allowance directly, that comes at the opportunity cost of match funding. If we invest money in match funding, we get the leverage of drawing down a 40% contribution from the European Union. So we are almost getting a double hit if we spend money on match funding rather than the pathways allowance. However, organisations have the option to pay an allowance out of the funding that they receive under the European social fund. We are happy to work with any organisations, including Include Youth, with whom we had a meeting last week in this regard, on finding a means for them to pay that resource from their existing allocation. We will work with them to revise their targets in line with that. Across the piece, that is the best way in which we can maximise a scarce budget to have the greatest impact on as many young people as possible.

Executive Committee Business

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

The next item of business is the First Stage of the Justice (No. 2) Bill. I call the Minister of Justice. I hope that I did not waken you.

[Laughter.]

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I beg to introduce the Justice (No. 2) Bill [NIA 57/11-16], which is a Bill to make provision about enforcement of the payment of fines and other penalties; to provide for the appointment and functions of a Prison Ombudsman for Northern Ireland; to amend the law relating to lay visitors for police stations, the possession of extreme pornographic images and the early removal from prison of prisoners liable to removal from the United Kingdom.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

The next item of business is the First Stage of the Housing (Amendment) Bill. I call the Minister for Social Development.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

The Pension Schemes Bill makes provision for Northern Ireland corresponding to provisions —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Minister, we are dealing with the Housing (Amendment) Bill. The Houses in Multiple Occupation Bill has not been cleared yet under the clearance mechanism, but it will be tabled later today. We are moving straight on to the next item. I thought that you would have been informed.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I beg to introduce the Housing (Amendment) Bill [NIA 58/11-16], which is a Bill to make provision for the better sharing of information relating to empty homes or to anti-social behaviour; and to provide for the registration of certain loans as statutory charges.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I beg to move

That the Pension Schemes Bill proceed under the accelerated passage procedure.

Maybe I was sleeping, not the Justice Minister, Mr Speaker.

The Pension Schemes Bill makes provision for Northern Ireland corresponding to provisions in the Westminster Pension Schemes Act 2015. The Bill aims to facilitate different models of private pension schemes that will provide better outcomes for members than the current defined contribution schemes and allow for greater risk sharing between members and scheme providers. The Bill therefore contains proposals to establish a new legislative framework for private pensions. I will outline the proposals in greater detail at Second Stage, and I look forward to the contributions on that occasion. However, it may be helpful if I briefly describe the main provisions.

The Bill establishes three mutually exclusive categories of scheme type based on the type of promise offered to members during the accumulation phase. It also provides for collective benefits where the scheme assets may be used in a way that pools risk across the membership. It also contains changes to existing pension legislation, mostly as a consequence of the new categories and collective benefits.

As required by Standing Order 42(4)(a) and (b), I will outline the reasons why I seek accelerated passage and the potential consequences of accelerated passage not being granted. Although pensions are a devolved matter, in effect there is a single pension system and regulatory regime across the United Kingdom. Many private pension schemes operating in Northern Ireland are UK-wide schemes. Additionally, the Pensions Regulator, the Pensions Ombudsman and the Pension Protection Fund operate on a UK-wide basis. Therefore, it is highly desirable that the same regulatory framework be in place here to facilitate compliance and enforcement.

The Westminster Government intend that the new pension scheme definitions and the provision to allow schemes to offer collective benefits outlined in the 2015 Act will come fully into effect from April 2016. The intention is that the equivalent Northern Ireland provisions will come into operation at the same time. If accelerated passage is not granted, the best-case scenario is that the Bill could complete its legislative passage through the Assembly and receive Royal Assent towards the end of February 2016.

This timescale would result in significant uncertainty for the pensions industry, employers and scheme members as the legal position in Northern Ireland would not be settled until shortly before the proposed operational date. The industry needs a significant lead-in time to develop new pension products, and this requires certainty that any new products will be compatible with Northern Ireland law. For example, to operate most effectively, collective benefit schemes need to be able to create economies of scale. To help achieve this, it is imperative that collective benefit schemes are able to operate on a UK-wide basis.

Employers will also look for an early indication of how the changes could affect them. The ongoing roll-out of automatic enrolment means that every employer must automatically enrol workers into a workplace pension scheme. Employers who are seeking to establish an occupational pension scheme, perhaps for the first time, may decide that they cannot select certain schemes as there is a chance that they may not be compatible with Northern Ireland law. This could undermine the objectives of the Bill and potentially result in more Northern Ireland workers being enrolled into defined contribution schemes that offer no certainty over pension outcomes.

The overall aim of the Bill is simple: it is to help to provide safer and better incomes in retirement. It is vital that we do all that we can to support and encourage employers to embrace quality pension provision for employees here in Northern Ireland. It is vital that the changes here and in Great Britain dovetail from the same date to ensure that we do not make employers and schemes decide that it is too much trouble to run schemes for employees in Northern Ireland.

Additionally, the new regime will require numerous regulations to be in place well before April 2016 to ensure that adequate safeguards and protections are in place. Without accelerated passage, the short time frame from Royal Assent to operation will make this very challenging and add to the uncertainty facing schemes and employers. I appeared before the Committee for Social Development on 4 June to explain to the members, as required under Standing Order 42(3), why I am seeking accelerated passage for the Bill. I had a productive session with the Committee at that stage, and I thank the Committee Chair and members for recognising the need to expedite the process for the Bill and for their support in seeking Assembly approval for accelerated passage.

Turning to my obligation under Standing Order 42(4)(c), I stress that the use of the accelerated passage procedure is not something that I take lightly. I know that Committee members rightly take their scrutiny role seriously, and I recognise the importance of that role. The Committee has received several briefings from my officials and explored a number of issues. My officials have also provided the Committee with written clarification on a number of points. So, although under accelerated passage there will be no formal Committee Stage, the Committee has already actively engaged with my officials on the proposals.

When I attended the Social Development Committee, I assured members that supporting accelerated passage for this Bill would not be seen as setting a precedent for all future Bills in this field. I will give the same commitment to the Assembly today: my Department will always seek to bring forward legislation in a timely manner to ensure that due process is followed and that the Committee is afforded its proper place and given adequate time to scrutinise a Bill clause by clause. I fully accept and agree that the use of the accelerated passage procedure should be the exception rather than the norm. Despite there not being a formal Committee Stage, there will, of course, be an opportunity for all Members of the House to make their views known and for the issues to be fully discussed during the Bill's passage through the Assembly. I invite the House to support the motion for accelerated passage.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. As the Minister has said, he attended a meeting of the Committee for Social Development on 4 June to discuss the potential accelerated passage of the Pension Schemes Bill. The Committee noted then that, although pensions are a devolved matter, in effect there is a single pension system and regulatory regime across the UK, and many private pension schemes operating here are UK-wide schemes.

The Committee is aware that the Westminster Government intend that the new pension scheme definitions and provision to allow schemes to offer collective benefits will come fully into effect from April 2016. The Committee therefore appreciates the importance of the Bill being enacted here as soon as possible so that the industry has time to develop new pension products with the certainty that they will be compatible with law here.

The Committee notes that the new regime will require regulation to be in place before April 2016 to ensure that adequate safeguards and protections are in place. To that end, the Committee further notes that retaining the same pension regulatory framework here as operates in GB — the Pensions Regulator, the Pensions Ombudsman Service and the Pension Protection Fund — will continue to facilitate compliance and enforcement.

The Department provided the Committee with several thorough and detailed briefings, as the Minister outlined, on pension schemes legislation. The Committee is, therefore, content that it has considered the proposals in the context of the Westminster Bill and the proposed Assembly Bill. Following an oral briefing on 8 January 2015, the Committee agreed to support a legislative consent motion to extend to this jurisdiction the new pensions flexibilities outlined in the Westminster Pension Schemes Bill. The Committee notes that the remainder of the Bill is, essentially, of a technical nature.

The Committee for Social Development supports the Minister's request for the Pension Schemes Bill to be brought forward by way of accelerated passage.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

At this stage, I will be very brief. I do not believe that I need to go into any great detail as the Minister and the Chair have already set out in detail why the Minister is asking for accelerated passage. I welcome the fact that the Minister said that he does not intend this to set a precedent for future Bills and that the accelerated passage procedure should be the exception rather than the norm. I believe that he will be absolutely true to his word on that.

I will say a little more in our next debate. For the time being, I support accelerated passage.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I speak in support of accelerated passage.

As others said, whilst pensions are, in theory, a devolved matter, they are, in practice, operated by a UK-wide pension industry. It is vital that we retain legislative parity. I understand that there may be one, if there are any, local institution that offers pensions, so we deviate at our peril. I will say more about that later.

The scheme that introduces the UK-wide pension changes is due to be fully in effect by April 2016. The pensions industry is not one that you can change very quickly; it takes time. Time is required to develop the products and to train those who are to sell them so that selling is done ethically and there are no repercussions. Therefore, we support accelerated passage.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank Members for the views that they expressed during the debate. I also thank, in particular, the Chair and members of the Committee for their help in getting to this stage. I assure Members that I will do all that I can to be of help as we make our way through the Bill, and I thank them for being understanding of the need for accelerated passage.

As alluded to by my colleague, I do not seek accelerated passage lightly. There may be a temptation on my part to try to get accelerated passage for another Bill that has had a bit of a difficulty, but I will leave it there. I am happy that we proceed.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

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

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

That the Pension Schemes Bill proceed under the accelerated passage procedure.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Pension Schemes Bill [NIA 55/11-16] be agreed.

The Bill follows on from the Pension Schemes Act 2015 recently enacted by Westminster. The Bill will introduce a new legislative framework for private pensions and seeks to rejuvenate the pensions industry by allowing for greater innovation in pension scheme design.

Increasing life expectancy has been one of the success stories of the last 60 years. The fact that, in general, people are living significantly longer and healthier lives is to be celebrated. However, increasing life expectancy brings with it a number of challenges across government; for example, for health and social care and how we ensure adequate incomes in retirement. The provision of pensions involves financial, economic and longevity risks, all of which come with very significant costs. Existing private pension legislation is based largely on a binary system of money purchase schemes, commonly referred to as defined contribution schemes, which offer no certainty over retirement benefits, and non-money purchase schemes, commonly referred to as defined benefit schemes, which traditionally offer salary-related benefits that provide certainty about what will be paid in retirement.

The key difference between those models is who bears the risk of pension saving, such as longevity, investment and inflation. In traditional defined benefit schemes, the risks are borne by the employer. In defined contribution schemes, they are borne by the employee. Whereas for an employer, defined contribution schemes provide certainty regarding costs, for scheme members, the level of income that they can expect in retirement is uncertain.

(Mr Principal Deputy Speaker [Mr Newton] in the Chair)

The last few decades have seen a decline in defined benefit pension provision in the private sector. Many employers have found the increasing cost of longevity and investment risk too heavy to bear. Crucially, the employer remains liable for any deficit in the scheme funding. In 2014, the Pensions Regulator reported that only 13% of defined benefit schemes remained open to new members. As membership of defined benefit schemes has declined, there has been a growth in the membership of other types of private pension schemes, particularly defined contribution schemes. That means that, increasingly the risks associated with pensions are being borne by individuals, rather than employers.

Some reform has already taken place, and the continued roll-out of automatic enrolment is expected to reverse the trend of falling private pension participation over time. However, if defined contribution schemes remain the main alternative to defined benefits, outcomes for savers will be less certain and more volatile, making it much harder for future generations of savers to plan for later life. The need for further reform is clear.

Part 1 of the Bill will introduce three mutually exclusive categories of pension scheme, including a new shared-risk category. Each category will be defined by the type of promise provided to savers during the accumulation phase about the benefits that will be available to people on retirement. The categories will be a defined benefits scheme, in which the member has a full pensions promise about the rate of the retirement income they will receive for life from a fixed normal pension age; a shared-risk scheme, also known as defined ambition, will promise some retirement benefits, whether income or lump sum; and the defined contributions scheme, where there will be no promise about the benefit outcome.

New definitions are necessary, because whilst the terms "defined benefits scheme" and "defined contributions scheme" are well recognised and are often used to distinguish between the two types of schemes that currently make up private pension saving, they are not generally used in private pensions legislation. The new shared-risk definition describes a middle ground between the more polarised defined contribution and defined benefit definitions. It will create a distinctive space to encourage innovation in pension scheme design. Shared-risk schemes should provide employees with greater certainty about the final value of their pension than they would have under a defined contribution scheme but with less cost volatility for employers than a defined benefit scheme.

The new scheme categories will apply to existing pension schemes. However, they do not make any additional requirements about benefit design and do not change current legislative requirements, such as occupational scheme funding or member protections. The new definitions do not apply in any public service pensions legislation. That issue was raised by colleagues across the House during previous discussions on the issue.

In the case of a scheme not fitting exclusively into one of the new definitions, regulations will provide for a scheme to be treated as two or more separate schemes, each of which will fall within a category.

In addition to establishing a new legal framework for private pensions, the Bill will also enable the provision of collective benefits. Collective benefits are provided on the basis of allowing the scheme’s assets to be used in a way that pools risk across the membership, both in the accumulation phase and in payment. As such, members do not have their own individual pension pots from which their pension income will be provided. Instead, any gains or losses that arise from the performance of the scheme’s investments will be shared amongst all members. Consequently, collective benefits cannot provide members with a promise or guarantee about the level of benefit that they are likely to receive, and the benefit received will depend entirely on the scheme’s funding position and the factors used to determine what proportion of that is available for the provision of particular benefits.

Trustees or managers of pension schemes that offer collective benefits will be required to set targets in relation to the rate or amount of those benefits. The intention is that members of a scheme that offers collective benefits should be provided with a reasonable estimate of the benefits that they can expect to receive from the scheme. In the absence of a well-defined pot over which the individual has clear ownership, the target is a way of illustrating what a member might expect to receive. Regulations may also require trustees or managers to set initial targets at such a level that the probability of meeting the target will fall within a specified range, and for that to be certified by an actuary. The setting of targets is key in ensuring that schemes that provide collective benefits operate in as transparent a manner as possible.

There is no employer liability to stand behind or guarantee a target that is offered in relation to a collective benefit beyond the contribution level. However, the Bill contains a series of regulation-making powers that relate to the governance of schemes to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place. For example, requirements may be set out in secondary legislation in relation to scheme reporting, the payment of benefits, benefit targets and valuation.

As a consequence of the new scheme definitions and the provisions about collective benefits, a number of changes are required to existing pensions legislation. Part 3 of the Bill aims to ensure that current legislative requirements that relate to governance and administration apply in the appropriate way to the new scheme categories. It contains new powers to make regulations, for example, in relation to indexation and revaluation of benefits and setting out conditions to be met for a pensions promise to be obtained from a third party, and it imposes a duty on managers to act in the best interests of members when making specified decisions in relation to collective benefits or shared-risk schemes. It also enables the Department to issue statutory guidance on the disclosure of information about schemes and includes provision that deals with pension sharing and normal benefit age.

