Northern Ireland Assembly, 7 December 2015

256 contributions from 66 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice and guidance on a matter that has come to my attention. Last week, the Finance and Personnel Committee continued to conduct its investigations as part of its inquiry into the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) sale. My understanding is that, at a previous meeting, a member of the Finance Committee, Mr Máirtín Muilleoir, failed to declare his interest in a company that does financial dealings and financial transactions with a bookmaking firm whose director was in front of the Committee to give evidence. While I know, Mr Speaker, that these matters may well be entered in the Register of Members' Interests, as I understand it, there is a duty and an obligation on Members to register at the outset of any meeting where a person is appearing whether they have such an interest to declare. None was declared. I seek your guidance and advice on how to proceed on this matter.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Thank you for that point of order. I saw the news coverage of that particular exchange, and I did hear the Member give a reassurance that his declarations of interest had been appropriately recorded. I do not have any further advance on that. This has to be very clear: it is a matter for individual Members, not the Speaker, to ensure that their registered interests and, in fact, the detail of them are at all times up to date.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Further to that point of order, my understanding is that the Member has a declaration in the Register of Members' Interests, which is one thing. However, another issue is that it is requirable, as I understand it, that, whenever a Member's company or an association with a company is on the record and a person is coming before a Committee that that Member serves on, they should declare that interest, whatever the business, at the outset of any discussions. That was not done last week.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I am not going to become directly involved in this since it is more a matter for the Standards and Privileges Committee. The Members' handbook details the manner in which matters of interest should be recorded. It is a duty — absolutely — of individual Members to ensure that they do that. Those who have a complaint — you may feel that you have a complaint — have recourse, as the handbook states, and it is not the Speaker.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I notice that the Member, when he named the individual, did not give him his correct title. For the record in the House and for the Member: his name is Máirtín Ó Muilleoir.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that not every Member can take part in every debate that they want to take part in. Last week, however, I indicated to the top Table that I wished to take part in the debate on climate change. Standing Orders are very clear:

"The Speaker shall determine the order of speaking and the number of speakers in any debate having due regard to the balance of opinion on the matter, the party strengths in the Assembly and the number of members who have indicated a desire to speak."

I wanted to take part in that debate, and, having gone to the top Table, it was my clear understanding that I would be allowed to do so. As the debate progressed, my name was not called, but a second SDLP Member was called. I do not begrudge the SDLP the right to have its say, but only two Back-Bench contributions were allowed from my party. When you consider the way in which the debate carried on, it was clear that many people who were in favour of the motion and the amendment got the opportunity to speak. There were seven in that category, but only four Members were able to speak against the amendment. Mr Speaker, can I ask you to rule whether Mr Beggs, who was in the Chair at the time, gave due consideration to Standing Orders and the convention of the House, which is that Members who wish to speak are decided on party strength and balance of opinion? Do you agree that that did not happen as it should have?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

There is also another important criterion, which is that the Speaker has discretion to take account of the balance of discussion. I am absolutely satisfied that the Deputy Speaker ensured that there was a balanced debate. Putting your name on the list, whether you approach the Table or your party Whip submits your name, is not a guarantee that you will be called. We work to Business Committee decisions for debates. At the top Table, at times, we face difficult and invidious choices between those who do get to speak and those who cannot because of time constraints. With the balance, we attempt, over weeks and months, to ensure that every single Member is given the opportunity to make contributions to the work of the House. For obvious reasons, that cannot happen in every debate.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker —

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I am sure that you will be very careful about challenging the Speaker.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I will absolutely not be challenging the Speaker on this occasion.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Or on any occasion.

[Laughter.]

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am raising the issue with the Speaker only for the first time, so could I ask him to look at it again? This is, in fact, the second time that this has happened while Mr Beggs was in the Chair. During a ministerial statement, I was the only Member who was not called to speak. Perhaps I have done something to offend Mr Beggs. Perhaps it is because I am from the same constituency as he is, and he would prefer that I did not speak.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

You are getting closer and closer to the line.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I will not cross it.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Do not cross the line. I am not making a judgement that you did so on this occasion, but I think that it is appropriate that you sit down at this point.

The matter was brought to my attention, and I took the time and trouble to look at the transcript. I am satisfied that Deputy Speaker Beggs did his job very appropriately and competently. I was not aware that, in your view, this was the second time that this had happened. I have recorded that in my memory bank, and we shall see. I think that you will agree that you have been given many opportunities since you graced the House with your presence.

By the way, you are a very good contributor and I think that, on balance, you are treated as fairly as any other MLA in the Chamber.

Pat Ramsey (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 7 December 2015.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Before I put the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

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

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 7 December 2015.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

As there are Ayes from all sides of the House and no dissenting voices, I am satisfied that cross-community support has been demonstrated. The motion is agreed.

Ministerial Statement

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. With your permission, I wish to make a statement in compliance with section 52 of the 1998 Act regarding the twenty-eighth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in aquaculture and marine sectoral format, held in Armagh on Wednesday 11 November. The Executive were represented by Minister Mervyn Storey and me, and the Dublin Government were represented by Joe McHugh TD, Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. Minister McHugh chaired the meeting. This statement has been agreed with Minister Storey, and I make it on behalf of us both.

Ministers welcomed the presentation by Art Niven, fisheries biologist at the Loughs Agency, on Atlantic salmon research in West Greenland. The significance for us is that salmon stock from Ireland can migrate to West Greenland. Ministers noted the importance of international partnerships, such as that with the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO) in developing scientific advice on Atlantic salmon and its application to the Foyle and Carlingford Areas.

Ministers received a progress report on the work of the Loughs Agency from the vice chairperson, Alan McCulla, and the chief executive, John Pollock. We were advised that agency staff have continued to lead environmental protection in the Foyle and Carlingford catchments, working with agencies including the PSNI, An Garda Síochána, the Environment Agency and relevant local authorities. There have been a number of seizures of nets, fishing rods, oyster bags, boats etc. There have been a significant number of successful prosecutions resulting in convictions for a range of offences, such as unlicensed angling; killing salmon on the River Finn, which is a catch and release only area; and obstruction of fishery officers. Whilst organised salmon poaching involving a large number of individuals remains a challenge for the agency, I am pleased to report that there have been no violent attacks on staff this year.

The NSMC noted the position of the survival of the native Lough Foyle flat oyster. Ministers were pleased to hear that the Loughs Agency met fishermen on three occasions prior to the opening of this year’s fishery in an effort to fully engage them in the decision-making process. A weekly assessment of the spawning activity in the oyster stocks on the five main oyster beds has been continuing since early June. Unfortunately, the unseasonably cold summer weather has not afforded the population much chance of spawning. The agency continues to monitor the stock for signs of additional spawning potential, and water samples are being assessed. So far, densities have been low compared with previous years, with good settlements of spat. The autumn stock assessment was completed at the end of September. An assessment of the mortality levels of adults, as well as the survival of the spat from 2014, was made along with the densities and overall biomass levels.

The agency opened the fishery on Tuesday 6 October 2015, and fishing will be on a staggered basis until 18 December 2015, when it will close. This arrangement overcomes the main concerns from 2014 by ensuring that viable and equitable economic opportunities for fishermen are available up to Christmas. It also strikes the correct balance between the economic opportunities and the conservation imperative, while seeking to ensure viability in the fishery for the medium to longer term.

Ministers also discussed how to progress the management agreement. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in the South is still awaiting a response from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). Ministers expressed their frustration at the delay as updates from the FCO have been sought on a number of occasions. Minister Storey and I agreed that we will write jointly to the First Minister and deputy First Minister in an attempt to move the matter forward. Meantime, the Loughs Agency continues to progress the operational aspects of the management agreement.

The Greencastle to Magilligan ferry was also discussed. The Loughs Agency has held a number of meetings with Minister McHugh, local councillors and the Lough Foyle Ferry Company to explore the wider operational and development opportunities for the service. The initial discussion focused on its sustainability. The agency has carried out a preliminary scoping exercise aimed at facilitating a broader, more in-depth study of the service by a consultant to be engaged by the local authorities.