In conclusion, the underlying objective of the Bill is to create space for market innovation rather than for government to design commercial products. However, it will, as ever, involve achieving a balance between ensuring that there is a level of regulation that does not discourage new models and, at the same time, adequately safeguarding members’ interests. The Bill will provide for a new, permissive regulatory framework with proportionate regulation for different types of schemes. I think that that is an important element to underline and underscore, because there is always a concern that, when we have the imposition of regulation, it is in some way very draconian and inhibitive. I want to ensure that the Bill will provide for new permissive regulatory frameworks. I think we want to underscore the element with proportionate regulation for different types of schemes. It has to be balanced, and we have to get the balance right.

For the first time, the Bill will set out clear statutory definitions of various scheme types, including defined benefit, shared risk, defined contribution and an additional benefit level classification to recognise collective benefits.

I think that we can all agree that we want to ensure that good-quality pension provision continues for future generations. As I said during the debate on accelerated passage, the overall aim of the Bill is simple. It is to help provide safer and better incomes in retirement. I suppose that some of us would do well to declare an interest at this point as we head towards that. I never thought that I would be standing in the House saying that. However, the other day, I got a piece of correspondence through in relation to my own pension, which gave me the date for my retirement. I looked at it and thought, "Well, that seems to be away in the future". I think it was 2029. Then I suddenly realised that that is only 14 years, and that is almost as long as I have been in the House, so it does not seem that long. I declare an interest in dealing with this particular issue. I have no doubt that other Members who speak following me will have to do the same thing.

In conclusion, legislation is being brought to the House that will allow for greater flexibility in scheme design and greater risk sharing between employers, employees and third parties, and that should improve private pension outcomes in the long-term; something that, I believe, we all want to support in the House. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister referred to his length of service here. Some of us might say that he has perhaps put years on the rest of us, but I will not go that far. It has been a pleasure to work with you.

Pension reform is ongoing in both the public and private sectors, and I have no doubt at all that we will continue to see significant changes in pension provision over the coming years. The Pension Schemes Bill is yet another step in that reform process.

On behalf of the Social Development Committee, I would like to draw the Minister's attention to specific issues related to the Bill that I hope he will be able to further elaborate on in his concluding remarks. Obviously, he has already covered quite a number of them, but I want to put on the record that the Committee has considered those matters in some detail. The Bill defines private pensions on the basis of the promise they offer for members about their retirement benefits during the accumulation phase. It enables the provision of collective benefits in a way that pools risks across membership, thereby providing a greater amount of stability in pensions outcomes, and it also gives force to measures so that people aged 55 and over will have more flexibility about how they access their defined contribution pension savings. Generally speaking, those are all positive measures that the Committee welcomes.

The Committee received an oral briefing on 8 January and agreed to support a legislative consent motion, which related to the extension of pension flexibilities outlined in the Westminster Pension Schemes Bill to this jurisdiction. The Committee was also content with the equality impact assessment (EQIA) on which it was briefed on 30 April. At that briefing, the Committee noted that officials believe that the Bill:

"is expected to have a mainly positive impact on each of the section 75 groups."

However, there was some concern that the introduction of collective benefits could potentially shift greater risk on to younger scheme members — so-called intergenerational risk.

One of the central planks of the Bill is to ensure greater stability of outcomes by making pension incomes less dependent on market conditions. To ensure that that is the case and that younger members of pension schemes are not put at risk, there must be strong governance of those schemes. The Minister's views on that aspect would be welcome.

Furthermore, it is absolutely essential that, in relation to drawing down funds from a pension prior to reaching state pension age, there must be sound financial guidance and advice. Given the complex nature of this area of work, that issue gave the Committee considerable cause for discussion. I point out on behalf of the Committee that it takes the view that guidance and advice are, of course, two different things.

We have excellent generalist advice services here, and Pension Wise has been established to provide guidance on pensions. However, I understand that the Pension Wise service does not recommend any pension products per se, and there have been some concerns that the advice on pensions is given, by and large, by generalists, not pension experts as such. Can the Minister, therefore, give some information on the type of advice this service provides, assurance on the quality of guidance provided and information on how this service actually operates?

Secondly, there have been recent reports of pension schemes not allowing people to draw down funds until they receive financial advice because, it would appear, they do not want to be accused of not properly advising their members of the implications of drawing down funds. This is, in many ways, understandable, given the fear that some disreputable organisations or individuals may wish to prey on people and give them fancy deals that may not, in reality, be to their benefit. Reports also suggest that some people have had to pay for such advice; even figures of £1,000 have been quoted in some instances. On a related matter, there have also been reports that people are being charged for drawing down their pension early. Does the Minister know whether that is standard practice in the industry and, if so, should it not be made clear in advice that the legislation does not ensure that early drawdown of a pension is actually free? I ask the Minister to share some of his views on these matters and provide some insight into the role of the Financial Conduct Authority in regulating the new provisions.

The Committee has taken several briefings on the Bill, as the Minister has confirmed. We are content that it is a positive step forward towards greater stability in relation to sustainable pension outcomes and should ultimately benefit the consumer. We are also realistic and recognise that there will undoubtedly be hiccups in its practical application across the industry. As I have said, the Minister's response regarding the steps taken to protect the consumer will go some way to provide assurances on these matters.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

I do not intend to repeat anything that either the Minister or the Committee Chair has said. I intend to keep my comments brief. I do not claim to be an expert on pensions, although having read through the Bill and other information that has been made available to us, from my reading, it seeks to bring greater shared responsibility between employers and employees, which, in turn, will lead to better outcomes for future pension provision.

Earlier, the Minister mentioned that his own pension date is looming not too far away in the future. When I was preparing for this debate, I remembered very acutely being approached at 18 years of age by the company that I worked for then to sign my occupational pension forms. I remember reading that and thinking that it was the most hilarious thing that I had ever come across; that, at 18 years old, I needed to start preparing for my retirement. Now, almost — not quite, but almost — 30 years down the line, I find that it is not such a hilarity any more. I am glad that I worked for a responsible employer then that did offer a very good occupational pension scheme. That has now almost become a thing of the past. Actually, opening up that conversation at 18 years old and discussing pensions with my colleagues and peer group around me certainly did bring the reality home that I needed to start planning for my future. As I said, with occupational pensions becoming a thing of the past, we need to do everything within our power to improve pension schemes that operate for employees at present.

I would just make one point to the Minister. I believe that, even with this Bill and other legislation that we have in place, we are certainly not doing enough to address pension provision for those who are on low incomes or in part-time work. As most of us in this Chamber will know, the majority of people who are in part-time work and, therefore, on low incomes, are women. Albeit we can certainly take out our own private pensions, women are most definitely disproportionately affected when it comes to employer contributions. We need to be mindful of that and address it.

Pensioner poverty is certainly to the fore and is being debated day and daily not only in the Chamber but throughout the media. We need to encourage everyone, when possible, to plan financially for their future.

I support the Second Stage of the Pension Schemes Bill.

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

I apologise for having to leave at about 12.30 pm. I have a previous meeting arranged, so apologies if I am not here for all the Members' contributions and the Minister's winding-up speech, but hopefully we will be brief.

I will pick up where Ms Bradley left off about the disproportionate impact on women and her comments on young people. Our party also has a concern about zero-hours contracts. I know that it is not the responsibility of the Social Development Minister, but I hope that he will bring influence to bear in discussions around the Executive table as to whether zero-hours contracts should be allowed in Northern Ireland.

Minister, I know that you declared an interest, as did many, but some Members may already be on a pension. I am not mentioning names or looking at anybody in particular. I will keep my head down.

I was most concerned about adequately safeguarding members' interests. The Minister was at pains to point out the importance of balanced and appropriate financial regulation versus the need to safeguard people's interests. Given what we have experienced from 2007 with a lack of adequate and appropriate financial regulation, I hope that the Minister will consider the review's guidelines and the advice given to members.

Some Members talked about the impact of taking money out early, so it is important to have good sound independent financial advice. Is it also important for the Minister's Department to provide sound financial advice. Has advice been readily available for people who contacted the Department, and has it been the best advice possible?

I hope that the Minister will review all applications for such advice to see how that might be better incorporated into the Bill and what might be learned for the outworking of pensions. I hope that there will be a commitment from the Minister to work closely with the trade unions to explain these technical issues to people.

I do not know about you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, but my children's plans are to live off the bank of mum and dad for as long as possible and, when we kick our heels up, to sell our house and live off the benefit of that. Those are the only plans that I see my children having at the moment, so it is important that we get it right and set up the proper regulatory framework whilst safeguarding members' interests.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Like everyone else, I am getting older, so I will declare an interest if that is required at this stage. I got a letter a short time ago, and I suddenly realised that I was getting older and a certain date was approaching, but I hope that I will have an active working life in the meantime.

On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I support the Pension Schemes Bill. As others said, whilst, in theory, pensions are a devolved matter, in practice, the pensions industry operates on a UK-wide basis. We would be only kidding ourselves if we thought that we could alter legislation in this area because doing so could significantly affect our citizens adversely. As public representatives, we ought to be doing what is best for the entire community and understanding all the implications of any change. Why do I say that? There is an effective UK-wide regulatory pensions regime. Anyone who examines the Bill will see that it is technical and specialist in nature. We alter anything in it at our peril. We really could not fully understand the outworkings of any such changes.

Many private pension schemes are currently available, offered and taken up in Northern Ireland. That is principally because they operate on a UK-wide basis, and there are economies of scale that come from that. To run a pension scheme, you need a critical mass, because, first, there is the administrative burden of running the scheme; and secondly, in order to share the risk of any scheme, you want to gather up a sizeable investment and be able to spread that risk in order to minimise risks to the individuals who have invested in it and also to, hopefully, maximise any benefits that can be accrued.

Northern Ireland consumers also need competition. It is vital that there is a variety of products on the market. At one stage during some of the advanced discussions with the Minister and officials on the Bill at the Committee, I asked how many pensions that might be on offer elsewhere could not be afforded here because there would be different rules. I was concerned that, if we were to change the regulations, we might be limiting the market and the ability for customers or constituents to chose how they invest in their pensions for the future.

The official's answer was very illuminating. He agreed that it would be a very big risk:

"if we were to get it out of kilter with GB."

He went on to say that:

"At the moment, the vast majority of pension products here are all based in Britain. One local institution offered products, but I am not sure whether it still does. So they all come from GB."

We must take cognisance of that. If we were to alter parity in this area, we may stop the current products on the market from being afforded here, because pension companies would have to follow any legislative changes that we make. Their existing pensions may not fit into that. We would risk the offering that is available to Northern Ireland citizens were we to make any changes to parity on this issue.

As others have said, there is a UK-wide Pensions Regulator, Pensions Ombudsman and Pension Protection Fund. Again, I asked what would happen if we were to deviate from parity. All of these schemes operate on a UK-wide basis. If we were to deviate, I believe that we could put that at risk and that, again, would have significant financial implications in the administrative costs of managing each of these legislative requirements in order to protect our citizens. Not only that, there would be further risk to our citizens. How, for instance, could we gather up a pension protection fund? Again, economy of scale is required in order to spread that burden or load. It would be much better if we were to retain parity in this vital area. Making any changes to the legislation would have very significant financial implications, both in administration and in the outworkings of the scheme. Where have we heard that before? I am pleased that, on this occasion, Sinn Féin and the SDLP have recognised the benefits of parity and have indicated their support for the Bill. However, it is unfortunate that the same understanding is not being afforded to other legislation before the Assembly, particularly welfare reform proposals, where Sinn Féin has made uncosted proposals. It would be fiscally irresponsible to make uncosted proposals regarding pensions. I am pleased that that has not happened. Equally, it is fiscally irresponsible to make uncosted proposals about welfare reform.

I am pleased that, at least in this area of Government responsibility, everyone within the Assembly appears to recognise their financial responsibilities to the entire Northern Ireland community and that there are administrative benefits in retaining parity. I only wish that they would recognise it in other areas.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank Members for their contributions. I concur with the comments made by my colleague about the technical nature of all of this. Paula Bradley said that she did not claim to be an expert. Well, neither do I. Indeed, for many people listening to the debate or those who have to deal with them, pensions are complicated and bring their particular challenges. I am just glad that I have very well informed officials who have become embedded in the issue.

I will come to advice as I work my way through the conclusion to this particular legislative stage. First, I thank the Chair and the Committee for their work on the Bill. I also say a word of appreciation to my officials, who have on a number of occasions made themselves available to the Committee, and who will still be available to it should any more queries arise during the process. We are also quite happy to continue to engage with Members. If, during my contribution, I fail to deal with any particular issue because of an oversight, I assure Members that I will get back to them after checking Hansard so that no issues raised by Members are not addressed.

The Chair of the Committee raised the issue of guidance. Guidance and advice requirements, as they are known, fall within the remit of the Westminster Pension Schemes Act 2015 rather than this Bill. Guidance falls within the ambit of financial services, which is a reserved matter. The provision seeks to ensure that people proposing to take advantage of the new pension flexibilities from April 2015 have access to free guidance through Pension Wise, and the Chair referred to that. That is provided online, through a telephone helpline run by the Pensions Advisory Service, as well as face-to-face by Citizens Advice in Northern Ireland.

Those in a defined benefit scheme who wish to take advantage of the flexibilities must take independent financial advice. That is because defined benefit pensions tend to be of good quality, so it will be to most people's financial advantage to stay in the scheme. Her Majesty's Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) are closely monitoring the operation of the schemes and the new flexibilities and will consider action in any way necessary should particular trends begin to emerge.

Others commented that the flexibilities will open the door to scams. Unfortunately, those who want to do something that is unlawful and that can be very detrimental are not averse to trying to scam this particular regime. It is an unfortunate fact of modern life that there will always be those who seek to scam others. As part of the pension flexibilities announced in the 2014 Budget, the Government proposed that all consumers with defined contribution pensions should be entitled to free, impartial guidance at retirement about their options when accessing pension savings. Pension Wise was thus launched, and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published the standards for guidance when delivering Pension Wise.

The Pension Wise website includes guidance on how to avoid scams. Northern Ireland Direct signposts people to the Pension Wise website and to further advice on pension scams. The Financial Conduct Authority has recently launched its ScamSmart campaign to raise public awareness of potential scams. So an effort is being made, but, in all these things, we need to ensure that there is due diligence in a way that is relevant to our circumstances. The question was asked: what advice is available to warn people? As I said, the Government have launched Pension Wise, and I think that we should endeavour to use that information to the best of our ability.

The Chair also raised the issue of consumer protection and the intergenerational risk. The Bill contains powers to restrict the ability of schemes offering collective benefits to undertake significant amounts of intergenerational risk transfer. For example, there is a duty to ensure that the scheme remains well funded, plus a duty to take the specified actions of taking a deficit or specifying a pension within which stocks must be absorbed. I assure the Member that members' protection is paramount for us, and it is also an issue of importance for the Department as we move forward, particularly in relation to the regulations. The regulations will be brought to the Committee so that the Committee will have the opportunity to see those regulations. Much detail will flow from those regulations, and I trust that, as that is made available, it will give Members assurance on consumer protection, intergenerational risk and the issues that were raised by my colleague Mrs Bradley and make it clearer that we are doing everything that we possibly can to protect and to ensure that this is a fair and balanced scheme.

The Member for Upper Bann Mrs Kelly referred to the zero-hours contract guidance and to low earners. We are all aware of issues with zero-hours contracts. My ministerial colleague Dr Farry is equally aware and is, I believe, seeking to address the issue in some way. I will be supporting his efforts on that. Guidance is outlined in the position that I stated earlier in reference to Pension Wise and what is available through the work of that website. Automatic enrolment is under way, and that will bring many people, particularly lower earners, into private pensions for the first time. That, together with the new state pension being set above the rate of pension credit, will particularly help low earners. I trust that that gives Members some assurance that consideration is being given to that issue and that benefit will flow from the Pension Schemes Bill in that regard.

I will conclude on the comments that were made by the Member for East Antrim Mr Beggs, particularly his concerns about parity. We are bringing the Bill and having accelerated passage to ensure that we maintain parity. I fully support his comments on the need to maintain it, and that is precisely why I am doing what I am doing in the House today. For those reasons and for others that we have outlined in terms of the timescale, it is important that we continue to focus on bringing the Bill through the Assembly so that we can meet the deadlines. That will ensure that the position in Northern Ireland is not out of kilter with that in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Pension Schemes Bill [NIA 55/11-16] be agreed.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Environmental Better Regulation Bill [NIA 55/11-16] be agreed.

First, I would like to thank my Executive colleagues for their support in bringing the Bill to the Assembly. I look forward to working with Members in taking it forward.

On my appointment as Minister, almost two years ago, I made it clear that I was adopting the following theme for my time in office: a better environment and a stronger economy. It is vital that we grasp the many opportunities that arise from thinking about our environment and the economy together. I see them not as mutually exclusive but as complementary and interdependent. The economy and the environment are inextricably linked. Future economic prosperity and, indeed, our path to recovery out of the current recession, will be aided by having a clean and productive environment, and cleaner, better resource management by businesses.

What is environmental better regulation? For some, it means less regulation; for others, it means more. To me, it means striking the appropriate balance. Over-regulation delivers as many bad outcomes as under-regulation, and just as often. Regulation needs to be focused on real risks and designed so that it protects the environment. With that in mind, we need an environmental regulatory system that goes beyond being fit for purpose: it must actively support and recognise responsible businesses and their need for swift, well-informed decisions.

A good modern regulatory system in the 21st century should ensure that, if you regularly comply with environmental legislation, you have less burdensome regulation and that, if you regularly fail to comply with environmental legislation, you get more attention from the regulator. This is what the Environmental Better Regulation (EBR) Bill is designed to achieve: to support the good guys and go after the bad.

Environmental permitting is essential to protect our environment from pollution. Currently, there are separate regimes with different sets of regulatory controls governing waste, pollution prevention and control, water, and radioactive substances. That leads to confusion, duplication and inefficiencies. It can act as a barrier to businesses. I intend to bring forward integrated, single, clearer environmental permitting and a consistent system that is easier to understand and does not compromise or concede on environmental standards but leads to better environmental outcomes.

I will take a few minutes to talk through the elements of the Bill, beginning with the powers of entry, which are a valuable tool for environmental regulators, enabling them to enter premises and carry out inspections, searches, the collection and retention of evidence etc. In the current system, businesses and organisations are subject to a multitude of powers of entry under 50 pieces of environmental legislation. The multitude and variety make it difficult for individuals and businesses to understand and implement the law. The Bill creates a streamlined system of regulation and guidance that makes it easier for individuals and businesses to understand this important area of environmental law.

The Bill provides for the rationalisation of powers of entry and associated powers, making them easier for all parties to understand and follow.

Alongside the environmental permitting provisions, that will allow for the simplification and optimisation of compliance-assessment and enforcement arrangements. In so doing, it is important to respect human rights and the rights of individuals in their own homes and businesses against unnecessary intrusion. It is essential that powers of entry, as with any enforcement power, achieve the right balance between the need to enforce the law and ensure public protection and provide sufficient safeguards and rights for the individual.

It has become more difficult for the regulated community to understand and meet its obligations. The complexity of the current system inhibits regulators from taking a holistic approach to environmental regulation, performance and management. My Department needs a regulatory system that will deliver desired environmental outcomes and help responsible businesses to operate effectively within environmental limits. By reducing regulatory burdens on compliant, responsible businesses, the Bill will have the added benefit of freeing up resources to target irresponsible businesses and bring them into compliance. It will result in a system that is more effective in avoiding major and costly non-compliance or that can detect it at an early stage, thus reducing the risk of very expensive environmental restoration. That is why the Bill is important and timely.

I will now address each of the Bill's provisions in turn. Part 1, along with schedule 1, specifically provides enabling powers for my Department to introduce regulations, supporting measures and guidance to enable the Northern Ireland Environment Agency and councils to change the way they work with business. The regulations will contain a lot of detailed technical provision that would be inappropriate in a Bill. Such measures would also need to be regularly updated to take account, for example, of technical developments and new EU and international obligations of the UK. The flexibility that is needed in this area would not be available if the relevant measures were specified directly in primary legislation.

In that respect, I think that it would be helpful to briefly outline at this stage how I intend to exercise the enabling powers through regulations and what I envisage the regulations will contain and, indeed, to reassure the Assembly of its scrutiny role and approval. The regulations under the Bill will provide a common set of environmental permitting procedures to replace several regimes under existing arrangements and will allow for a single permit to cover multiple activities on a site where appropriate. That will simplify compliance-assessment arrangements and will, in some cases, reduce the number of inspections that are required. It will reduce red tape for compliant operators and will allow my Department to focus on higher-risk activities.

Regulated activities may require a bespoke permit, a standard permit, a registration or to be subject to general environmental rules, depending on the complexity of the activity and the environmental risks that it poses. The public will, of course, have the opportunity to comment on the draft regulations during consultation, just to reassure Members, and the regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which is the more stringent form of Assembly control.

Schedule 1 contains the finer detail of all matters for which regulations may be made under clause 2. Amongst other things, it enables the regulations to specify the procedures relating to the authorisation of regulated activities by permits and registration. It allows for detailed procedural provisions to be included in the regulations governing how an application for a permit or registration may be made, how that application will be assessed and how a permit or a registration may be granted. It also provides a framework for the extent to which the regulations may allow requirements to be imposed in permits and registrations, as well as allowing regulations to provide mechanisms for transfer, variation and consolidation, and for the suspension and revocation of permits or registration together with a requirement to take associated preventative or remedial action.

Schedule 1 to the Bill also enables the regulations to provide for emissions trading schemes; charging schemes; local enquiries; public registers; compliance and enforcement; rights of appeal; and payment of compensation in respect of any loss or damage.

The proposed regulations will transpose all or parts of a number of EU directives which have previously been delivered through various subordinate legislation. That will include, but is not limited to, the waste framework directive, the landfill directive, the industrial emissions directive, and the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive.

The drafting of the regulations is at an early stage, due to their length and the complexities involved in rationalising a number of different permitting and licensing regimes. As I have already said, the draft regulations will be subject to full public consultation.

Part 2 of the Bill provides enabling powers for the rationalising of the powers of entry and associated powers for environmental inspection and investigation. It ensures that powers of entry and associated powers should not simply be reviewed on an individual basis. Rather, groups of similar powers should be combined to improve transparency and synergy, provide more consistent safeguards and, ultimately, reduce numbers of powers of entry in statute, making powers of entry easier to identify and understand. Part 2 also contains provision for a code of practice in relation to the exercise of powers of entry. Regulators must have regard to the code. The code will contain guidance on such matters as notices given to owners or occupiers of premises, witnesses who may be permitted during inspections, conduct of officials during searches and the retention of records about the exercise of powers. The draft code will also be subject to consultation. The final version of the code should help greatly to provide clarity for the regulator and the regulated.

Part 2 also makes provision for a statutory review of powers of entry. The Bill, therefore, ensures that a review is carried out to clarify what powers of entry and associated powers exist across the body of environmental law, how they are exercised and what safeguards are in place. The review will also help to determine how the Department intends to bring forward a simpler and more streamlined set of powers of entry and associated powers. It is important to have in place a robust mechanism to ensure that powers of entry are considered carefully and to question whether they are fully justified and proportionate. As with the code, any changes proposed in the statutory review will be subject to affirmative resolution procedure in the Assembly.

Parts 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill contain miscellaneous provisions that also help to deliver environmental better regulation, albeit in a small number of discrete areas.

Part 3 amends the Clean Air (NI) Order 1981 to provide for the streamlining of the method for listing authorised fuels and exempted fireplaces in a smoke control area. That will provide a speedier process for manufacturers to have their fuels approved or fireplaces exempted and published in accordance with the provisions of the Clean Air Order. The current process requires the Department to issue regulations every six months, adding new approved fuels and exempted fireplaces. The amendment will remove the requirement to produce regulations and replace that with an approved list, which will be updated monthly. The list will be approved by a senior official and published on a UK website. That revised process will allow manufacturers a much quicker route to market and reduce the administrative burden on the Department, while still providing an open and accountable process.

Part 4 amends the Environment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 to remove unnecessary burdens on district councils in respect of the preparation and implementation of local air quality action plans. As part of the ongoing review of local air quality management across England, Scotland and Wales, the Department has consulted with district councils about the need to undertake further assessments of air quality to supplement information that it already has.

District councils were supportive of the policy to remove the requirement, as they see further assessments as an unnecessary burden that is an impediment to the speedy implementation of local action plans and prolongs non-compliance with prescribed air quality objectives.

Part 5 amends the Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 to transfer sole responsibility for public drinking water regulation from DRD to DOE, thereby allowing my Department to have full responsibility for the functions of the Drinking Water Inspectorate and simplifying regulatory structures. Currently, responsibility for the regulation of drinking water quality for public supplies rests with DRD, while regulation of private supplies is the responsibility of DOE. In practice, my Department's Drinking Water Inspectorate carries out regulation of drinking water in the North on behalf of both Departments to cover both areas since the previous responsibility was split from DOE following the 2007 water reform process that created NI Water. The intention is to simplify arrangements for the inspectorate, giving back my Department sole responsibility for its duties. The transfer has also been approved by Minister Kennedy.

The Bill has been assessed to determine any regulatory impact, and it is considered that it does not contain any provisions that will result in an increased or adverse impact on businesses. That is not surprising, given the better regulation aims of the Bill.

I have spoken about the regulations to be made under the Bill after it has been passed. Those regulations will, of course, require full and detailed regulatory impact assessments at a future date when the respective regulations giving effect to the powers in the Bill are developed. Those assessments will also be subject to consultation along with the draft regulations.

As Environment Minister, I am passionate about delivering better environmental outcomes. This rationalisation of environmental law will, I believe, deliver better and smarter environmental regulation by providing a more streamlined and effective regulatory system for businesses and regulators. It has resulted from extensive stakeholder engagement between businesses, regulators and environmental groups, and it aligns with the Executive's Programme for Government priority of growing a sustainable economy and investing in the future by having a simpler, harmonised and easier-to-understand regulatory framework.

The Bill also supports the Executive's initiative, Building a Prosperous and United Community, which refers to the need to reduce regulatory burdens and red tape for businesses. Let me be clear: the Bill will not change the substantive requirements of permits in environmental protection, but it will reduce the administrative burden necessary to deliver those requirements. The benefits for business will, therefore, generally be expressed in terms of savings in administrative costs. That approach has the additional benefit of reducing the risk of long-term serious non-compliance going undetected and has strong similarities with good practice in other countries such as England, Wales, the Netherlands and Australia.

The measures that the Bill introduces will provide a modern, fit-for-purpose regulatory regime and a more attractive regulatory environment that will help businesses to invest and grow whilst maintaining environmental standards. Creating a more streamlined and effective regulatory regime will support compliant businesses and target those who flout environmental law. It will reduce the risk of environmental harm and the very significant costs involved in cleaning up and restoring the environment, of which the Assembly knows only too well.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in today's debate on the Second Stage of the Environmental Better Regulation Bill. I thank the Minister for explaining in detail the background and purpose of the Bill. In my personal capacity, I endorse the Minister's opening remarks that good environment and business development are interrelated and it is not one against the other. I am sure that my colleagues on the Environment Committee would support me in that.

During a briefing on 5 March, officials advised the Committee of the need for an environmental regulatory system that actively supported and recognised responsible business and a need for swift, well-informed decisions. Environmental regulation has developed over time and has become complex, with different inspection regimes and different rules, making it confusing for businesses. The Committee is aware that the Bill is one aspect of a wide regulatory transformation programme aimed at reducing the burden of regulation on business. The Bill is, in essence, a skeleton Bill, meaning that the real operation of the Act would be made entirely by the regulations under it. Therefore, the Committee will wish to examine the justification for the decision to adopt this structure of powers and what powers the Assembly will have in considering any future subordinate legislation.

Part 1 of the Bill relates to the introduction of environmental permitting powers. Officials advised the Committee that the current regulatory regime contained elements of duplication, making it confusing for industry and regulators, and that the purpose of Part 1 is to rationalise the permitting regime to simplify and reduce administrative costs while continuing to achieve intended outcomes. During its detailed consideration of the Bill, the Committee will wish to ensure that a balance is struck between streamlining the regulatory regime without compromising the Northern Ireland Environment Agency's compliance and enforcement role.

Members have questioned officials on aspects of Part 2 of the Bill. It requires a review of powers of entry and associated powers to be completed by the Department. Officials advised the Committee that the purpose of the review is to provide an opportunity for a thorough and full analysis of all environmental powers of entry and associated powers. Powers of entry are significant powers and a valuable tool for environmental regulators in enforcement. There are also human rights implications associated with powers of entry. The Committee asked officials why the Bill asked for a review of the powers of entry and whether the Department should not first conduct the review and then legislate on the outcome of that review. Officials advised the Committee that there was precedent for this approach in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in Great Britain. That Bill included a published review that could be consulted on before the regulations were brought forward. The Committee will wish to look at the rationale for this approach during Committee Stage.