The chief executive agreed to facilitate a meeting to discuss the Foyle ferry. As a starting point, he has contacted the CEOs of Donegal County Council, Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council and Derry City and Strabane District Council, with a view to holding an initial meeting. Ministers commented that it is important for the development of the Wild Atlantic Way and the Causeway coast that we protect the current infrastructure, including the ferry service between Greencastle and Magilligan.

The agency's success in recent awards was acknowledged by the Council. Those awards included employability champion at the Business in the Community awards and the Sentinus Ambassador of the Year Award. The Council also acknowledged the positive comments of Nicholas Martyn, the deputy director-general for regional and urban policy at the European Commission, following his visit to the Loughs Agency to review the integrated aquatic resources management between Ireland, Northern Ireland and Scotland (IBIS) project.

The Council noted that the Loughs Agency has applied the required efficiency savings to the 2016 budget, in accordance with agreed guidance issued by Finance Departments across the island. Ministers approved the Loughs Agency's 2016 business plan and recommended the 2016 budget grant provision of £3·829 million.

The NSMC welcomed the report on the activities of the Loughs Agency in promoting and marketing the Foyle and Carlingford areas, including angling-club development initiatives such as the angling academy, angling hubs and the angling app on Google Play; marine tourism initiatives, including Sailability, which supports participation in sailing by persons who have a disability, and the Celebrate Water event held in Greencastle; and education and outreach events and activities, including the maritime ambassador programme and the Foyle ambassador project, and events such as World Oceans Day, Biodiversity Day and River Discovery Day.

Ministers also welcomed the Loughs Agency's success in securing in excess of €15 million of EU funding for maritime tourism, angling development and the IBIS research project. They noted the agency's plans to avail itself of future funding initiatives such as the European social fund, the Heritage Lottery, INTERREG V and the rural development programme, for the benefit of the Foyle and Carlingford Areas.

The NSMC praised the efforts of the chief executive and his team in securing alternative sources of funding in the current economic climate.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for her statement. I note that Ministers discussed the ongoing issue of the lack of progress made on the management agreement. As the Minister is aware, that issue does not seem to be going anywhere, and the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee shares those frustrations. Can she confirm how many years have passed since we first sought to get the management agreement, and will she elaborate on what exactly she thinks writing jointly to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister will achieve?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I do not know the exact number of years, but suffice it to say the situation has been ongoing probably since the Loughs Agency was established. To put it in context and to explain exactly what it is, aquaculture licensing is one of the Loughs Agency's functions. To date, it has not been able to assume that function because of jurisdictional, legal and policy issues. When we discussed it — we discuss it regularly at our meetings — we were all equally concerned and frustrated about the delays. Unfortunately, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has not expedited the matter in the way in which we want it to happen. Minister Storey and I therefore agreed to raise it to OFMDFM level and ask that that office now engage with the British Government on how we can take the matter forward, because it is hindering the work that the Loughs Agency wants to do. It is important that we continue to keep the pressure on. It is a function that the Loughs Agency is legally required to take forward, but, as I said, it is hindered by the ongoing problems. We need to continue to put the pressure on and make sure that we can get to a stage where we are able to have an operational agreement implemented and have the issue dealt with once and for all so that we can protect the fishery and all interested people.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Can the Minister give her assessment of how successful she feels the Loughs Agency has been in securing EU funding?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It has been excellent at securing EU funding. As I said in my statement, the agency has, to date, secured in excess of €15 million through working with its partner organisations. The most significant element of that is the €4 million for marine tourism and angling development and the €8 million that it was able to secure for the IBIS project, which has been acclaimed as a really successful programme.

The agency is currently looking towards strengthening. It is further looking at how it can develop partnerships with our new councils, communities, businesses and other stakeholders. I applaud its efforts, in times of serious financial constraints, in being able to secure that additional funding, and I am quite sure that, in looking to the future, it is considering options under the European social fund, the Heritage Lottery, INTERREG V and the rural development programme for opportunities that will benefit the people of the Foyle and Carlingford areas.

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

I thank the Minister for her answers thus far. Aquaculture plays an increasingly important role in our agrifood industry and, like agriculture, it is very weather dependent. Can you give us an update on the research done to ensure that our oysters become more weather resistant? Last year, we had issues with the water being too warm in Carlingford lough, and now the water is too cold for spawning.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Obviously, the industry is very weather dependent. During that incident last year, we saw quite a significant body of stock lost due to weather conditions. I am delighted that we are progressing this conversation on an all-island basis. Our aquaculture conference in 2016 will be an opportunity for our scientists in the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), Bord Iascaigh Mhara and the Loughs Agency all to come together to bring in international experts in aquaculture and to look at how we can have sustainable fisheries into the future. That conference will, I think, be hugely significant in trying to support the industry and identify other areas of research that we may need to take forward. It will also be an opportunity to look at what other supports we need to have in place to help the industry to flourish and to be sustainable in the future.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for her statement and answers so far. However, I note that there is not any reference to the December Fisheries Council. Minister, given that you said in a recent press release that the Council will be difficult and highly complicated, can you give the House an update on your views ahead of the Council and what discussions you are holding with industry representatives to protect our industry?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The issue of fishing quotas and my approach to negotiation do not come under the remit of the NSMC; it is obviously sea fisheries that we are referring to. Whilst outside the terms and the discussion of the NSMC, just to give you an update, I have been engaging with the industry on how we will take forward our priorities. I intend to travel to Brussels next week, where we will participate in the negotiation. I have said that it will be a difficult negotiation, but we will certainly go out well equipped, with the best science. Our AFBI researcher is coming with us to make sure that we can argue our case. Any outcome that we try to secure will be taken forward based on the needs of the local industry, in agreement with it. Obviously, nephrops prawns are our mainstay and are the most significant fishery for local fishermen, so that has to be our top priority again in this negotiation. Obviously, I will fight the corner once again, for the fifth year, in the fishing negotiations in Europe.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for her statement this afternoon. We very much welcome the fact that there have been no violent attacks on staff this year. However, is the Minister convinced that staff are safe, with no verbal attacks or threats being made against them at any time?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Obviously, the safety of the staff is of the utmost importance. As I said, I am delighted that we have not witnessed any attacks this year. You will know that, over the past number of years, we have seen attacks in which bricks and all sorts of objects were thrown at Loughs Agency staff. I think that there is still a significant threat to the fishery from people involved in illegal activity, particularly salmon poaching. As I said in the statement, I am delighted that the staff have not been attacked this year. There has been very much a combined effort, with the Loughs Agency, the PSNI and an Garda Síochána, to weed out and to try to deal with illegal activity, and that is obviously ongoing. It is a welcome and necessary engagement to protect the fishery and, obviously, the staff.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement this afternoon. In the last season, some fishermen expressed concerns about some of the fishing efforts. Can she tell us whether those concerns have been resolved?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I know that, last year, there were some concerns about why we had to close the oyster bed early. This year, I think that, with ongoing engagement with the fishermen, we have been able to have discussions at an early stage. Whilst the Loughs Agency and fishermen will not always agree on the way forward, what we have struck this year is a balance between trying to protect the fishery to make sure that we have a sustainable fishery into the future and allowing the fishermen to avail themselves of the economic opportunity of being able to fish right up to 18 December. This year, we have certainly had a lot more communication with fishermen, which has obviously improved the situation, and that is very welcome. I know that they are content that they have been allowed to have a sustainable fishery up to 18 December.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Minister, I will go back to paragraph 7. Mr McCarthy focused on the attacks on staff. You admit and acknowledge that salmon poaching still involves a large number of individuals and remains a challenge for the agency. What steps is the Minister taking to eradicate salmon poaching in Northern Ireland?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is exactly as I have just said. We have a multi-agency approach. We are working with an Garda Síochána and the PSNI on how we can collectively work together to eradicate this. It is illegal activity. It is crime. Therefore, the responsibility falls to policing. However, our Loughs Agency staff have a policing and enforcement role in trying to protect the fishery. We have to continue in that vein with that collective effort and that cross-working structure. That is the only way that we will be able to drive out what is obviously criminal activity.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

At paragraph 19, the Minister speaks of the Loughs Agency having applied the required efficiency savings to its 2016 budget. Could she therefore explain why, in the 2015 business plan, the indicative budget for 2016 was €4·8 million but, in fact, the budget now approved in the 2016 business plan is €5·5 million, which is an increase of 14%? How does that fit with the protestation of meeting the required efficiency savings?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As I said, I was delighted that, at the meeting, we were able to sign off and agree on the business plan and the budget grant. That plan was drafted in accordance with DFP guidance and was approved by both Finance Ministers, here in the Executive and in the Twenty-six Counties. The agency continues to function despite significant pressures on its budget. It has been able to deliver on its 4% per annum cumulative savings and has done so particularly in relation to the 2014-16 corporate plan. I do not have with me the detail on the breakdown of the figures that you refer to, but I am very happy to respond to you in writing on that.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Paragraph 20 of the Minister's statement refers to:

"the report on the activities of the Loughs Agency in promoting and marketing the Foyle and Carlingford Areas".