Parts 3, 4 and 5 contain miscellaneous amendments to the Clean Air (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, the Environment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 and the Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2006. The Committee questioned officials on the impact that the amendments, particularly those in Part 3 relating to authorised fuel and exempt fireplaces, will have on businesses. Officials advised the Committee that it is simplifying the law on exempt fireplaces and fuels because, currently, when an operator develops a new smokeless fuel or fireplace, the legislation can take six months to catch up.

The Bill, therefore, will make it easier and better for businesses.

The Committee sought assurances that the Bill will not give out a message to businesses that standards will be lowered as a result of simplifying and streamlining environmental regulation. The Committee may wish to consider that during the scrutiny stage.

The Committee has already initiated its call for evidence as it wished to notify as many stakeholders as possible of the Bill in advance of the summer holidays. The Committee looks forward to examining submissions and to exploring specific issues in detail. I look forward to developing a good working relationship with the stakeholders and departmental officials to ensure that the Committee is able to scrutinise the legislation properly. On behalf of the Committee, I support the principles of the Bill and look forward to formal scrutiny during Committee Stage. That concludes my comments as Chair of the Committee.

With your indulgence, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I want to make some brief comments as an Alliance MLA. The Alliance Party welcomes the overall aim of the proposals to simplify and streamline the regulation system. The current procedures have been accused of hindering good environmental outcomes, because they are inflexible, bureaucratic, expensive, and there is often a low level of enforcement. The new regulations aim to create an environmental permitting system to replace the existing model, which, in theory, will allow the Department to act swiftly to enforce when needed.

That streamlined approach will increase the chance of improving environmental performance whilst delivering improved business objectives. A document produced by the Northern Ireland Environment Link in 2013 emphasised that the ultimate result of good environmental regulation is good environmental outcomes. Regulation is a means to that end. It is important that we bear that in mind as we move to Consideration Stage.

That leads me to environmental enforcement. I have raised my concerns at the lack of enforcement officers in the DOE on numerous occasions. With budget cuts and the future merging of the Department of the Environment with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, there is a risk that environmental enforcement may not be seen as a top priority. We must ensure that, when enacting this legislation, we have the means to deliver.

Other aspects of the Bill are to be welcomed. Businesses will be able to benefit from minimised bureaucracy through a more streamlined environmental regulation system, which will also allow for certain existing permissions to be brought together into a single environmental permit. Much of the detail on how the new system will work in practice will be provided only when the statutory review of powers of entry is completed after the passing of the Bill.

Consultation will also be carried out on any new powers of entry regulations. As that is still to be finalised, it is hard to comment, other than to stress that it is important that there is a strong monitoring and enforcement system that ensures that those who break the law will face penalties.

I support the Second Stage of the Bill and look forward to engaging with stakeholders and seeking further clarification during Committee Stage and Consideration Stage.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

As Deputy Chair and a DUP member of the Environment Committee, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Second Stage of the Environmental Better Regulation Bill today. The primary aim of the Bill is to streamline environmental regulation whilst robustly protecting the environment and, in turn, ensuring that businesses can operate in a more efficient and cost-effective manner.

When looking at regulation, it is important that those who comply are not burdened with additional red tape. However, those who do not comply should rightly expect greater attention from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. It is key to the success of the Bill that we do not penalise those businesses that act in accordance with the regulations and instead seek to deal severely with those businesses that persistently flout the rules and damage our environment.

The Bill will mean that serial offenders, or those who seriously breach the regulations, will be dealt with quickly and severely. Conversely, those businesses that have breached the regulations through oversight or misunderstanding will receive support and guidance to achieve compliance. The current system is not especially user-friendly for businesses, which has, unfortunately, led to breaches that are largely avoidable and, at times, inadvertent. Businesses have had difficulties in understanding increasing regulation and environmental laws, thus becoming complacent or using vast amounts of resources to ensure that their obligations are met.

The Bill will amend the Clean Air (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, the Environment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002, and the Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 to provide a framework that is easier to regulate, understand and operate. Under the Bill, the existing separate regimes governing waste, pollution, water and radioactive substances will be brought together into a single framework, which will ensure greater uniformity and ease of use.

Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill will make businesses more aware of what is required of them and will make it easier for the Department to assess and implement compliance. It is important to note that the Bill does not intend in any way to dilute the importance of environmental regulation; its sole purpose is to reduce bureaucracy and to make it easier for businesses to fulfil their environmental obligations.

Parts 3, 4 and 5 provide a streamlined method for listing authorised fuels and exempted fire places for use in smoke-free zones, which will mean that businesses will have to wait only one month before they are passed for us instead of six months. Those parts also transfer the regulation of drinking water from DRD to DOE, which is a pragmatic and sensible approach, given DOE's expertise in dealing with water-quality matters.

The Bill is welcome for the environment and for businesses in Northern Ireland. The new regulations will ensure that, by introducing less cumbersome legislation, we allow companies not to get bogged down in red tape and ensure that they can continue to expand without restrictive regulations. Environmental protection is, of course, at the fore of the Bill, and I am hopeful that the Bill will be of benefit to our environment through a quicker and more streamlined action to those who fail to comply with regulation. I look forward to scrutinising the Bill at Committee Stage.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom labhairt go gairid ar an reachtaíocht seo. On the surface, the Bill appears to be very positive and necessary, if it is aimed at reducing bureaucracy. This legislation will come to the Committee in the early autumn.

From what I picked up from the Minister today, and from a briefing to the Committee in March, the Bill seems quite technical. I am asking a few questions now. Is it a desk exercise? Is it like the strategic planning policy in the sense that it brings together existing rules, regulations and powers under one umbrella, or is it more substantive than that? The word that the Minister used most was "streamlining"; there was a lot of streamlining in the Minister's contribution. He referred to the transfer of powers from DRD to the Department of the Environment.

He mentioned "responsible businesses". We have heard that the Bill will reduce the regulatory burden, but how will it do so? Will the responsible businesses notice any changes, and what will be the better outcomes for responsible businesses? Furthermore, how will the legislation change the way in which the Department works with councils? Will that work, as the Minister outlined, be largely in the area of air-quality assessments, or will it be more than that? A third question is on powers of entry. What is the difference between the current situation and the proposed situation? My contribution was essentially to ask three or four questions.

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

I welcome the Bill. The Minister is to be congratulated on introducing legislation that will ease the burden on businesses throughout Northern Ireland. Of course, that chimes very much with the Executive's commitment to building a prosperous and united community, and it also chimes with their attempt in the Programme for Government to prioritise growing a sustainable economy. Of course, if businesses are hampered by over-regulation, they will not prosper. All of us in the House want to ease the burden on businesses, so the Minister is to be congratulating for introducing the Bill and for advancing the Executive's priority to grow a sustainable economy. In any society, of course, regulation is needed. That is just a sad fact of life, but we also need to look at whatever regulation we have, particularly in the environmental field, to see where we can in reduce it. The legislation is, I think, a valiant attempt by the Minister to do that. The Bill, which hopefully will become an Act, provides a framework by which regulations can be introduced that achieve the objective of relieving that burden. It is important that we take into account the genuine, honest and legitimate complaint of business that finds environmental regulations complex, inflexible, incoherent and time-consuming. We have a duty as legislators to address the issues that businesses have quite properly highlighted to government.

The public consultation responses are important for us to take into consideration when the Committee, which works tremendously well under the chairmanship of Ms Lo, looks carefully at the detail of the legislation. It is a Committee that takes its responsibilities very seriously, and it will in due course scrutinise the legislation to see whether it can achieve the objective that the Minister has set. We will look in particular at the environmental powers of entry, which are important, as is the environmental permitting system. Those are two good steps forward.

The Bill will also amend the Clean Air (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 and provide for a new streamlined method for listing authorised fuels and exempted fireplaces for use in smoke control areas. It may not be the most exciting piece of legislation, but it is practical and important for people. It will also amend the Environment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 to remove the requirement to make further assessments of air quality in air-quality management areas, again reducing the burden. It will also amend the Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 to transfer responsibility for the regulation of drinking-water quality from public supplies from the Department for Regional Development to the Department of the Environment.

I welcome in particular the Minister's emphasis on a code in relation to the environmental powers of entry. A code is a very important and helpful initiative. It is important that we look at that and make sure that the code is robust and helpful to all involved — in particular, businesses and organisations that are affected by the right of entry. The environmental permitting system is a wide range of activities and involves the management of waste or cause of emissions that have the potential to pollute the air, water or land, which must have a permit or licence issued by the Department or, in some cases, a district council to carry out operations. Again, these might not be the most exciting activities, but, nonetheless, they affect ordinary businesses and it is important that we get them right. This is a good step forward in doing that, which I welcome. It is important that the House backs any efforts to do that.

There are balances to be struck between environmental protection and the growth of the economy, and, through the Bill, the Minister is striking the right balance. Over-regulation delivers bad outcomes; there is absolutely no doubt about that. Indeed, under-regulation can deliver bad outcomes as well. It is a balancing act, and we have to get the balance right. Regulation needs to be focused on real risks and designed so that it actually protects the environment by supporting the good guys and going after the bad guys. I do not know whether the Minister sees himself in the role of a sheriff, but maybe the Environment Committee can be the posse assisting the sheriff in carrying out his role.

The Bill streamlines the regulatory system and makes it easier to understand, which is important. People sometimes see the regulations and so forth as incomprehensible. It is like finding a needle in a haystack, and they ask, "What is the purpose of this?". If we make the regulations understandable and free up resources to focus on businesses that are non-compliant — let us face it: there are businesses that do not give a hoot and are non-compliant, and it is important that they become compliant — the result will be good for the environment, good for employment, which we all want, and good for prosperity, which we dearly desire and need in Northern Ireland. That is demonstrated by the support that the Bill is receiving from the environment sector and all the good organisations that are sensitive to the needs of our environment. At the same time, it is important that the Bill attracts support from the business sector. If we have those two important sectors in tandem, that bodes well for the Bill.

I welcome the Bill and its underlying principles. I look forward to the work of scrutinising the Bill and perfecting the legislation in the autumn.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I rise on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party to support the progress of the Environmental Better Regulation Bill at this stage. I commend the Minister on his ideal of providing a better environment and a stronger economy. I agree with the broad thrust of what the Bill tries to do: to provide a more streamlined and effective regulatory system for businesses and regulators. Much like the changes proposed for planning a few years ago, the Bill will, hopefully, lead to a more harmonised and more easily understood regulatory framework.

The current system is functional but does little to actively encourage innovative and efficient operation. In fact, the complexity of the current legislative framework is beyond the means of many ordinary businesses. I welcome the fact that the Bill looks to rationalise the system. I particularly welcome the fact that it seeks to introduce the legislative framework for any new regulations in order to make it easier for businesses to understand the legal requirements. Greater recognition of what is necessary to comply will lead to a reduction in red tape and bureaucracy, something that the Ulster Unionist Party strongly believes in. In fact, in discussions over the years with businesses and through my work on the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, a comment that I hear from businesses time and time again is how regulation, bureaucracy and red tape limit their ability to grow and develop. Businesses say that they keep needing to go back to the regulations to ensure that they are meeting them. Simplifying the process and making it easier to understand and comply with is very welcome. I also welcome the fact that this is a better system for businesses and still helps the environment. We are reassured by the words from the Minister that environmental protection standards will not be weakened or compromised by the proposals.

I noted the Minister's brief comments on the proposed process for Part 3: the amendments to the Clean Air Order. Am I right in saying that looking to reduce bureaucracy for businesses will, in turn, increase bureaucracy for the Department? Maybe he will address that.

I note the reference to a new method for listing authorised fuels in smoke control areas. This is an issue that I would like to pay a great deal of attention to, especially in light of the flawed proposals to ban a range of solid fuels, even in non-smoke control areas. I note, however, that further details on how the new system will work in practice will be provided only when further consultation on the environmental permitting regulations is carried out. Does that mean that the Assembly is being asked to pass primary legislation without key details? The Minister talked about further consultation being carried out afterwards. I find that strange: consultation should be carried out beforehand. As the Chair of the Committee mentioned, at this stage of the legislation's progress, we do not have the regulations or code of practice in our hand. I share the Chair's concerns.

I welcome the progression of the Bill and look forward to scrutinising it further in Committee. I commend the Minister on the rationalisation of environmental law. It is good to see, especially in times of reduced cash in our hands. If it will save money for the Department, it is welcome. I support helping businesses to invest and grow while ensuring a good environmental regulatory process and good environmental protection.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Chair of the Committee got it fairly right — she does not always get it right — when she told us that this is more of a skeleton Bill than anything else. It is hard to see where the real meat and content are.

However, as it has to go through Committee Stage, we will hopefully get a better understanding then of what exactly the Bill is trying to do. Quite frankly, when I look at it and read the explanatory notes, I am not sure that they enlighten us greatly. Leave it to the Committee, and we will enlighten the Assembly when it comes to that stage. I know that we will have Mr Maginness's support on that, because he will want to get his teeth into it, as will the rest of us.

There are issues that I want to make some brief comments on. Maybe like Mr McElduff I will pose a few questions, rather than making comments. The Bill promises to do some wonderful things that, on reading through it, I am not sure it will deliver. I have some real concerns about its modus operandi. It states that the options considered for Parts 1 and 2 are:

"General Environmental Regulation & Powers of Entry and Associated Powers".

That sounds very highfalutin, and I am not sure that it tells us very much. It goes on to refer to amendments to the Clean Air (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 and in Part 4 to amendments to the Environment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002. I suspect that, at the end of the day, when all is said and done, the consumer will pay, as they always seem to have to.

There has been a lack of enforcement in the past against those guilty of some of the most horrendous crimes in the disposal of waste that pollutes our waterways and air. I am sure that Members will recall vividly that quite recently a large quantity of waste material came across from the Irish Republic and was dumped in Northern Ireland. To this day, I have not been made aware of the cost of that. I have never been made aware of the damage that it did to the environment. More particularly, I would like to know what damage, if any, it did to our drinking water system. It has to have impacted on it in some way.

Someone said that some of those who damage our environment come from big businesses; I think the phrase used was that they "do not give a hoot". In the past, Departments have not been guiltless in this either. When I look at some of the damage that has been done to some of our rivers and watercourses, I see that it has very often been the result of actions by Departments. I will now pose a few questions to the Minister. Will his Bill take all that on board? Will his Bill increase the powers to deal with that sort of behaviour? One of our greatest natural resources is our rivers, and they are sometimes the least looked after. Those of us who use rivers for whatever purposes value them greatly, whether we have an interest in angling or in some other activity that takes us there. It really grates on us to see the pollution that sometimes goes into our rivers and the destruction that it causes, particularly to fish life. The angling fraternity has become one of the greatest custodians and protectors of our watercourses.

The Minister has to also tell us about this as we go along, and perhaps we will be able to tease it out anyway when we go into the Bill in greater detail during its Committee Stage. We can improve on the Bill. I think that, when it gets it, the Committee will bring back to the House a Bill that is much fitter for purpose and much more able to do what it is supposed to be designed for.

I think that when the Minister is winding up he will want to tell us about proposals for a solid fuel ban in areas. If that is a proposal, I hope that you will tell us what that will cost the consumer. If that is not the case, it is welcome, and I hope that you will be able to tell us that.

I look forward to working with the Committee as we scrutinise the Bill. I am sure of this: when it comes back to the House at a later date, we will have something that is quite different from what we have today. I hope that that will be the case.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I call the Minister of the Environment. Sorry, I call Mr Ian McCrea.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether I was getting promoted or the Minister is now demoted. Mr Maginness referred to the Minister as the "sheriff": the only sheriff that came to my mind was Sheriff Woody from 'Toy Story'.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

There are similarities.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

There are. He has the length and is a bit strangly. Nonetheless, as things progress, we will see what kind of sheriff he turns out to be.

I join my colleague in agreeing with the Chair of the Committee that the Bill is just the bare bones of a Bill — I think that the Minister would also accept that — and does not have the required detail. It is a regulatory Bill, so I can, in a sense, understand that. More of the detail will come as it goes through Committee. It is important that we get down to the nitty-gritty, the detail and what it means. There are many concerns across our business community that there is too much red tape, and I do not think that anyone can deny that. No matter what we do — my colleague referred to this — we need to ensure that the consumer does not pay. That is an important aspect. I may be being cynical, but the costs tend to find their way down to the consumer and they have to pay. It is important that we do anything and everything that we can to ensure that that is not the case.

Those of us who have been in local government will be more than aware of the regulations that environmental health officers have to endure. They have to go out into the community, especially to businesses, and deal with them. I suppose that it comes down to the aspect of enforcement. Many have had concerns about the lack of enforcement, and I know that the Chair referred to that in a personal capacity as a Member. It is important that the Minister addresses that matter and tells the House how he plans to tackle enforcement.

The Minister said that, since he had become Minister, he had set out to have better regulations and that it was something that he had a passion for. Until we see the detail, we will not be able to see whether that is the case. As Mr Maginness said, there is no doubt that there is over-regulation. For the sake of our economy and our businesses, it is important that we get the right level of regulation. I do not think that anyone expects there to be no regulation, but, whatever the outcome when the Committee gets its teeth into the detail, I have no doubt that, as other Members have said, we will have something that is better for our businesses, which, in turn, will be better for our economy. But it must have the sole focus of ensuring that the consumer does not pay.

Like others, I look forward to scrutinising the Bill when it comes to Committee. No doubt, as he always has been, the Minister will be willing to work with us and at least consider our wiser counsel on some of these matters.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am grateful to the Chair of the Environment Committee and to Members from all sides of the House for their consideration of the Bill and their contributions to the debate. Their comments have, as always, been most valuable.

I would like to respond to issues that have been raised. I can assure Members that I will also read the Hansard report of the debate to ensure that I have not missed any issues. If I find that I have, I will write to the Members concerned. If I do not find the issues that I have missed, please feel free to come and remind me of them.

Ms Lo was first to respond. I very much welcome her support for the Bill and the rationale behind it. She gave a synopsis of the Committee's involvement to date. I look forward to the Committee's continued and intensified involvement, and I pledge to work with it to get the best better regulation Bill that we can.

With her Committee Chair hat off, Ms Lo outlined the need for the legislation from the perspective of environmental groups as well as of businesses. Let me assure Ms Lo that, over the next couple of months, I intend to work with my staff, NGOs and DARD to ensure that the ethos and enforcement of environmental protection is at the heart of the new Department.

Mrs Cameron's contribution was also very welcome. She made the very important point — I picked it out specifically — that the Bill will not dilute environmental regulation.

Mr McElduff said that the Bill appeared to him to be very technical in character. I can assure the Member that there was an awful lot of streamlining, not just in my speech but of my speech. I took it from 26 pages to 16. Initially, this is essentially a desk-based exercise, the benefits of which will be apparent to and welcomed by those who are regulated, many of whom — Mr McElduff will be aware of this from a rural perspective — feel overburdened and over-regulated. It will ease the pressure on good businesses by reducing the number of permits and licences that they need to apply for. That will not reduce the height of any environmental hurdles that businesses need to clear, but it will reduce the number of them and will ensure that there are not loads of hurdles very close together, one after the other, that businesses and individuals find extremely difficult to navigate.

The Member asked a question on powers of entry. Currently, powers of entry are spread over 60 or 70 pieces of legislation. I was just chatting to one of the officials in the Box who showed me his warrant card that lists the specific pieces of legislation that he has powers of entry under. There are other officials, I am sure, who have much bigger cards, and some who practically have books giving their powers of entry. The Bill will also give greater clarity to those who are regulated when an official lands to carry out an inspection and says under what piece of legislation he is there.

Mr Maginness made a good contribution. It was very supportive, as always. However, I have to say that I am very sorry that he does not find the issue of permitting and registration particularly exciting. While it is hardly as dramatic as an episode of 'Eastenders', it is an area that affects many people and many businesses.

Mrs Overend made a good contribution as well. She focused — as I suspected she might — on the issues around clean air. It was an issue raised by Lord Morrow as well. First, I assure the House, again, that there are no proposals to ban fuels of any type. The first part of a cross-border study has been carried out. A report has been shared with stakeholders. It has also been available in the Assembly library for over a month. I do not know if any or how many Members have availed themselves of the opportunity to actually read it.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Yes.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am glad to hear that. The Member has read it, yet still thinks that there are proposals to ban certain fuels. This is not about taking fuels off; this Bill is about allowing new fuels to be added, and it is exclusive to the controlled zones. She was a wee bit concerned, as were other Members, about a lack of detail. We are only at Second Stage. Lord Morrow was so concerned that he described it as a "skeleton Bill". I look forward to working with the Committee to put more flesh on those bones.

The Member also expressed concern that the consumer will pay. This is about aiding consumers. This legislation and its implementation will ensure that the type of major and heinous environmental crimes that he talked about are much less likely to occur, and certainly much less likely to go undetected. I also concur with the Member on the role that the angling fraternity plays as custodian of some of our rivers. Mr McCrea made a good contribution as well. I have to tell him that I would much rather be compared to Sheriff Woody than the Sheriff of Nottingham.

[Laughter.]

I would also like to assure the Member, the House, environmental groups and businesses that, 'You've got a friend in me'.

[Laughter.]

Again, I would like to thank Members for their contributions to the debate on the Environmental Better Regulation Bill and for the questions and issues that they have raised. To conclude, as I said earlier, there are balances —

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for giving way. I just want to make a correction. It was remiss of me not to declare an interest in that I am a member of an angling club.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for that intervention and declaration, although, from what I hear, he is not that good at it anyway.

[Laughter.]

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

You've not got a friend in him.

[Laughter.]

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

As I said earlier, there are balances to be struck between environmental protection and growth of the economy via reductions in regulatory burdens on businesses. I believe that this Bill strikes the right balance. I fully understand that we all need to be sure that it does and I am committed to considering the views of Members to ensure that we arrive at the best possible package of measures.

I and my officials look forward to working closely with the Committee for the Environment as it begins the detailed scrutiny of the Bill, which, I have no doubt, will prove to be equally valuable. I commend the Bill to you.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Environmental Better Regulation Bill [NIA 55/11-16] be agreed.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move

That the Budget (No. 2) Bill [NIA 53/11-16] do now pass.

The passing of the Final Stage of the Budget Bill by the Assembly will facilitate legislative cover for Departments and other public bodies to deliver services in this financial year. I must emphasise again the critical importance of this legislation completing its passage through the Assembly.

I have listened with interest to the debate over the last few weeks. It is a debate that has covered many important issues, not only relevant in the current financial year but for the future of Northern Ireland. I thank everyone who has contributed and, once again, place on record my thanks to the Committee for Finance and Personnel for its role in ensuring that this Bill could pass through the Assembly via accelerated passage. The Committee plays a vital role in the scrutiny of the Executive's draft Budgets and I welcome its continuing work in this area as we look ahead to setting the Budget position for the coming years in the autumn.

The timing of the Executive's next Budget will depend on when the UK Government complete their spending review for 2016-17 and beyond. Regardless of the timescales that are involved, I look forward to constructive engagement with the Committee for Finance and Personnel in the deliberation on our next Budget.

Returning to this financial year, Members will be aware that this Budget Bill is not the end of the budgetary legislative process. There will undoubtedly be, as indeed there are every year, substantial changes agreed to departmental budgets through the Executive's monitoring rounds.

All in-year changes will then be reflected in the spring Supplementary Estimates, which are usually brought to the Assembly in February. I expect that the legislative process will be no different this year. However, as I have repeatedly said, the uncertainties about our Budget position are much more severe than usual due to the lack of agreement on implementing welfare reform, which puts in jeopardy the financial flexibility included in the Stormont House Agreement.

We must find a way to address these issues. The alternative is swingeing cuts to departmental resource budgets in this financial year and much more pain to come. The reductions, for example, to our resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) budget to offset welfare savings not achieved are estimated to increase to nearly £200 million next year, some £283 million in 2017-18 and rising to £366 million in 2018-19. We will also be faced with significant costs in developing new IT systems to deliver welfare payments here. Furthermore, the procurement of such systems before the existing ones become obsolete will be a huge challenge. All that is well known but worth reiterating to remind Members of the critical importance of us all doing our level best to find a solution to the current impasse. The alternative is simply not workable.

Another unwanted implication of not implementing welfare reform is that all elements in the Stormont House Agreement fall, including the commitment to devolve corporation tax powers to the Assembly. As Members will be aware, this issue is close to my heart, and I have been championing it over the years in my role as Enterprise Minister. I firmly believe that we must not and cannot afford to lose the huge opportunity that it presents us with. Ulster University's Economic Policy Centre estimates that a reduction in our rate of corporation tax to 12·5% could generate some 40,000 additional jobs here by 2033, on top of everything else that is going on. That is equivalent to an increase in economic output of around 10%. That is the size of the prize that is in front of us.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I am aware that I have strayed somewhat from the Bill, but it is important that we do not forget the bigger picture. The Budget Bill, which I hope that Members will support again today, does not exist in a vacuum. It is important to our financial cycle and the principal mechanism through which the Assembly can hold Departments to account for their expenditure. However, decisions that we take in this financial year will have profound and wide-ranging consequences not just for us as an Administration but for all the people of Northern Ireland. With that in mind, I ask Members to support the legislation and pass the Final Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill.

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

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. As previously outlined, the Bill makes provision for the balance of cash and resources required to reflect the departmental spending limits in the 2015-16 Main Estimates.

As the Chairperson indicated during the previous debate, the Committee agreed, under Standing Order 42(2), to grant accelerated passage to the Budget Bill on the basis of having been consulted appropriately on its expenditure provisions. It is imperative that the Department meets the requirement for appropriate consultation on each occasion, given the importance of such Bills progressing through the Assembly before summer recess.

During the remainder of the Second Stage debate last Wednesday, mention was made of the Committee's decision to grant accelerated passage to the Bill. To ensure that everyone understands fully the basis for the Committee's decision, I will, with your permission, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, take a few moments to provide further background and explanation.

Members should be clear that the briefing from the Minister on 17 June marked the culmination of a process of engagement between the Committee and DFP on the Budget for 2015-16. That process commenced in November 2014 and included a series of written briefings and oral hearings to inform the Committee’s coordinated report on the Executive’s draft Budget, which was published on 17 December. The report included recommendations on strategic and cross-cutting issues, as well as reflecting the positions of each statutory Committee on the draft budgets at a departmental level.

The Committee recognised in its report that, despite DFP's best endeavours to gain Executive agreement on the draft Budget 2015-16 earlier, circumstances had resulted in a truncated budgetary process with considerably less scope than normal for input by the Assembly and, indeed, by the wider public. In that regard, the Committee highlighted its concerns about the resultant time pressures and absence of detailed information on some key issues during the draft Budget process.

Following publication of its report, however, the Committee undertook a programme of follow-up engagement and scrutiny, including, for example, the following dates on which relevant issues were considered: on 12 January, the Committee led a take-note debate on the draft Budget; on 19 January, there was a ministerial statement on the final Budget; on 21 January, there was a briefing from DFP on the final Budget and outcomes; and on 27 January, there was a plenary debate on the final Budget. That was followed on 25 February by a briefing from DFP on the Northern Ireland Civil Service voluntary exit scheme; then, on 11 March, we had a briefing from DFP on its response to the Committee’s report on the draft Budget. On 10 June, a briefing was received from the head of the Civil Service, as chair of the public sector workforce restructuring steering group, on the voluntary exit schemes. Finally, on 17 June, there was a ministerial briefing on the Main Estimates and the Budget (No. 2) Bill.

It is undeniable, therefore, that a significant process of consultation with the Committee took place on the Budget for 2015-16. While the Committee was forthright in pointing out the shortcomings and in seeking assurances, it nonetheless recognised the particular circumstances around the process. A balanced decision was therefore taken by the Committee to grant accelerated passage to the Bill on this occasion.

On the theme of continuing to press for better information on budgetary issues, I reiterate the Committee’s desire to gain some clarification on the savings from the voluntary exit schemes. During recent evidence sessions, the Committee pressed senior officials to provide further detail on each Department’s projected savings from the voluntary exit schemes that have been factored into their pay bill budgets for 2015-16. Indeed, the Chairperson also asked the Minister to clarify the position during last week’s Second Stage debate.

However, in her concluding remarks on the debate, the Minister stated:

"the expected quantum and spread of savings from the scheme across the Departments is being calculated by the working group under the leadership and chairmanship of the head of the Civil Service. It will be available shortly." — [Official Report, Vol 106, No 3, p 21, col 2].

She went on to add:

"Of course, the savings that were to be generated from the voluntary exit scheme have already been put into this Budget." — [Official Report, Vol 106, No 3, p 23, col 1].

Given that projected savings have already been accounted for in the Main Estimates and budgets for each Department, it is difficult to see why figures are not readily available. That raises a number of questions. First, do Departments not know what pay-bill savings they have built into their budgets? Secondly, if Departments have these figures, why has DFP not collated them, given its central monitoring role?

Thirdly, how might the departmental budgets reflected in the Bill be altered by the further calculations being made by the group led by the head of the Civil Service? Perhaps that is something that we will finally receive some clarity on today, notwithstanding the work by the head of the Civil Service on refining the figures.

I think that it is fair to say that, while the absence of that strategic information to date may reflect the particular circumstances of the 2015-16 Budget, it underlines the importance of facilitating Assembly scrutiny. By being enabled to undertake more effective oversight of the Executive's Budget and expenditure, the Assembly could easily add further value by helping to ensure efficient and effective delivery of the Executive's strategic priorities. Indeed, as you are, no doubt, aware, the Committee has carried out a review of the financial process, and its main outcomes have been referred to in speech after speech during Budget debates here by me and, more particularly, Mr Cree. We have, however, seen little change on that front. Perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to give us her view on where she sees the review of the financial process going — if it is going anywhere.