Neither of those is in my constituency. Nonetheless, the bit that intrigues me is the angling app on Google Play. Can the Minister provide some detail on how she feels that that is beneficial to the work of the Loughs Agency in promoting those areas?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Loughs Agency has been very successful in raising the profile of angling, and a lot more people are choosing to holiday here because of the angling opportunities. The app is quite inventive and is quite a new way to market what we have to offer. It gives people an opportunity to look at where the fishing opportunities are, how to go about getting a licence and how to avail themselves of the sport. It is a very positive and significant contribution in marketing the angling product on this island.

Executive Committee Business

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I beg to introduce the Employment Bill [NIA 73/11-16], which is a Bill to make provision relating to conciliation and other matters in connection with industrial tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal, including power to refer to chairmen as employment judges; to amend the law relating to protected disclosures; to confer power on the Department for Employment and Learning in connection with careers guidance and apprenticeships; to correct references relating to statutory shared parental pay; to make other provision relating to employment; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I beg to move the Fisheries Bill [NIA 74/11-16], which is a Bill to make provision about fisheries.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Houses in Multiple Occupation Bill [NIA 60/11-16] be agreed.

Findings from the fundamental review of the houses in multiple occupation (HMO) registration scheme identified weaknesses in the regulatory system, not least the difficulty in identifying HMOs and the approach to enforcing management and physical standards. The results of the public consultation indicated overwhelming support for a new regulatory scheme. HMO licensing schemes exist in other parts of the United Kingdom.

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

HMOs are often an important part of the housing mix and can provide affordable rented housing for a range of tenants, including students, migrant workers and single people on low incomes. Because of the higher risks of living in an HMO, they are subject to a higher level of regulation than other rented housing. Latest Housing Executive figures show nearly 5,500 HMOs registered, many of which are in the Holylands and the Coleraine University area. The number of people living in that tenure could be as many as 30,000.

The purpose of the Bill is to enable the better regulation of houses in multiple occupation by doing three things. First, by streamlining the definition of an HMO. Secondly, introducing licensing to promote effective housing management. Landlords will be required to have a licence before an HMO comes into existence. To obtain a licence, planning permission will have to be in place, the landlord's fitness to let an HMO established, and important quality and safety checks of the home completed. Thirdly, the Bill will clarify existing law and make current regulation and enforcement more effective.

The key aim of our new regulatory regime is to take a risk-based approach designed to better protect tenants living in HMOs by ensuring that landlords and managing agents meet important obligations about the quality and safety of HMO accommodation. Because of the importance of linking HMO regulation with other critical government functions, such as planning, building control and environmental health, the Bill will transfer the responsibility for regulating HMOs to councils. As council environmental health departments already lead on all other aspects of regulation of the private rented sector, HMO regulation will sit neatly with those functions.

It may be helpful if I spend a few minutes outlining the key provisions in the Bill. The new HMO definition and associated exemptions will provide clarification and guidance on what is or is not to be classed as an HMO. That is an important change that will remove from the HMO banner a number of properties never intended to be classed as HMOs.

Buildings or parts of buildings not considered HMOs are listed in schedule 1. Examples include establishments regulated by the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) and buildings occupied by students and managed by educational establishments. That is the right thing to do and will allow councils to focus resources on licensing and enforcing appropriate standards in HMOs where there is a potential risk to the well-being of their occupants.

The introduction of mandatory licensing of HMOs will ensure that higher physical and management standards are adopted before an HMO can be classed as licensed. The Bill will address the future risks of HMO over-provision. The introduction of licensing will mean having to have a licence before a landlord can legally operate an HMO. The Bill will give a council the discretionary power to refuse to grant an HMO licence if it considers that there is, or that the granting of a licence would result in, over-provision in the locality. As planning is now devolved to the 11 local authorities, the Department will liaise with councils on how HMO over-provision can be prevented.

The most straightforward way of achieving that is likely to be the inclusion by councils in local area development plans of thresholds similar to those in operation in the HMO subject plan for Belfast. An HMO inspection will ensure that the property is not overcrowded and has suitable amenities and facilities for the number of people occupying it. Landlords will be required to apply for a licence to rent out the home lawfully, with licences granted subject to management conditions and conditions requiring any work necessary to meet current amenity and/or safety standards. Councils will be able to impose a works requirement, which may result in a licence having to be revoked in certain circumstances.

The introduction of a fit and proper persons test will ensure that those people who are unsuitable to hold a licence and to operate an HMO are identified at the earliest opportunity and prevented from doing so. The aim of the test is, I trust, to weed any bad landlords out of the system.

The Bill includes a power to open statutory information-sharing gateways with a number of government and non-government organisations and bodies. Those gateways will provide for relevant information to be shared to assist in the identification and regulation of HMOs.

The introduction of greater and more comprehensive enforcement powers will ensure that councils have the power to take timely and proportionate enforcement action. Fixed penalty notices will avoid the need to proceed directly to court action for lesser offences. Introducing fines will provide a more cost-effective and less time-consuming means of enforcing HMO legislation, with benefits both for councils and occupiers.

Further guidance on the use and operation of fixed penalty notices will be produced in collaboration with councils and will mirror the existing guidance on fixed penalty notices for other areas where they work well, such as on litter, graffiti and noise pollution offences

The Bill will also create a new power to issue a prohibition notice on a property if the council deems there to be an imminent risk to the health and safety of the occupants. In addition, councils will also be given powers to obtain information from various specified persons in the house. It can require any occupier to disclose the nature of their relationship with any other occupier where that information is required to determine whether the accommodation is an HMO that requires to be licensed. In general, this revised system of regulation will, I trust, allow the targeting of houses in a way that is proportionate to the risk presented and will address the added risk to safety associated with living in HMOs.

I turn to the Social Development Committee's unofficial call for evidence. Taking account of evidence provided by interested parties to the Committee, I am considering five potential amendments. They will cover the following issues: ensuring adequate protection for seasonal workers housed in HMOs; reducing the risk of some student HMOs being inappropriately excluded from regulation by removing the word "cousin" from the definition of family for the purposes of determining what is an HMO; some minor changes to address concerns expressed by landlords on the availability of their personal details; some modest modifications to the fit and proper person test to ensure that it fully reflects the outcomes of a judicial review; and, finally, some changes to licensing arrangements for HMO properties whose ownership is transferred.

It is my intention to publish a code of practice and guidance for the licensing scheme for councils and landlords to help them to meet the requirements of the regulations. Further monitoring arrangements for HMOs will be discussed and agreed with councils. It is envisaged that a new reporting/governance framework for councils will be put in place. Subject to the successful passage of the Bill, district councils will, thereafter, need some time to complete the preparations necessary to administer the new licensing scheme. Therefore, the main provisions of the Bill will come into operation on a date appointed in an order made by my Department, following liaison and agreement with councils.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for bringing the Houses in Multiple Occupation Bill to Second Stage.

The Committee for Social Development received a pre-introductory briefing from the Department on 14 May 2015. Officials provided an overview of the Bill, and members raised initial queries and comments in relation to various aspects of the Bill.