We need a focus on strategic and cross-cutting finance issues. That will be important in the remainder of the current financial year, both in implementing the 2015 Budget and in looking forward. Regarding the challenges that lie ahead for the remainder of the financial year, Committees will need to be facilitated to undertake regular, timely and effective scrutiny of the financial forecasting and performance of their Department. They will also need to examine the impact of any further budgetary reductions that may arise from decisions by the Westminster Government. As we know, some of those are imminent. Regular scrutiny by Committees will, no doubt, help ensure that no moneys are returned to the Treasury as a result of underspends, beyond the thresholds agreed in the Budget exchange scheme, and that retrospective action will not be needed to regularise any excess expenditure.

Looking ahead and subject to a resolution of the more immediate sticking points, it would be useful if the Minister could clarify some further issues. What is the time frame envisaged for the next UK spending review? What local Budget process might flow from that? Is the next spending review likely to set ceilings for a multi-year Budget as we move into the next mandate? How might the proposed reduction in the number of Departments be factored into the next local Budget process?

Clearly, the immediate focus has to be on reaching the necessary agreement to see this Budget implemented. However, we must also be mindful of the process that will need to be followed for the 2016-17 Budget and even beyond. It would therefore be useful if the Minister could at least outline the indicative timetable for the next Budget process. In that regard, it will be important that the lessons of the 2015-16 Budget process are learned. That will mean the Executive building up —

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I am afraid that I must interrupt the Member, as Question Time begins at 2.00 pm. I will call him again after Question Time.

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

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, if you allow me one more minute, I will finish.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

Question Time commences at 2.00 pm. The Member will be called again after Question Time. I ask the House to take its ease while we change the Table.

The debate stood suspended.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions — Finance and Personnel

Megan Fearon (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

1. Ms Fearon asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel for her assessment of the recent International Monetary Fund memorandum warning western Governments against what it termed "needless austerity". (AQO 8532/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

There are three points, for me, from the IMF report. The first is that a high level of public-sector debt represents a burden on the economy that must be dealt with. However, it is the pace of repayment that is in question, and, in that regard, the United Kingdom has room to manoeuvre. In such circumstances, rushing to pay down debt could be the worse of two evils. The report reaffirms my view that debt should be tackled but in a way that reflects the circumstances of all the United Kingdom regions.

Megan Fearon (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her answer. Does she agree that, aside from being harmful, continued cuts to our block grant by the British Government are not only needless but counterproductive?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The deficit has to be dealt with, and, as part of the United Kingdom, we have to play our role in dealing with it. The deficit peaked at £153 billion, which is around 10·2% of national income, in 2009-2010. That was clearly unsustainable. Therefore, if the Member reads the IMF discussion paper that she referred to in her question, she will note that debt has to be tackled. Where I may differ from the Chancellor and his plans slightly is that I believe that, when you are dealing with debt and the deficit, you need to have concern and regard for all the regions of the United Kingdom. I have commented previously that you do not just look at London and the south-east; you have to have regard to all the other regions of the United Kingdom. That is where we need to focus our discussions with our national Government, the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member opposite is clearly and sadly not aware of what is happening in Greece, which is a very real example of austerity. Will the Minister agree that that alone is a reason why we should live within our means?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Greece situation is very worrying for a number of reasons. It points to the issue that the Member has raised in relation to just avoiding dealing with national debt. You cannot do that; you have to grasp the nettle and deal with the deficit and the debt. In relation to Greece in general, there are certainly worrying times ahead because, if Greece exits the euro, as looks increasingly likely, that will lead to a time of grave uncertainty for the eurozone. Thankfully, we are not in the euro. That gives us some protection, but that will be of no comfort to our exporters who are exporting to the European Union generally and to the eurozone in particular. There are worrying times ahead, particularly for our exporters, and we will do all that we can to support them in the knowledge that there are difficult times ahead.

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

This morning, the High Court in Belfast ruled that the Executive had a legal duty to adopt an anti-poverty strategy, that they had not done so and that they are in breach of their legal obligations. Will the Minister, if not now then soon, perhaps by written statement, advise Members of the consequences of the High Court ruling in respect of ongoing budget and welfare issues, not least in the context of what may happen on 8 July and how that might impact on people who are deemed to be poorer in Northern Ireland?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for the information. I was not aware of that court case, and I am sure that the First Minister and deputy First Minister, who have policy responsibility for that issue, will come to the House in due course after they have had a chance to consider the judgement. In relation to poverty in Northern Ireland, I want to say to the Member that his continued refusal to implement welfare reform proposals in Northern Ireland will lead to an awful lot of people being in very difficult circumstances right across Northern Ireland in terms of public services. He should not lecture me about dealing with those in poverty: he should try to stop people going into poverty.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

The Minister referred to the IMF report. It is important to note that it also states:

"Inherited public debt represents a deadweight burden on the economy, reducing both its investment potential and its growth prospects."

Does the Minister agree with that?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I do, and I am glad that the Member referenced that. I tried to reference it in my substantive answer because it is very clearly the case. You may recall that, at first, the IMF criticised the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the way in which he was dealing with the deficit and then had to apologise for that criticism. Afterwards, Christine Lagarde said that there was, in fact, no single way to deal with the particular issue that she was talking about. There are different ways to deal with the issues, and it would be wrong of us not to recognise that the deficit has reduced to over £70 billion from a high of £153 billion. That is important, and we need to recognise it. However, we also need to recognise that different regions of the United Kingdom have different needs, and that is where we really need to push ahead with the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I inform Members that question 6 has been withdrawn.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

2. Mr Allister asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel how she plans to keep expenditure in 2015-16 within HM Treasury control limits. (AQO 8533/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Executive Budget for 2015-16 is predicated on the full implementation of the Stormont House Agreement. I now expect all parties to follow through on the commitments given in that agreement, including the implementation of welfare reform.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Perhaps the Minister would take a moment to explain to the House the significance of the Treasury control limits. Can she explain how monitoring the implementation of the Budget, which she has to measure against the allocations, can be done authentically when the allocations are themselves inflated by £604 million? Will the Treasury acquiesce in that?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As the Member is aware, I met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury two weeks ago, when we had the opportunity to talk about those issues. At that meeting, he made it clear that there would be no extra money and that we could not breach our control totals. The Treasury has not made it clear what it will do if we breach our control totals because, first and foremost, it is a matter for and a responsibility of the Executive to live within our means — the money that has been allocated to us.

As I said to the Member during the Budget debate last week, if we have no welfare reform, we have no Stormont House Agreement, no Assembly and no Executive. Therefore, we will not come to a situation of trying to deal with the situation that he mentioned — how we measure against those allocations or how we deal with that issue — because the Assembly cannot continue with a Budget that seeks to deal with that size of cut to the public sector and we would not be able to proceed. Therefore, it is imperative — I will, no doubt, say this many, many times during the Budget debate today — that welfare reform and the full Stormont House Agreement are implemented.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

I note that the Minister visited her Welsh counterpart last week. Although the Welsh do not have to grapple with the difficulty of welfare reform, I wonder whether she learnt any lessons from them about novel approaches to budgetary issues. Do any of the other regions across the United Kingdom have different approaches from ours, and are there lessons to be learnt from them?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his question. I had a very constructive meeting with my counterpart in Wales. She mentioned welfare tangentially, insofar as she said that she was not looking for welfare powers to be devolved to Wales, which is possibly very wise.

We had a very useful discussion about the Barnett formula and how the Welsh feel that it is working for them. Of course, under the Barnett formula and in relation to funding, they are worse off than we are in Northern Ireland. They want to look at how they can bring in an element of need. We discussed that very issue in the Chamber last week when debating the Committee's report on the Barnett formula.

We had a good discussion about how we could engage more with the public generally on financial matters so that they are aware of the decisions that have to be taken on a fixed Budget. How do you decide on your priorities, and how do Departments decide what is very important to deal with? It was a very good engagement, and it is one that we will continue with.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagraí go dtí seo. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister for her answers thus far. Has she considered the implementation of new levies to generate much-needed local finance?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I do not know whether the Member is suggesting water charges or what she is talking about. Of course, if her party's Ministers want to bring forward suggestions on revenue raising, I am sure that the Executive will give them due consideration.

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

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for her answers up to now. During her answer, she mentioned her meeting with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Did she receive any indications from the Chief Secretary of the impact on this region of the Chancellor's planned statement?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Member knows that, when various members of his party asked that question of the Secretary of State, they got the same answer as I got from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, which was that we would find out what the implications would be for us on 8 July. The Treasury is not going to tell us what the quantum is before it makes the announcement to the House of Commons on that date. However, I think that we are very aware of the commitments that the Conservative Party made in its manifesto before the general election, so we have a fair idea about the sorts of areas that it is looking at for dealing with further cuts to welfare and other issues.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answers thus far. Minister, when you are dealing with the current situation and the spending by Departments, you find that there are those that are prudent when it comes to discretionary spending and those that are spending regardless. How do you intend to deal with that?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I sent a note around Departments, I think about a month ago now, advising them that they should be prudent with discretionary spend and should not commit to further spend that is not necessary and that they have not committed to. It is for each individual Minister who is responsible for his or her own Department to decide what they do about that, but, fundamentally, that will come to the Executive, and we will have a discussion about it. I think it would be very foolish for any Minister to continue to spend without any regard to the situation that we find ourselves in. If the Stormont House Agreement and welfare reform were implemented, we could continue with our discretionary spend and could continue to deal with the areas of very great need that there are right across Northern Ireland. Again, it comes back to the very fundamental issue that, without welfare reform, there is no Stormont House Agreement and, therefore, the flexibilities that we require to move forward are not available to us.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

3. Mr Newton asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel whether she has considered a rate rebate for business owners in East Belfast as a result of Mersey Street being closed for through traffic. (AQO 8534/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Members will be aware that the reason why Mersey Street is closed to most traffic is to facilitate ongoing work by Northern Ireland Water to improve drainage and alleviate the threat of future floods. While I am sympathetic to the issues raised by business owners as a result of ongoing schemes in Mersey Street and on the Castlereagh Road, I am sure that the Member will understand that I simply cannot issue a blanket rate rebate to ratepayers in the area.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for her comments. I know that she will understand, from her previous role in Enterprise, Trade and Investment, the absolute need of those small businesses that are suffering as a result of the traffic diversion measures that are in place. Is the Minister minded to raise the matter around the Executive table and, perhaps, urge the appropriate Minister to see whether anything can be done to accelerate the scheme and alleviate the problems for the small businesses that are being impacted upon?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his comments and question. I am fully aware of what is going on down on Mersey Street and feel a lot of sympathy, because, as I understand it, that scheme was to be finished by the end of May, but, because of unforeseen issues relating to the ground and what have you, it is projected that it will not be completed until December of this year. That is nearly a whole year of businesses having to deal with the issue. I am looking forward to meeting the Member and some businesspeople from the area in relation to the issue. Whilst I cannot issue a blanket rebate, individuals can apply to the district valuer to have their rates looked at. So, if there are particular incidences of hardship, he should, perhaps, encourage those involved to have a conversation with the district valuer in relation to the specific issue, because it looks as though the issue will be around for some time.

It is not just happening on Mersey Street. There have been other examples. At a constituency level, there are roadworks in Enniskillen, at present. Whilst we very much welcome the fact that works are going on in those areas to deal with issues, sometimes I think that a little bit more thought needs to go into the planning of the roadworks and how we can help businesses while they are ongoing. So, I am happy to mention it to the Minister involved and to raise it at the Executive table.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I remind Members that this is a specific question in relation to a constituency, so I call Mr Chris Lyttle.

Chris Lyttle (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for acknowledging the hardship that has been caused to residents and businesses alike in Mersey Street and, indeed, on the Castlereagh Road. I appreciate her answer about not being able to issue a blanket rate rebate, but will she raise the issue at the Executive table with the Ministers who have responsibility for some of the agencies involved in those works to ensure that any other compensatory schemes that may be available are expedited as quickly as possible?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As I have already indicated, I will certainly raise it at the Executive table. I think it is a specific issue for East Belfast, at present, but, unfortunately, there may be other cases around Northern Ireland. I absolutely acknowledge that it is good that Roads Service and NI Water are undertaking works in particular areas to alleviate floods, because we remember the damage that was caused a couple of years ago. It is good that the works are taking place, but you also have to recognise that businesses need to function and be able to attract people into them. Therefore, there needs to be a balance and a proportional response to deal with the issue.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I call Mrs Karen McKevitt, and I am looking forward to the connection.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I, in South Down, have experienced —

[Laughter.]

— some of the issues that people in East Belfast are experiencing. Indeed, they were to do with flooding, even in my constituency office on Newry Street in Warrenpoint. I am letting the Member know that Land and Property Services will not entertain you unless the street in question has been closed for more than 12 months. Maybe the Minister can take that information to the Executive table, and maybe they will be able to look at that again, because it affects businesses, particularly if a road is closed for a long time. It is not a laughing matter.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

You are pushing your luck.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I recognise that there has to be disruption for a considerable period before the valuer can look at a new rateable valuation in respect of the small business concerned. That may be somewhat difficult, particularly in the context of the revaluation having just been rolled out this year. However, I think that there is a role to look at how the works are progressing. Could traffic management be dealt with in any other way that would get people to the businesses? Could we involve ourselves in providing more signage? There are other ways to help businesses. I think that we need to look at that matter proactively and innovatively, and not with a closed mind, to help those businesses.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Mr Robin Swann is not in his place.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

5. Lord Morrow asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel for her assessment of the operation of the Barnett formula in Northern Ireland compared to other regions of the UK. (AQO 8536/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Barnett formula is used by Her Majesty's Government to determine changes in the spending allocations of the devolved Administrations. It is applied uniformly across the United Kingdom, as set out in the statement of funding policy, with devolved Administrations receiving a population-based proportion of changes in planned spending on comparable services in England, Scotland and Wales or Great Britain as appropriate.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Does the Minister agree that sticking with the Barnett formula is the best way forward here, rather than going to some new untried system? Is there room for improvement in the administration of the Barnett formula?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I certainly think that the debate last week pointed to some of the weaknesses of the Barnett formula, but it also talked about its strengths. A view was expressed — one that I probably concur with — that it is better the devil you know. Of course, the Barnett formula gives us certainty and is relatively simple — I use the word "relatively" — and easy to administer, but that is not taking away from the fact that there are difficulties with it. I suppose that, as with any formula that deals with public finances and how that is divvied up against Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there will always be challenges for each of the Administrations. I have to say, though, that we benefit from the Barnett mechanism to the tune of 23% higher than the United Kingdom average. So, currently, we certainly are benefiting from the Barnett formula.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. As the Minister said in her answer, she recognises that there are difficulties with the Barnett formula. She may agree that one of the difficulties is the fact that financial benefits from policy changes in the Executive are not retained by the Executive but returned to Westminster. Does she agree with the recommendation of the Smith commission for Scotland that the result of such policy changes should be retained by the devolved institutions, and has she had any discussions with the Treasury on that?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have not had any discussion on that particular issue as yet, but I imagine that we will have discussions around the Smith principles. I am having a meeting with John Swinney in early August, and then we are having a trilateral with Jane Hutt from the Welsh Administration. We will look at where we can coalesce around the difficulties with the Barnett formula, because, obviously, they may have different emphasis on the changes that they want made. If the Member is referring to the issue that we talked about in relation to corporation tax and the fact that, at the moment, secondary benefits are not able to be retained in Northern Ireland, we certainly want to explore that with the Treasury and with the Chief Secretary, because we very firmly believe that secondary benefits should be retained here so that the no-detriment principle of Smith applies to us in Northern Ireland.