Since then, in an effort to make progress in advance of the Bill reaching Second Stage, despite obstacles outside of the Committee’s control that prevented it from reaching Second Stage until now, the Committee has taken evidence from a range of stakeholders on a wide range of issues, as well as from the Department. In fact, the Committee has concluded its evidence sessions, and, as with the Housing (Amendment) Bill, we find ourselves in a position where, in process terms, we are at Second Stage, but, in practical terms, we are already in discussion with the Department about changes to the Bill. That is not a satisfactory position, particularly if you are not a member of the Committee and therefore have no insight into the ongoing discussions. But, given the time pressures on the legislative programme, had we not taken this approach, we would be facing the possibility of not completing this Bill on time. That was the stark reality. However, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle, I do not intend to try to turn this into a de facto Consideration Stage by going into every detail that we have so far addressed — even if you were inclined to allow it. I will still focus on the principles of the Bill.

As a result of the progress made by the Committee to date, I would assure Members that it would be our intention to conclude Committee Stage by the third week in January, so that we can realign the progress made with the processes of this House in short order.

To get to the point, the Committee supports the principles of the Bill. Its purpose is to enable better regulation of houses in multiple occupation, by introducing a system of licensing and new provisions about standards in housing, as well as streamlining the definition of a house in multiple occupation and clarifying existing law. The proposed licensing system will mean that a person is acting illegally if they are not licensed to operate a property as a house in multiple occupation, and this is a fundamental change to the existing system of voluntary registration.

While the Committee welcomes the principles of the Bill, we have sought to ensure it will deliver a new, more robust system of regulation for houses in multiple occupation. HMOs are an important part of the housing mix in the North. With a seemingly deepening housing crisis, HMOs are an option for those who cannot rent or buy a property of their own. They provide affordable housing for a range of tenants, including students, migrant workers and single people on a low income, but there are issues with the standards of some HMOs. The apparently hands-off management of properties by some landlords coupled with a lack of responsibility from some landlords and tenants alike, has given this particular housing type a bad name. As a result, to many, they are accommodation of last resort. That should not be the case. To my mind, this is evidence that light-touch regulation has failed, and the Bill offers the possibility to address those failings.

HMOs should be subjected to greater regulation than other housing, not only because of the higher risks associated with living in an HMO, but because of the negative impact that over-provision of HMOs in residential areas can have on communities. An overabundance of HMOs can change the nature of a residential area. It can leave the indigenous residents feeling like strangers in their own community, but Members should bear in mind, of course, that this is ostensibly a planning issue and outside the scope of this Bill. We cannot look to this Bill to rectify the errors of the past or to set planning restrictions on HMOs in the future.

However, the Committee has noted the definition of HMO in the Bill and the exemptions from this definition.

We want to ensure that there are no unintended consequences from redefining HMOs. For example, a redefinition might officially reduce the number of HMOs in an area. Would that increase the potential for HMOs, as defined by the Bill, to increase in such an area? That is the fear that residents have, and we have to be clear how we intend to address it. To that end, definitions and defining the objective of the legislation in the Bill are essential. The Committee has engaged with the Department on that issue and will continue to do so over the next few weeks.

Under the proposed legislation, 353 current premises of student accommodation will be exempt for the definition of a HMO. Just over 300 of those are in Belfast and house around 3,300 students. Members will be aware that there are plans to increase the provision of student accommodation in Belfast. Indeed, there are currently 17 planning applications for Belfast, which equate to just over 8,000 bedrooms for student accommodation.

In preparation for the debate, it was interesting to read the HMO subject plan for Belfast, which was prepared in 2008. It stated:

"The demand for HMO accommodation is likely to be sustained as a consequence of changing patterns of household formation. However, the signs are that the market for student accommodation may have peaked."

Obviously, predicting the future does not fall under the Planning Service's remit. Who knows what the demand will be in another seven years’ time.

We do not want to regulate accommodation when there is already appropriate alternative regulation in place, and the Committee has been advised by representatives from Queen’s that this is in place for their accommodation. We also expect that any proposed student residencies from any educational establishments would also be subject to that regulation.

When determining the percentage of houses in a specific area or street that can be HMOs, as per the HMO subject plans, student accommodation, as long as it is managed by or on behalf of educational establishments, will not be taken into account. Technically speaking, that makes sense. However, to residents who live close to such buildings and who see their streets or areas full of houses that have been converted to HMOs, it makes no sense at all. They see only the outworking of the legislation that can redefine the demographics of areas such as the Holylands in Belfast.

In making this legislation, we have to be mindful not only of its limitations but of its potential impact. We must have a cross-departmental approach to the issue to develop a vision for the planning for and regulation of HMOs. In all cases, we must ensure that, where there is an increase in HMO accommodation in residential areas, those are managed to a high standard and that the lines of responsibility and, more importantly, accountability are clear.

The Committee notes that transferring the responsibility for regulating HMOs to local councils should facilitate joined-up working with planning, as well as building control and environmental health. The Committee will wish to be satisfied that sufficient support is given to local councils to ensure that that joined-up working is in fact realised and that relevant agencies and Departments do not work in silos.

As acknowledged by the Department, councils will require time and support to prepare for the administration of the new licensing scheme before the main provisions of the Bill come into operation. In that regard, there is a responsibility to provide councils with as much support as possible to facilitate the effective transfer of the proposed new regulatory responsibilities. The Committee will undoubtedly come back to this issue in due course.

As I said, the Committee is content with the principles of the Bill. Some of the issues we already raised with the Department have, broadly speaking, been taken on board by the Minister. There are other issues in the Bill that the Committee must content itself with, and we continue to work with the Department and departmental officials to do that. However, for the purposes of today’s proceedings, the Committee is content to support the Bill at Second Stage.

I want to say a couple of words from a party point of view. First, I welcome the Minister saying that he has considered a number of issues and will make a number of amendments to the Bill.

At every stage that the Houses in Multiple Occupation Bill has come to the Assembly, we have argued that there should be robust legislation. The failure to implement robust legislation means that you have to continuously go back to the issue, and that creates difficulties.

There are huge communities — I know that Adrian raised it at the Committee a while ago — in his area and in other areas like Belfast where we have seen steady changes in the residential nature of many communities, and we need to protect them. I raised a question at last week's meeting, and, at some stage, we need to take on board the fact that the HMOs are another arm of the private rental sector, and we need to look at that in totality. Whilst we are about to decide that percentages of HMOs can fit into other areas, they may have already been oversaturated by the private rented sector in that area. That needs to be taken into consideration in the loop.

I believe that the licensing of this accommodation will prove useful. The Minister said that 5,300 have registered, but there could be up to 30,000. I remember one of the gurus in the Housing Executive of HMOs said a number of years ago that, within that 30,000, many elements of the accommodation are poor. They are overcrowded and are difficult for the people who live there. They turn to us to look at providing legislation that can end that. Not only robust legislation but robust enforcement needs to be part of the Bill. It is only when we bring this in that we can start to deal with what has been a serious problem for many years.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

I support the general principles of the Houses in Multiple Occupation Bill at Second Stage. The Bill will endeavour to better regulate HMOs by introducing a system of licensing and new provisions about standards of housing. As a representative for North Belfast, I see an ever-changing social demography. Those changes, along with other factors, have led to an increase in demand for HMOs as an affordable housing option in the rental sector. It is therefore important that we get the BiIl right, as many who rent in the sector have vulnerabilities of some kind, should that be age group, ethnicity or income.

The Bill is also of specific importance to me as a North Belfast representative, looking towards the future of housing for the students of the Ulster University and the concerns of nearby residents. I note that, in Part 2 of the Bill, which is the licensing part that the Minister has gone into in detail, councils and planners will have the powers to ensure that over-provision does not occur in any one condensed area. Given some of the problems that have happened in the past in south Belfast, which the Deputy Chair has outlined, that has to be very welcomed.

As this is a debate on the general principles, I do not intend repeating what the Deputy Chair or Minister have said, but I will say that I endorse the remarks that the Deputy Chair has made, and I welcome the Minister's comments on amendments. I agree with the Deputy Chair when I say that this has to be robustly scrutinised, and I look forward to it coming back at Consideration Stage. I welcome the Bill, and I hope that it addresses the issues that tenants face and, more importantly, that it gives those tenants protection, which I feel is the crux of the Bill. I support the Bill.

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

Like my colleague Ms Bradley, I endorse the comments of the Deputy Chair of the Committee and welcome the Bill. It has received widespread support from all the stakeholders who responded to it. It is right to say that the Department and, indeed, the Minister have listened to those comments and consultation responses and have given an indication that there will be further amendments to the Bill which will take account of some of those responses. I think that the Minister is right in saying that, whilst it is important to provide further regulation to better protect communities and, indeed, tenants in houses of multiple occupation, it is important not to use a sledgehammer approach, because we are living in a society where more and more people, because of high rents, are having to share accommodation.

There has to be a common-sense approach that safeguards the rights and interests of others.

The Minister and his Department have a busy day. There is a meeting across the way at which the Department is giving a briefing on the Syrian refugees, which is to be welcomed. I congratulate the Minister and his Department for the approach that all the households offered to those refugees will have to be from registered landlords. That is the right approach, and I commend the Minister on it.

I know that we do not want to get into too much of the detail, but I welcome other aspects of the Bill. It is very much a Belfast and Derry approach, largely because of the amount of student accommodation and the chronic housing shortage in those areas. We should also be mindful of some of the more rural areas where there are seasonal and migrant workers, who need to be better protected. There are comments and views from stakeholders on that, and I understand that the Minister will take further account of them.

The lessons that have been learned from judicial reviews on church institutions, hostels for the homeless etc and large educational establishments are being taken account of in the consideration of the Bill, which I welcome. There is no point in labouring points that have all been well articulated by the Deputy Chair. I reiterate my and my party's support for the Bill.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I share the comments made by other Members in welcoming, on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, the general principles of the Bill. Clearly, it deals with an issue of some importance. It concerns an area that has not been regulated appropriately and where we can improve lives and remove risks that may exist in houses of multiple occupation.

I declare an interest in that I have a son who is a student and may be in a house that will be covered by the Bill. Thankfully, he is in a good house, but I think back to previous student days and accommodation that I have seen. It is very clear that there is a need for legislation to cover the private sector. I can think of one example of student accommodation that I visited where there was a basic amenity, a fridge, connected to an electrical plug via a block terminal connector that sat on top of a kitchen bench. That was not particularly safe. Such basic amenities should be connected safely to the power supply and should not endanger the lives of the occupants of shared accommodation.

I also welcome the linkage of the regulations with other government functions, namely planning, building control and environmental health, because local government can play quite an important role there. It will come across difficulties in the community through a range of complaints about damp or a lack of planning approval etc. I welcome the fact that local government could play a key role in the legislation, providing joined-upness in government, if all that is eventually brought together so that it can use its expertise in other relevant areas to ensure that appropriate planning permissions are achieved and that individuals can live safely in their accommodation.

It is disappointing, of course, that the Regeneration Bill did not proceed, because it would have been useful if it had been passed to local government. How are we going to identify the under-registration that exists, even in landlord registration? There are landlords out there who, regardless of whether they own homes of multiple accommodation, should be registered as landlords. Can we avoid duplication? If you register as owning housing in multiple occupation, will you automatically be registered as a landlord? Can we try to minimise the level of bureaucracy and ensure that we capture all relevant information in as efficient a mechanism as possible?

Another aspect of houses in multiple occupation, whether for students or others, is that, on occasions, they are houses from not particularly good stock. They can be damp or cold and may even have very poor energy efficiency. Is the Minister thinking along the lines of putting in minimum standards? Will he require, particularly when new applications are made, that certain basic modern standards are adopted in order to ensure that those who may be more vulnerable and have limited choices are in reasonable accommodation?

I accept — I think that it is widely accepted — that houses in multiple occupation can pose a higher risk. I agree with the principle of the Bill in concentrating in this area initially. It would be easy to widen it to all houses that are being let, but I welcome the fact that this is being concentrated on houses in multiple occupation because of the higher risk factor that exists there. It is right that the authorities should work with those houses and improve them and minimise the risks to tenants who may be more vulnerable. I also see in the explanatory notes to the Bill that this is likely to become an area of increasing importance related to the ongoing welfare reform. If we are going to have more people living in such accommodation in the long term, it is important that we provide them with the necessary protections.

Why is a house in multiple occupation a particular risk? The very basic question to ask is this: who is in charge of the house? Often, and certainly in the case of students, everybody thinks that it is somebody else. They may even think that it is the landlord. In that type of situation, nobody thinks that they are responsible. It is important that someone takes responsibility and ensures that no unsafe conditions pertain. It is also important that it is possible to contact the person responsible for the house. On occasions, you hear of stories where the owner of a property cannot be contacted, so how do you solve the problem that exists, whether for the tenant or the neighbouring tenants or occupants? It is right and proper that there are appropriate management systems in place to enable contact with either the appropriate landlord or someone who has clear responsibility and can solve the difficulties that are being experienced.

I agree with putting some exemptions in the Bill. The example of student accommodation has been given to us. We are being advised that there is already a high degree of scrutiny and checking of fire exits etc and that the risks do not justify a further level of bureaucracy and costs on top of the checks that already happen. What would be gained by adding to the provisions accommodation that is managed by universities etc? I agree with that exemption. We want to minimise bureaucracy that we are creating, and we have to justify the area of scrutiny. It has been shown to us that there is a particular issue with supportive housing. Housing that is managed by housing associations and is of a good standard has, on occasions, significantly higher levels of protection than is envisaged in this legislation. If they are already operating to a high standard, why would we add another layer of bureaucracy and include them in this provision? I agree with the principle of trying to minimise both the involvement of government and costs and of being able to justify those areas that will be included.

I am supportive of the general principles of the Bill and look forward to more detailed scrutiny, which, as others have said, has already commenced.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill's Second Stage today. Perhaps it is somewhat belated, but we are here. As others have said, and as the vice Chair very eloquently set out in his remarks, the Committee has been looking at aspects of the Bill in preparation for this stage and the next stage of the Bill.

I do not wish to say very much that has not already been said by colleagues. Perhaps one or two areas have not been covered. With the transferring of this function to local authorities, there is concern about whether the local authority will have adequate resources and funding to carry out the task. That is an essential area if the Bill is to be meaningful. We have heard Members comment on the ability to enforce and the ability to inspect. In order for those things to happen, those services have to be adequately resourced. The Alliance Party welcomes the Bill, in principle. As the Minister and officials will be aware, we have been examining specific areas that we have been looking at in the Committee. I hope that, with cooperation between the Committee and officials, we will be able to deal with all those issues without the Committee having to put forward amendments and creating pressure for those things to happen.

Mr Beggs made reference to how fit-and-proper persons are identified and whether other people can act as front persons for fit-and-proper persons. In other words, what happens if the owner of the property is not a fit-and-proper person and they pass that responsibility on to agents or to other family members? I am concerned about whether those areas are adequately covered. I am also concerned that we get the balance right in respect of the ability to carry out enforcement with regard to landlords who require that to be done. We also need to mark the fact that many landlords go above and beyond that which is required of them to provide decent accommodation for people living in this type of accommodation.

I am concerned about whether the Bill will adequately deal with antisocial behaviour from within the property and the way in which behaviour in that property has an effect on neighbours. Again, as the vice Chair and others said, there are concerns that there are areas that are already saturated with particular types of housing. We need to be sure that what we do here does not add to those burdens but attempts to bring those issues under control.

Finally, like others, I have health and safety concerns. There needs to be adequate control in the Bill to allow for high-quality health and safety checks, particularly for gas and electricity, and carbon monoxide, to ensure that those in this type of accommodation have the best-quality health and safety standards delivered to them.

Work on the Bill will continue in the Committee. At this stage, the Alliance Party is happy to support the principles of the Bill.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Members who contributed to the debate. I am glad that at least one Member said that the Minister is listening, but one other Member decided to accuse me of yet further delay. However, I appreciate Members' comments and will endeavour to work my way through some of them. If I do not cover them all, I assure you that we will come back with definitive answers, post today's debate.

I appreciate the work of the Social Development Committee. As ought to be the case when legislation comes through the House, there is a good working relationship with the Committee. That enables us to come to a point and place where we will have covered and done, in the best possible way, all that we can to ensure that we have the best legislation. I would be the first to say that, in the first draft of any legislation, you are never able to capture everything that you would like and that it takes that two-way process. As we look at our legislative process, we can see that, sometimes, yes, it can be challenging and cumbersome. I am regretful that we have not been able to work that process because of our previous difficulties in a way that would give us a better time in doing this. However, we are where we are now. I think that we ought to take all the opportunities that we possibly can to try to address the issues.