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

Minister, with respect to your discussions with your Welsh counterpart, are there any particular lessons around the Barnett formula that you would like to bring back to the House?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Of course, the Welsh are not as fortunate as us in relation to the Barnett formula. They are at a disadvantage because, when the Barnett formula started, they had a lower baseline, and they have suffered as a result of that. The Welsh are very keen on the idea of a Barnett floor coming into play, so that they do not fall below a certain level. I am quite attracted to that from the terms of what we discussed last week around convergence issues. Of course, in bad times, the convergence does not happen, so we have not seen a convergence happen as yet. However, if the convergence does happen, I think that a Barnett floor would be a useful mechanism. It is something that we will continue to discuss, particularly with the Welsh, but I am sure that the Scots will have a view on that issue as well.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

While some have criticised the Barnett formula, I am of the view that it has been relatively generous, providing an additional £2,000 per head of population and recognising the needs of Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that, with the call for further devolution of fiscal powers to regions of the UK, the Barnett formula could come increasingly under review? Will she advise us of her approach to that and her thoughts on how best to protect the needs of Northern Ireland?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Barnett formula has not disadvantaged us in Northern Ireland in the way it has Wales, for example. As I indicated, we are 23% better off. If you look at very recent figures, which I talked about in the House last week, we in Northern Ireland received a little over £2,000 more than the UK average per head of population. So, certainly, it has provided us with a good example. However, I anticipate that there will be further discussions in relation to the Barnett formula. Of course, when the Barnett formula came in, it was meant to be only a temporary measure to deal with allocation, and it has been in place since 1978. That just shows you that some things never change; things that come in as temporary measures stay, a bit like income tax. Therefore, we will have a discussion around that, and I am sure that it will form part of the discussion when we are looking at the next spending round.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

7. Mr Dunne asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel for her assessment of the impact the weekly £2 million fine in relation to the non-implementation of welfare reform is having on the budgets of the Executive Departments. (AQO 8538/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The delay in implementing welfare reform is already placing additional constraints on the resources available to the Executive. Continued non-implementation of welfare reform will jeopardise the financial package agreed at Stormont House, increasing those constraints. That cannot fail to have a significant detrimental impact on the ability of Departments to deliver public services. The costs of not implementing welfare reform are forecast to escalate significantly in the years ahead, potentially placing further pressure on key public services. Now is the time either for the parties around the Chamber to live up to the Stormont House Agreement or for Westminster to step in and deal with the welfare issue. Doing nothing is simply not an option.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her answers. Will she advise on the impact on the Budget of the non-implementation of the Stormont House Agreement?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Of course, the implementation of welfare reform is central to the Stormont House Agreement. That point has been made very many times by me and others, not least the Secretary of State, back in March, when she was in the United States. Failure to progress welfare reform casts doubt on the other flexibilities negotiated in the Stormont House Agreement that underpinned the Budget, and that is why it is so fundamental to the Budget proceeding. Key flexibilities included the capacity to use £200 million of reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) borrowing to fund workforce restructuring this year, the flexibility to repay the £100 million access to the UK reserve in 2014-15, and the £114 million in reductions for non-implementation of welfare reform from the capital Budget. Those are quite fundamental issues and, therefore, there is a great need to have welfare reform implemented as soon as possible.

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

Does the Minister share my concern in relation to the recent findings of a report by the Office for National Statistics, which said that, on average, the income of an average household here is some £6,000 less than any other region within the United Kingdom? That being the case, as well as the predicted onslaught on working tax credits and child tax credits in 8 July Budget, what representations, if any, has she made to the Department for Work and Pensions?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It is not my job to make representations to the Department for Work and Pensions. I will make representations, of course, to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor in relation to those issues. It is disappointing to note the low level of wages in Northern Ireland. That is, of course, to do with the fact that our productivity has fallen. The way to deal with that issue is to bring more high-value jobs into Northern Ireland, something that we have spent a lot of time engaging in, and to make sure that we have the skills available for our young people so that they can access jobs with higher wages. That is the way to deal with the low-wage economy. We must make this economy more competitive, grow the private sector and engage in more research and development and more innovation so that we can move out of this growing productivity gap between ourselves and the rest of the United Kingdom; something about which, I must say, I am very concerned.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

We will have a very quick supplementary question from our new Member, Neil Somerville.

Neil Somerville (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The cost of the failure to introduce welfare reform this year is estimated at £114 million. What is the Minister's estimate of the cost for next year?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The estimate of the cost for next year — 2016-17 — will rise to £196 million. For 2017-18, it will rise to £283 million, and it will rise to £366 million in 2018-19. That is based on the current welfare situation in Great Britain. If that changes — we understand that it will change in the very near future — the gap between us and the rest of the United Kingdom will grow even further.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

That brings us to the end of the period for listed questions. We now move on to topical questions. Question 1 has been withdrawn within the appropriate arrangements.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

T2. Mr Dickson asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel for her best assessment of the financial cost of managing our divided society — for example, in the duplication of some services — and to state what plans she has to reduce such duplication. (AQT 2742/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Unfortunately, I do not have the precise figures here on duplication, but I know that the party that the Member represents has spent some time looking at the figures for duplication, particularly for housing and education. I am aware of those figures. Unfortunately, I do not have the specific figures in front of me, but I am happy to have a discussion with the Member about that, because, at a time of a decrease in our block grant, we should address the issue.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

The Minister will no doubt be aware of an Audit Office report today that is highly critical of the Department of Education about duplication in schools. There are some 70,000 empty desks across Northern Ireland. How can the Minister justify that use of public finance, given the difficult times that we are in?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It is not my job to stand here and defend the way in which the Minister of Education deals with all the sectors over which he has a remit. I am very concerned that new schools are opening in different sectors and pupils are being displaced from existing sectors. That is the reality. We have a fixed number of children, so, if you open new schools with new facilities and everything else, those kids will move to those schools, leaving empty desks at the schools that they have left.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

T3. Mr Craig asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel whether the figure mentioned by the honourable Member for Strangford Mr Nesbitt, who alleged that over £500 million has been handed back to the Treasury in London, is correct. (AQT 2743/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Of course it is not correct. In the last four years, the Executive have not lost any resources — not a single resource — that could have been used to fund public services. It appears that Mr Nesbitt has assumed that the underspend in any year represents funding returned to the Treasury, and that is simply not the case. We can carry the majority of funding forward, either under special arrangements in place for the Department of Justice or under the Budget exchange scheme, which happens across the devolved Administrations in the United Kingdom. The only funding that is returned to the Treasury due to underspend is for ring-fenced resource DEL budget for depreciation and impairments that could not be used for anything other than non-cash costs. It could not be used for public services, so Mr Nesbitt is very wrong.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for that answer, but I have to say that it is not the first time that Mr Nesbitt has got his sums wrong, as we witnessed in Fermanagh in the selection process. Will the Minister outline the accurate figure over the same time period?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Member makes a salient point. The ring-fenced resource DEL that was returned for 2014-15 — this is a provisional figure — was £30·3 million. As I said, that is money that we could not spend on public services, so it goes back because it is ring-fenced and connected to depreciation and non-cash issues. So, there is a bit of a difference between that and the figures quoted by Mr Nesbitt in a television studio to someone who could not deal with them because he had never seen them before. It was a cheap stunt, but I hope that the papers and the broadcasters give as much coverage to this answer as they did to Mr Nesbitt.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Mr Roy Beggs is not in his place.

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

T5. Mrs D Kelly asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel whether she can assure the House that, should the voluntary exit scheme go ahead, there is the capacity within pensions branch to facilitate those people who wish to leave. (AQT 2745/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

There absolutely will be. As she knows, the voluntary exit scheme is reliant on the Stormont House Agreement being implemented, so I am sure that any of her constituents who want to avail themselves of the scheme will very much want her to go ahead and implement the Stormont House Agreement.

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

With all due respect, my question was just about the capacity in pensions branch. Can the Minister assure the House that pensions branch has the capacity, in staff resources, to deal with the requests?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yes, it has.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

T6. Mr Givan asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel for an update on the number of civil servants who have indicated their willingness to take up the voluntary exit scheme. (AQT 2746/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Overall, 7,700-odd people applied for the voluntary exit scheme across the Civil Service. The Member will know that 1,200 of them received conditional offers, which were sent out towards the end of May. Those who want to accept the offer made to them by the Civil Service have until 5.00 pm to do so.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I appreciate that there are still a couple of hours to go until 5.00 pm, but maybe the Minister can indicate how many, at this stage, have said that they will take up that conditional offer. Will the Minister elaborate on whether the offer is subject to the Stormont House Agreement being implemented? If so, failure to implement it will mean that the civil servants who have signed up for the exit package will no longer be able to avail themselves of it.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

In relation to that last question, the funding for the voluntary exit scheme came from the Stormont House Agreement negotiations, with £200 million from the RRI facility being made available this year. If the Stormont House Agreement is not implemented, that money will not be available to us.

As at 1.00 pm today, of the 1,199 offers that went out — I said 1,200, but one of those was withdrawn before the offers went out — at the end of May, 842 staff had accepted their offers of early exit and 161 had rejected theirs. As I said, those who have not responded have until 5.00 pm to do so. After that, I will give a final update on the numbers.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

T7. Mr Moutray asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel whether she believes that the current overgrown roadsides, verges and central reservations are giving a very negative image of Northern Ireland this summer. (AQT 2747/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I totally agree with the Member. The Regional Development Minister has commented in the media on how the Executive's Budget has required him to make drastic cuts to road maintenance activities. However, contrary to what he has implied, his Department's non-ring-fenced resource budget for 2015-16 has been reduced by only 0·6%. That is one of the best outcomes for any Department. So I urge the Minister to look again, particularly at the lack of grass cutting, because, although it is a minor issue in the grand scheme of things, it creates an image that we want to avoid, particularly for tourists to Northern Ireland. We are presenting a very poor image to those who visit our country.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for her response. Will she encourage the Regional Development Minister to prioritise his resources in a way that will once again make Northern Ireland an attractive place to live, to work in and to visit?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I do hope that he will listen to the Member's points today. As I said, his non-ring-fenced resource budget has been reduced by only 0·6%. By contrast, my Department is having to live with a reduction of 10% to its non-ring-fenced resource budget. It is really a matter for the Minister for Regional Development, and I assume that the Member has already raised the issue with him, and will again, to try to get the matter dealt with.

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

T8. Mr Dallat asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel whether she is satisfied that putting the former Shackleton Barracks land of 900 acres on the market is the right thing to do and that everything humanly possible has been done to exploit that site for the creation of jobs, given that, although certainly not on her watch, she will be aware that, in the past, millions of pounds were made overnight on the sale of Government land and property. (AQT 2748/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am sure that the Member will be pleased to see that movement has finally come on the Shackleton site. The Executive certainly believe, and I believe, that there is a huge opportunity there to be grasped. We very much hope that the interest that has been shown — I understand that interest has been shown — in the site will now materialise, given the announcement yesterday by OFMDFM. I know that he is pushing hard for jobs to come to that region, and I hope that he, and, indeed, all the MLAs for the region, will work with OFMDFM to make it as attractive a site as we possibly can.

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

I thank the Minister for her very positive answer, and I concur totally with her. Will she agree with me that, if a special economic task force had perhaps been set up and a master plan created for the site, we might well be in a better position to exploit what she rightly claims is one of the most magnificent sites anywhere in that part of Northern Ireland?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I think that there are various ways of how we deal with regional disparities, and I am sure that he is supportive of the fact that the Executive have set up a subcommittee to deal with regional disparities in Northern Ireland, not least in my own area and not least in his area. There are issues that go way beyond a particular site, and the Member's colleague Mr Ramsey made the point just last week that there are issues around infrastructure deficits. There are infrastructure deficits across Northern Ireland, and we have to deal with them. There is a real need to have — I hope that I am getting the digit right — the A6 dealt with. There is a need to have the A5 dealt with, and, indeed, all the other road infrastructure projects across Northern Ireland. I hope that we can work together on that regional disparities subcommittee to try to deal with much more than just a particular site. We need to look at the whole region.

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

T9. Mrs McKevitt asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel how many appeals have been made in relation to the revaluation of non-domestic properties. (AQT 2749/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I do not have a specific figure, but I do know that over 1,000 appeals have been submitted to date. I think that that number will continue to grow as other people decide to ask for a revaluation. If we consider the number of revaluations that have taken place, that is not unusual, not forgetting, of course, that this is the first revaluation of non-domestic properties for 12 years. We therefore cannot compare the number of last year's appeals with this year's, as someone in the Chamber has done, because we have not had a revaluation for 12 years. It is important that we look back at the previous revaluation to see how many appeals there were at that time.

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

Can the Minister indicate how many of the appeals have been successful?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We are still at an early stage, and, as I indicated, there are others still coming in. There are some appeals that are coming in in, if you like, a sectoral way. Appeals from petrol stations and forecourts are coming in together. They are making an appeal based on the overall methodology used for petrol stations. We then have small and medium-sized businesses that simply do not accept that their rents have gone up in such a way. I have not seen many coming in because of a reduction yet, so appeals will simply be from those that have seen their rents go up.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I call Mr Oliver McMullan. I will not have time for a supplementary.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

T10. Mr McMullan asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel whether she agrees that there is no evidence of any link between the removal of tax credits for working people and a rise in wages. (AQT 2750/11-15)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I presume that he is referring to what is being proposed in relation to working people in the Tory party manifesto. We as a party, and I personally, have grave concerns in relation to that. The whole point of welfare reform in general is to get people into work and for them to have all the benefits that flow from being in work. To attack those benefits that help people to get out to work will be a detrimental step in the United Kingdom. I hope that that will be looked at again, even at this late stage.