The Deputy Chair of the Committee, Mr McCann, said that the exemptions from the HMO definition as suggested in the Bill would increase the number of HMOs. During the policymaking process, the Department took account of the judicial review, which was critical. It criticised the definition that was used in the registration scheme as being too wide-ranging and for bringing houses into regulation where it was not warranted. I am content that the outlined exclusions from the definition have a sound policy rationale and that many of the exclusions are due to the fact that other, more appropriate regulation exists that is tailored to those types of accommodation. It is recognised that the Bill cannot address the over-provision of properties that are not classed as HMOs. If there is concern that a certain type of accommodation is prevalent in an area to the detriment of pre-existing residents, that is a matter that can be better dealt with through planning policy and legislation. I think that that gives us a suite of policies that tries to address that particular issue. Obviously, the new powers that the councils have on planning give them an input and a day-to-day working experience of what is happening in their own area.

Mr McCann also raised the issue, which I think was also alluded to by Mr Dickson, about the support that the Department will provide to councils prior to and after the transfer of the function. The Department will assist councils with new requirements to allow the smooth introduction of the new regulatory regime and will publish a code of practice and guidance for the licensing scheme to help them to meet the requirements of the regulations. The Department will also work with councils on the proper resourcing of the new HMO function. That was raised by Mr Dickson. It will also require there to be a business case on that. It is an issue, and we have already had discussions with some councils on it. It is my intention to ensure that councils are properly addressed on and made aware of what is happening on this particular piece of legislation.

The other issue that Mr McCann raised was the over-provision of private rented accommodation in some areas. I know that the Member raises that issue in a number of forums. He is right to do so to make sure that there is a wider point on the over-provision of other forms of private rented accommodation. I will just remind the Member that recently I launched the consultation on the role and regulation of the private rented sector. That will be considered in part during the consultation period. I look forward to the responses that undoubtedly we will have from the Committee and other interested bodies on that.

I will also raise the issue of the importance of the matter for us. Sometimes we get a sense when we come to a piece of legislation that it will not have an important impact. This is an important piece of legislation that gives confidence not only to landlords in ensuring that they are stepping up to the mark but, more importantly, to those locations that have been mentioned in the House and potentially to other new locations where there would be this type of property. We want to ensure that things are being done in a way that gives everybody confidence and where everybody has buy-in to what is happening.

Mr Dickson also raised the issue of gas safety and whether a person can ask their landlord to provide a gas safety record. Landlords of rented properties have a legal duty to ensure that a gas appliance is installed and maintained and that an annual safety check of the appliance and the flue is carried out. On completion of any safety check, contractors are required to provide the landlord with a houseowner gas safety report, a CP12, which must be retained for at least two years as a record of this check. Tenants must also be provided with a copy. Contractors must inform the landlord or the homeowner and their tenants if any appliance is found to be unsafe, and agreement will be sought to disconnect the appliance. A gas appliance or fitting that is known or suspected to be unsafe must not be used. We want to ensure that that is provided for and complied with.

We will go through Hansard to see whether there are any other specific questions that have not been covered, and we will respond to Members accordingly.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Houses in Multiple Occupation Bill [NIA 60/11-16] be agreed.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

That concludes the Second Stage of the Houses in Multiple Occupation Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Social Development.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move

That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of provisions dealing with public-sector exit payments contained in the Enterprise Bill.

The Enterprise Bill was introduced in the House of Lords on 16 September 2015. It contains provisions on a range of business-related initiatives. It also contains measures that would end six-figure public-sector exit payments by capping the maximum payment that an individual exiting the public service on early exit or redundancy terms can receive at £95,000. The Bill has completed its Report Stage in the House of Lords and is expected to receive Royal Assent by April 2016, with the necessary regulations being in place by summer 2016.

The matter before us today poses a relatively straightforward choice. How much do we wish to spend on exiting public servants, and how much do we want to spend on providing public services? While exit payments must be reasonable and fair to public servants, we have to be mindful that these costs are met by employers and, therefore, have an impact on what can be spent on the delivery of services. The measures in the Enterprise Bill will ensure that principles for fairness, proportionality and value for money should determine how these choices are to be made.

It is proposed that the early exit payments in the scope of the restriction will include the range of employer-funded exit payments made on exit, including those made on account of dismissal by reason of redundancy, for voluntary exit, and to reduce or eliminate an actuarial reduction to a pension paid early. It should be noted at the outset that the restriction being proposed will not affect any pension that an individual has already accrued and paid for by member contributions. What is proposed is a cap on any additional funding paid for by the employer as part of an exit package. This has not been paid for by the member. It is an additional cost that is met solely by that employer and, ultimately, the taxpayer.

Other payments that are outside the scope of the cap will include payments for incapacity or death as a result of injury or illness; payments made under regulations for the firefighters’ pension scheme where the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Authority has determined that an individual should be retired with an early retirement pension in accordance with the fitness provisions; payments for leave due under a contract of employment where that leave is not taken; bonus payments otherwise due under a contract of employment; and payments made in compliance with an order of any court or tribunal.

Members will be familiar with the press coverage earlier this year given to large exit packages associated with the merger of local councils. That demonstrated the public interest in what were seen to be excessively generous levels of redundancy pay-offs available in the public sector. There is a genuine need to ensure that exit payments funded from the public purse are seen to provide value for money for the taxpayer. The vast majority of individuals working in the public sector will not be affected by this restriction; only those with the very highest value exit packages would be affected by the cap. By way of example, in the current Northern Ireland Civil Service voluntary exit scheme, only 1% of over 7,000 applicants would have breached the cap.

Members will recall that the Assembly agreed a legislative consent motion (LCM) in January this year to ensure that the highest earning public servants, those who earn in excess of £100,000, should repay all or part of a publicly funded exit payment when they leave the public service and are re-employed there shortly afterwards. The exit cap restriction will complement those reforms by amending the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. The Westminster Enterprise Bill will provide the overarching provision to apply a restriction to the type of payments that I have outlined in my opening remarks. However, I am proposing that the policy should be administered locally through our own Northern Ireland regulations. These regulations will be brought forward by my Department. They will be subject to affirmative resolution in the Assembly. Members will therefore have further opportunity to consider the detail on how a cap on payments should be applied in the public sector here.

I thank the Committee for Finance and Personnel for its scrutiny of the proposed LCM. I note that the Committee highlighted some concerns that have been raised by trade unions and other stakeholders. I especially thank the Minister of Education and the Minister of Environment who responded with comments to the paper I circulated on 19 October. I welcome Minister O’Dowd’s comments agreeing, in principle, with the policy to restrict exit payments. I also appreciate the concerns raised by both Ministers, who have responsibilities for local government and education, on how those sectors will be affected. I emphasise that, should we agree the motion today, we will be agreeing to the principles of the framework provision in the Enterprise Bill so that public-sector exit payments should be capped. As we will be producing our own regulations, I consider that all other concerns that they have raised can be addressed.

I will briefly address some of the main concerns that have been raised. First, I do not wish to comment more widely on the arrangements that Her Majesty's Treasury put in place for its consultations beyond the fact that it received over 4,000 responses to the consultation on exit payments between 31 July and 27 August this year. My Department publicised the commencement of the consultation to the main unions’ representatives of public-sector bodies here as well as to the Northern Ireland public service employers. Indeed, the main public service unions and the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee (NILGOSC) submitted substantial responses to Her Majesty's Treasury's consultation.

To address any additional concerns for consultation, I am proposing that my Department undertakes a 12-week consultation on draft regulations early in 2016. As I have pointed out, these regulations will also be subject to affirmative resolution procedure in the Assembly. This provides a further enhanced level of scrutiny on the detail of the policy before the regulations can be passed by this Assembly.

Secondly, on equality considerations, the Committee’s report on the LCM relayed some points raised by the Northern Ireland Equality Commission. My Department has now addressed these concerns in writing to the Committee on 26 November, and I would like to cover a few points. In the first instance, contrary to what is stated in the letter from the Equality Commission, I can confirm that the proposed restriction does not impact on accrued pensions that have been paid for by employee contributions. The Equality Commission comments on the position taken in the equality screening statement that it is possible that some older staff with very long service could be affected.

In such a scenario, it is length of service, especially in those schemes that effectively provide an uncapped employer-funded contribution to an unreduced early pension, which is the contributing factor. Across the public sector, length of service is taken into account when calculating pension and redundancy payments and when applying pre-existing restrictions. The age of the member is largely incidental.

The cap will be set at a fair and proportionate level to safeguard public finances. Even for those with the highest-value packages who could be affected, £95,000 will still provide long-serving members of staff with a considerable financial cushion to facilitate their transition to alternative employment or, indeed, retirement. I mentioned that DFP regulations on the detail of the policy will also provide an opportunity to consider what flexibilities might be appropriate in how the restriction is operated in the devolved public sector here.

Concerns have also been raised on the proposals to exempt those banks and financial institutions currently in public ownership, and other publicly owned media organisations. Whilst regulations will provide that certain bodies may be exempted from the cap, I can confirm that I have not proposed that any devolved public institution be given an exemption in DFP regulations. My understanding is that, where the Westminster Government have proposed exemptions for some publicly owned banks, they expect to return those institutions to the private sector in the near future. In the case of broadcasting bodies such as the BBC, those bodies are expected to introduce their own equivalent restrictions on exit payments.

It is recognised, however, that, under exceptional circumstances, it may be desirable that the effect of the restriction can be waived. That is especially pertinent, given the restructuring being undertaken in the public sector and where exit schemes may already be under way. DFP regulations will provide for that flexibility. In that regard, I note the concern raised by the Environment Minister for those severance arrangements already in progress in the local government scheme under RPA. Under DFP regulations, the flexibility to relax the application of the cap will be delegated to the responsible Minister. Therefore, whether a waiver should be appropriate in those or other difficult cases can be a matter of judgement for the relevant Minister to decide.

In addition to the important flexibilities to relax the restriction or to apply an outright exemption, the regulations will also provide scope to allow for a different amount to be substituted for the £95,000 restriction set by the Act. At this stage, I do not propose that there is any need to deviate from the norm for the rest of the public sector on the baseline level of the cap, but the regulations will provide this flexibility, should there be a compelling argument for its use here in the future. My officials will consult with each of the Departments with responsibility for the Northern Ireland public-sector schemes on these details before the regulations are finalised.

Concerns have been raised about the impact for the local government scheme, where current rules enable staff to receive an unreduced early payment of pension on early exit. I acknowledge that, when employers are offering early exit packages that include immediate payment of unreduced pensions with an effectively uncapped employer contribution, some staff with very long service can currently be eligible for exit payments above the cap. It is important to be clear that, where individuals who leave the public service under an exit scheme are currently entitled to take payment of an unreduced pension, that option will remain open to them. These measures, however, will ensure that the employer contribution to reduce the actuarial reduction for early payment is within the limits of the £95,000 cap.

The large majority of local government workers will not be impacted by this restriction. In recent local government exits in Great Britain, less than 2% of exit payments would have exceeded the cap. The small percentage of those who could be affected will be those who receive the highest exit packages. In those cases, £95,000, in our opinion, remains a substantial payment in any terms and a significant employer contribution to the costs that come with early access to an unreduced pension where this is part of the exit package. It is nearly four times the public-sector average and almost six times the maximum available under statutory redundancy terms.

Finally, I return to the primary powers of the Enterprise Bill and the rationale for an LCM to introduce the overarching provision on which the Northern Ireland regulations will be made. It is now very clear that an Assembly Bill to effect the policy could not be enacted in a comparable time frame to the Enterprise Bill, which is expected to become an Act in April or May next year. If the Assembly wished to legislate on this matter, it is extremely unlikely that it would even be commenced before dissolution in March 2016 for elections planned for May. That would result in the policy being implemented to a much later timescale for public service employees in Northern Ireland. If our choice today is for public servants in Northern Ireland to continue to be treated more generously than the rest of the public sector, it will inevitably come at a cost and impact available funds. In the current climate, the Assembly has a responsibility to minimise any additional financial pressures that could result in any diversion of departmental funding from other important public services.

In summary, we seek agreement today to the principles for applying a fair and reasonable restriction on public-sector exit payments. The measures in the Enterprise Bill will provide the necessary framework to achieve this intent while providing the flexibility of our own regulation-making power to ensure that the application is measured and responsive to local circumstances in the Northern Ireland public sector.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. On behalf of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, I wish to outline the extent of the Committee’s work on the LCM. The finer details of the Committee’s deliberations are set out in a short report that was circulated to all Members on 18 November. I shall, however, summarise the key points for Members’ convenience and for the Assembly record.

As outlined, the Enterprise Bill at Westminster contains a number of government initiatives intended to support the growth of enterprise. In the Bill, however, are measures to restrict public-sector exit payments, most notably capping the total value of exit payments at £95,000.

On 16 September, the Committee was first informed about the relatively short consultation carried out by the Treasury during the summer on proposals for a cap on exit payments. Given the conventional approach followed here of providing broadly comparable pension and compensation arrangements for equivalent public service employment, it was noted that this could have implications locally.

Further correspondence highlighted the fact that the Minister was minded to agree with the Treasury’s preference for a single legislative approach, which could be achieved by means of an amendment to the Enterprise Bill and a corresponding LCM through the Assembly. The Committee was further told that the Minister had sought agreement to this approach from the First Minister and deputy First Minister through the urgent procedure in the ministerial code. The memorandum accompanying the LCM was subsequently laid on 22 October, thus beginning the short 15-day period for the Committee to scrutinise the provisions of the LCM.

In line with the Committee's previous approach when scrutinising LCMs, it sought an urgent briefing with the Department and written briefings from relevant stakeholders, including the collective consultation working group, the Equality Commission and Assembly Statutory Committees. Furthermore, and in light of the apparent level of discontent with the proposals, members agreed to hold an additional Committee meeting to take oral evidence from a trade union panel. First, however, the Committee took evidence from the Department on 4 November, and members raised a number of issues and concerns with the proposed LCM. Further detail can be found in the Committee’s report but, briefly and for the record, they included concerns about the use of the LCM process; the limited nature of the Treasury consultation; concerns over equality impact and screening; the impact of the cap on current voluntary exit schemes in the local public sector; concerns about potential legal challenges should the cap come into effect; and the potential for lower-paid public servants to be impacted by the cap.

Departmental officials clarified some issues for members, including an assurance sought by the Fire Brigades Union that the cap would not impact firefighters who cannot maintain operational fitness beyond the age of 55. In response to concerns raised about specific circumstances in which the cap would impact on lower- or moderately paid public-sector workers, however, the Department made no promises. When pressed, the officials commented that there was scope for the Department or employing authority to grant certain flexibilities and waivers in certain circumstances. However, they did not give an assurance that such a waiver would be applied in the case of the specific example, which was cited by members, of a 55-year-old female public-sector worker with 35 years’ service and earning £27,000 who could be impacted by a cap of £95,000.

In follow-up correspondence, the Department gave members further information on the possible application of a waiver process. For example, if there is clear evidence of a justified business need to disapply the cap:

"in order to achieve a required restructuring outcome. Or, for example, it may be applied to a programme of reform which was already underway such as the Review of Public Administration."

The departmental officials also advised that the power to apply a waiver would be delegated to individual Departments or employing authorities and that the Department of Finance and Personnel would issue appropriate guidance. On the latter point, however, no such guidance was provided, even in draft form, by way of further explanation. Moreover, it is not clear what the implications might be from a differential application of the waiver and how the costs of applying it would work.

Some of the other issues raised by stakeholders were addressed, at least to some extent, by the Department. It was confirmed that there would be no implications, in the Department's view, for the protection conferred by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE). The Department also underlined the point that the cap would not affect any pension that an individual has already accrued and paid for by member contributions. DFP also stated that it did not agree with NILGOSC's concern over the effect of a cap on employee-funded early pensions, which are currently a feature of local government schemes.