Oral Answers to Questions — Health, Social Services and Public Safety

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I inform Members that question 6 has been withdrawn.

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

1. Mr McNarry asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to outline the measures used to predict future demand for health service treatments. (AQO 8547/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

There are a number of mechanisms by which future demand for health and social care services is predicted. A demographic model is used to predict the likely growth in demand for services over time, as well as the costs associated with this. This model is based on current population estimates, national population projections and current demand for health and social care services. The model considers a range of service areas including acute care, elderly care, primary health and community care, and general medical services.

In addition to this demography model, regular analysis of the demand for a number of specific services is undertaken to identify any gaps in the capacity available to meet this demand and deliver required performance standards. In assessing future demand, the predicted prevalence of diseases such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer is considered, drawing on the findings of national audits and regional and national publications. The development of new technologies has an impact on future demand, and mechanisms are in place to ensure that UK and international developments, emerging research, new technologies and specialist drugs are considered when planning services.

David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)

As we break for the recess with no questions and, therefore, no answers until September, I thank the Minister for his detail there. He talked of demands. Will he outline the Department's policies for future GP services and the availability of new life-saving drugs?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

There are two very different questions there. I will do my best to address as much of both of them as I can in the time that is available to me, which I notice from the clock has only just started.

Having spoken with local GPs in our own constituency, I am well aware of the demands on their services. There has been a significant increase in the number of people presenting at GP practices over the last number of years. I accept and acknowledge that there have been difficulties pursuant to that in terms of our GPs and the work that they do. To that end, my predecessor announced a £15 million investment in GP services this year, including some resources targeted at trying to recruit more GPs. A significant portion of that investment was to allow our GPs to modernise and expand their practices. Our GPs, through their various organisations and trade unions, correspond with me on a regular basis. I hope that they will take up the funding that is there to expand and modernise their practices.

The Member also asked about drugs and new drugs. He will be well aware of the financial pressures of around £35 million to £40 million facing my Department. I heard the Finance Minister talk in her final answer about welfare reform and the fact that we are losing £9·5 million a month in penalties to pay for welfare reform. That is not helping me or any other Executive Minister with our budgets. There are obviously processes in place to approve drugs through the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. A guidance circular was issued in 2013 that requires each new drug to go through technology appraisals and for the board, who are the commissioners of new drugs, to take account of resource issues when they are commissioning those drugs. That also includes —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I remind the Minister of the two-minute rule.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

— not just the costs but the costs and benefits of taking something forward.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

Given the increase of meningitis W throughout the United Kingdom, what is the Minister doing to manage the risk of the spread of meningitis in Northern Ireland?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Member raises a very good issue. I talked in my original answer about studying the prevalence of conditions and diseases like heart disease and cancer and using that information to project future need. Sometimes, however, other conditions and diseases can suddenly and very rapidly become problems. Meningitis W is one such disease, and, right across the UK, there has been a sudden, rapid and very worrying increase in the number of cases.

I am sure that Members will be aware of the recent announcement that the meningitis B and meningitis W vaccination programmes will proceed across England and Wales in September this year. There were two reasons why, up to this point, I have not been able to make a similar announcement: I did not have the funds available to do so; and I had not, at that stage, agreed a process to deliver vaccines using the GP network and trusts.

I am happy to announce to the House that, just yesterday, I released funding from my budget to pay for the meningitis B and meningitis W vaccination programmes. I did so in spite of the difficult financial circumstances that I face in my budget, and at some risk, but I am sure that the whole House and community will unite around me and say that it is the right thing to do. That means that the meningitis B and meningitis W vaccinations will go ahead in Northern Ireland from September this year. I am sure that everyone will welcome that good news.

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

I thank the Minister. Considering that the main plank of the 2011 Transforming Your Care (TYC) plan was an ageing population with greater need, what formal assessment has been made of that need, and what plans have developed as a result?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Member is right to identify the fact that an older population is putting significant pressure on our budget. I am always very careful, when talking about an ageing population, to say that that is a good thing. It is a great thing that we are living much longer and are able, because of technological and medical advances, to deal with many conditions a lot better than was the case in the past.

Sometimes, when we talk about an ageing population, there is a perception that it is a bit of a burden on the health service, but most people are living a healthier and happier life. It is not a problem, but there has been a related rise in chronic conditions, and that puts significant pressure on our resources.

The prediction, if you go very far ahead, is that over half of our population will be aged 65-plus by 2061. Even in the short term, between now and 2017, it is estimated that there will be an additional £50 million of recurrent pressures — over £200 million — on our budget. The ageing population and its impact on our budgets is assessed on an ongoing basis. That is precisely why Transforming Your Care, which the Member has a very deep interest in — certainly if the number of questions that he asks me about it is anything to go by — is in place. I accept that it has not been implemented to the extent or at the pace that we would all want, but it was always a longer-term strategy: it was always something that we were working towards over a five-year period. It was always going to be very much dependent on resources being available to us. Obviously, in the intervening period since the launch of that TYC vision, the availability of resources has become an issue. That has had an impact, but it does not lessen the need to continue to pursue TYC and other reforms and transformations of our health and social care system.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I ask the Minister, so that we can try to get in as many questions as possible, to stick to his two-minute allocation.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

2. Mr Easton asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety whether any permanent residents will be forced to leave their home at Northfield House residential care home, Donaghadee. (AQO 8548/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I assure the Member that no permanent residents at Northfield House will be forced to leave their home against their wishes.

I fully appreciate that this may be a worrying time for residents of statutory residential care homes, and that is why I recently wrote to all residents in the affected homes to provide them with an assurance that they would be able to remain in their home for as long as their needs can be safely met there. I stress that no final decisions have yet been made on Northfield or, indeed, on any of the other homes being considered as part of the ongoing regional review of statutory care home provision.

The South Eastern Trust's proposals for Northfield House are subject to public consultation, and no decision will be taken pending the outcome of the consultation process. When the South Eastern Trust's proposals are published for consultation later this summer, I encourage everyone with an interest to make their views known through that consultation process.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for that answer. If Northfield House closes, what will be the effect on staff?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

It is worth pointing it out that, whilst it is earmarked for closure and the trust said that it wants it closed, there is a consultation, and we will listen to the responses. The consultation responses will obviously be listened to, and, as I said, I encourage anyone with an interest to make their voice heard through that consultation process. There is no imminent closure because of the promise I gave that no existing resident would be moved against their wishes as long as their needs can be safely met in their current home.

It is relevant to raise staffing, because, whilst we are, I think rightly, focused most on residents in statutory care homes that are earmarked for closure, there is obviously an impact on staff as well. We should also bear in mind the impact that this situation will have on them. My understanding is that 26 staff are working in Northfield to take care of three permanent residents. While staffing issues are primarily a matter for the relevant trust, each trust will have redeployment and workforce planning measures in place to ensure that staff will not lose their jobs and will be used elsewhere as needed.

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

I thank the Minister for his answers thus far. Minister, can you give the same commitment to permanent residents in Slieve Roe nursing home in Kilkeel? On a more general point, can you tell us a wee bit more about the specific role of statutory residential care within the old people's model?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I am sorry; I did not quite hear the end of that, but I can give the same assurance to permanent residents in Slieve Roe. It is a blanket guarantee, a promise across the board to all residents. That is why I took the decision not only to uphold the commitment made by predecessors but to write to each of the 80 or so residents who are affected by possible closures to make it clear to them all that none would be moved against their wishes as long as their needs could be safely met in their current care home. That stands, and I hope that it will in the future, no matter who is in this role.

On the general issue, we have to recognise — this relates somewhat to the question asked by the Member's colleague to his right — that the whole area of residential care homes has changed dramatically over the last number of years. I do not mean just in the closure of statutory residential care homes, which is a reflection of a reduction in overall demand for places, whether in the statutory or independent sector. That is because of conscious decisions that people take as they get older to live in their own home environment for as long as they can and as long as their needs can be catered for there. That is something that we should want to see, and most of us would want to take that decision. The system is certainly trying to encourage it, particularly through the implementation of the vision laid out in Transforming Your Care, which is to look at the home as a hub for people and to look after people's needs in the home environment as best we can.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

Minister, the people of north Down do not have too much trust in consultations, following recent exercises and, indeed, guarantees. Surely the ban on new admissions is bound to affect the sustainability of that home. Is that a deliberate policy, Minister, and can you guarantee us that your approval is needed before any closure is initiated?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I do not think that I can go any further than making a guarantee in writing to each resident, including the three permanent residents in Northfield House in Donaghadee, to make it clear that none of them will be moved against their will as long as their needs can be safely catered for in Northfield House. Obviously, the needs of individuals will change over time. Some may want to move elsewhere, or their care needs will alter and they might be better looked after in a different environment. However, as long as they want to remain where they are and it is safe for them to do so, that is where they will be. That is the guarantee and the promise that I can give. That follows on from what my predecessors put in place, and that is what is there. No one will be forced to leave their home, and no pressure will be placed on anybody to leave their home. I am very clear on that and want to make sure that that is absolutely the case.

The ban on new admissions has probably flowed more from common sense. Given the decisions that were pending on those care homes, it would not have been the wisest thing to have new admissions, only to then take a decision to close a home and have potential difficulties arising from that. A common-sense decision was taken. Nineteen homes were reviewed. The majority of them will either change their use or will remain in place with admissions opening up. That will mean that, in many cases and in many places across Northern Ireland, the doors will be open very soon and people will be admitted to those homes again.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

3. Mr Murphy asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to outline the time frame for the delivery of the paediatric centre of excellence at Daisy Hill Hospital, Newry. (AQO 8549/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

It is anticipated that the paediatric centre of excellence at Daisy Hill will be completed by August 2017.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his response; it is very encouraging. As he will know, it is a long-standing commitment from the trust and one that is vital to securing the sustainability of Daisy Hill Hospital. Is he in a position to say whether a paediatric trauma service will be part of the paediatric centre of excellence? That in itself would be a significant asset in a proper centre of excellence.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his question and welcome him back to talking inside a democratic institution for a change. He is right: this is an important development. It assists with the sustainability of Daisy Hill Hospital and ensures that paediatric services in the Southern Trust area are linked up. What is proposed for the centre of excellence at Daisy Hill will link in very clearly with what is happening in Craigavon Area Hospital as well. My understanding is that there will be inpatient services, ambulatory care and outpatient services at the Daisy Hill Hospital and that, unlike the Craigavon Area Hospital, it will have a dedicated paediatric theatre.

I do not have the information about whether a paediatric trauma centre will form part of the centre of excellence, and I will come back to the Member and identify whether that is the case. It is certainly a good news story for Daisy Hill Hospital and its long-term sustainability. More importantly, it is a good story for the Southern Trust area and paediatric services in that trust.

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

Go raibh milé maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí. I thank the Minister for his answer and very much welcome what he had to say about the paediatric centre of excellence.

We had a centre of excellence for stroke services in Daisy Hill Hospital, and that has been moved, against the will of the people of Newry and the greater Newry area. Will the Minister undertake to review that decision with a fresh and open mind?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I am aware of the removal of some stroke services from Daisy Hill Hospital. This is one of the most difficult issues that I deal with in this job — not this issue particularly, but this type of issue. Trusts and the board take decisions to move services in the interests of better standards of care for our patients and with patient safety at the forefront of their mind, and that is something that we should all agree on. Sometimes, that brings about decisions whereby services are shifted and reconfigured. There are obviously many long-standing emotional attachments to services being delivered in a particular area, as well as the convenience of having those services delivered in a locality. At all times, those decisions should and will be taken on the basis of raising the standard of care.

I appreciate the concerns that the Member and many of his constituents in the Newry and Armagh area have about moving stroke services away from Daisy Hill. However, my understanding is that the proposal will bring about greater flexibility in the way that the Southern Trust delivers its stroke services and will mean that there will be improved levels of stroke care in line with national recommendations, so raising standards. There will be a dedicated medical nursing and allied health professional team within a specialist acute stroke unit; direct access, which is important as well in taking pressure off emergency departments, to a specialist ward on first admission; and better long-term outcomes. That is the objective of the changes that have taken place. I think we would all agree that, on paper, they are good outcomes, but I appreciate that there is that emotional attachment to having a service in a local area. I understand, though, that the proposed new model will allow patients from the Newry and Mourne area to receive ongoing rehabilitation at Daisy Hill from day 16 under the care of the local staff there with stroke expertise and from a specialist stroke rehabilitation team. There is still a service being retained in Daisy Hill, but it is for that rehabilitation phase rather than the early stage.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Two minutes, Minister. I call Mr Alex Easton, with the usual health warning about constituency references.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

Will the Minister outline the range of major capital projects that he is taking forward?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The capital budget for the Department for the current financial year is £213 million. We estimate that that is around £30 million short of what we absolutely need in-year — I am sure that we would ideally like to have a lot more than that — and therefore necessitates some difficult decisions around the phasing and implementation of various capital projects. Even though it is short of that £30 million, that does not mean that we are not able to proceed with some significant capital projects that will benefit service delivery across Northern Ireland. They include continuing with the development of a regional children's hospital at the Royal Victoria Hospital; a new critical care building; new maternity facilities at the Royal as well; new primary care centres in Ballymena and Banbridge and the continued progression of the new primary care centres in Newry and Lisburn; phase B at the Ulster Hospital radiotherapy unit; the redevelopment of tower block 5 at Altnagelvin; and Omagh local hospital. There are lots of capital projects that continue to progress in the 2014-15 financial year, in spite of the fact that we are short of what we would ideally like, but then that is the story in every Department. What we are doing with that £213 million is making the best use of it to ensure that the highest standard of facilities is provided for people right across Northern Ireland.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

4. Mr F McCann asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to outline the rationale for withdrawing funding from ADD-NI, the Northern Ireland Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder charity. (AQO 8550/11-15)

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

13. Mrs D Kelly asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for an update on departmental funding for community and voluntary organisations in 2015-16. (AQO 8559/11-15)

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will respond to questions 4 and 13 together, as they deal with core funding provided to voluntary and community organisations.

The 67 organisations that my Department provides core funding support to will receive the same level of grant in 2015-16 as they received last year. Applications have been issued to all organisations, and I have asked officials to deal with the first payment promptly, once the application is received and all relevant checks have taken place. The voluntary and community sector plays an integral role in delivering care that meets the changing needs of the population here, and it is important that it is supported appropriately. That is why my Department will consult on proposals in the autumn for a new grant scheme to be launched in 2016-17. The new scheme will focus on health and social care innovation, and it will be open to all voluntary and community organisations to apply.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I welcome the decision to continue the funding. I know that a considerable number of organisations will breathe a sigh of relief. Will he tell us what will be put in place to continue discussions and consultation with local groups to get the benefit out of the extension of funding?