I am afraid that, given the time pressure created around the whole issue, Members are going to have to judge for themselves the extent to which those and other substantive issues have been addressed by the Department. It was certainly the view of various stakeholders, most particularly the trade unions who gave evidence to the Committee, that there remained unresolved concerns.

In the evidence session with them, trade union representatives raised a number of concerns, among which were that the consultation carried out by Treasury did not apply the Woolf-Gunning principles on fair consultation, leading to what they believed was a limited opportunity for local discussion and consultation; the potential impact that the cap would have on any voluntary exit schemes carried out in other areas of the public service, including the health service and the Education Authority, after the cap comes into operation on 1 April 2015; and the inconsistent application of the cap on local government workers, particularly the lower-paid who have already agreed entitlements under the review of public administration.

The Committee noted in particular the concerns over the wide range of public servants in diverse roles who could be disadvantageously impacted on as a result of the cap. To put it simply, there is a worry that the cap could in practice affect more long-serving public servants than it does highly paid ones.

That particular concern was raised in correspondence from the Education Committee. Members may wish to reflect further on the education worker on a moderate salary who would be affected by the cap. The Education Authority is particularly concerned about the impact that the cap will have on its ability to facilitate staffing reductions through voluntary severance, as well as about the difficulties that the cap could present if it were to lead to a surge in staff wanting to exit before it came into effect. The authority also raised the issue of the potential fairness and equity treatment of staff exiting with different severance packages, depending on whether they were released before or after the cap was introduced. The LCM clearly poses issues for the sector.

We received correspondence this morning from Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council that stated that the introduction of the cap is likely to create a major issue — potential equal-pay claims or compulsory redundancies in the case of staff scheduled to leave cancelling their request to do so. The council is requesting that an exemption be applied to local government or that, if it is approved, the cap be delayed for local government until January 2020 to allow completion of the RPA severance scheme. Obviously, that correspondence was received after the Committee had completed its consideration of the LCM.

The Committee was also concerned about the lack of clarity provided by the Department on the projected savings from implementing the cap locally, particularly when it was informed by the trade union representatives that Scotland was not minded to apply such a cap to public-sector exit payments.

Members were also concerned that there was an indication from trade union reps that they would consider legal challenges to the cap, should it be introduced. The Committee has asked DFP for assurances that the risks in that regard have been fully assessed.

The Equality Commission highlighted a number of points relating to the Department's equality screening and the decision not to carry out a full equality impact assessment (EQIA). It pointed out that equality-screening decisions must be informed by evidence, whether that be qualitative or quantitative. The DFP screening exercise noted an adverse impact on long-serving older members of staff and no impacts on any of the other equality categories. However, the Equality Commission has highlighted that the Department provided no evidence for how those conclusions had been reached. The commission queried that, especially in light of the wide range of data available to the Department, given that it completes the NICS article 55 fair employment review and gender reviews.

The Equality Commission also highlighted the "significant financial impact" on individuals who could be subject to the cap in a compulsory redundancy situation. In addition, the commission highlighted the current NICS voluntary exit scheme and the potential for equality data analysis after the first three tranches of staff leave that could be used to inform future requirements for positive/affirmative action measures.

A departmental response to the various outstanding issues was not received in time for members agreeing the Committee report on the LCM; therefore, a majority of members agreed that the Committee would reserve its position. The subsequent response from the Department was noted following the Committee agreeing its report. It reiterated that the cap will not impact on any accrued entitlement or benefits that an individual has built up and paid for in pension contributions to a public-sector pension scheme. While the Department acknowledged that some lower-paid staff with very long service could be affected, it maintained that the policy was:

"considered fair, proportionate and represents value for money for ... tax payers as a whole."

At its meeting on 2 December, the Committee discussed the fact that this plenary debate was scheduled for today and noted that a number of issues and concerns were still outstanding, as highlighted in the Committee's report on the LCM and subsequent correspondence. That concludes my comments on the Committee's position on the LCM.

My position and that of my party is that we strongly support the principles of the Bill, but we believe that it fails to deliver. This is not obviously targeted at lower-paid workers, but they will certainly be impacted by its introduction. That may not have been the intention when the legislation was drafted for England, but it certainly would be the effect if it were copied and pasted here. Of course, we are all well aware of examples of public-sector workers on low to medium pay who will be impacted adversely after working in the public sector their entire career, and I outlined some of those earlier. There are quite a number of examples of that in education, as Members will know.

To conclude, we in Sinn Féin are in agreement with the Minister that there should be a cap on exit payments. However, given the local factors that have been brought to our attention, it is clear that we need a local solution, and this LCM is not fit for purpose in this circumstance.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

My comments will be short, given that the Chair has outlined in depth the Committee's position following its evidence sessions.

I thank the Minister for bringing the LCM to the House today and for giving us the opportunity to decide where our priorities lie. Do the Assembly's priorities lie in spending large amounts of money on severance payments etc for public servants, or does it believe that we should spend our finances on public services?

I, for one, believe that it should be on our public services. While public servants ensure that the public service exists and many do an excellent job in their day-to-day employment, I believe that the cap that the Minister is bringing forward, which is, of course, bringing us into line with the rest of the United Kingdom, is worthwhile, and I commend her for that.

I know that the Chair raised this issue briefly. During the Committee's discussion, I raised the concern about the firemen, and women, I suppose, to be politically correct, who are unable to maintain the operational fitness aspect beyond the age of 55. The Minister's willingness to deal with them in the Bill is certainly welcome for those in the Fire Brigades Union and those who are affected. That is certainly welcome news.

Like most other Members, I received a letter from the assistant general secretary of NIPSA, Bumper Graham, who outlined his objection to this legislative consent motion. A few of his comments intrigued me. He said that NIPSA considers it to be an abuse of process, as it was added to the Bill late in the day, and that it has frustrated the Assembly's consultation process and left many questions unanswered. One part that I find quite appalling is when he refers to the letter of 11 November, which I presume came from the Department, as erroneous, as it impacts upon accrued pension entitlements in NILGOSC and the LGPS. I ask the Minister to respond to those comments, because I think that putting a letter out saying that the Finance Department's letter is "erroneous" certainly needs to be addressed.

Given that our members voted in favour of the cap at the Committee, I believe that this is a good thing and that the House should vote in favour of it. It is not something that anyone is trying to do anything to in order to undermine public-sector workers. I think that it is certainly a good approach. I welcome it being before the House today and urge Members to vote in support of it.

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

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Thank you very much, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. Yes, there have been a number of reservations expressed about the use of the LCM in this context. The belief is that an LCM should not be used to bring forward such controversial changes and that it denies the Assembly full scrutiny of a matter that is of huge public importance and that impacts on the lives of many people here in Northern Ireland. The short period of, I think,15 days given to the Finance Committee and other stakeholders to scrutinise the proposals in the LCM is far too short and comes on the back of a restrictive Treasury consultation that was held during the summertime, which many believe did not conform to the Woolf/Gunning principles for fair and adequate consultation.

Obviously, the £95,000 cap is at the heart of the matter. As others mentioned, there is concern amongst the representatives of public service workers about this issue. The Committee heard from several trade unions, including UNISON and NIPSA. They argued that the LCM would lead to a breach of contract, the denial of statutory entitlements and the breaking of the 25-year no change on public service pensions agreement. They agree that legislation of this type would be better in the form of a Bill, which could be fully scrutinised by the Finance Committee and the Assembly.

NIPSA argued that the use of the LCM may bring about indirect discrimination under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act. It further warned, as the Chair pointed out, of the potential for many legal challenges if the cap is implemented. Those challenges could be on the basis of breach of contract, unlawful deductions of earnings based on the contractual right to payment, and on the unfair application of waivers, which could lead to inconsistency across employing authorities.

The Equality Commission believed that, in a situation of compulsory redundancy, there could be significant financial impact on individuals who were subject to the cap. Those would be largely older people. As was pointed out, older people who have long public service and are not necessarily the highest-earning civil servants would be disproportionately affected. The commission pointed out that the screening document did not consider the full implications of the situation. It also said that the Department of Finance and Personnel's decisions were not based on evidence, either qualitative or quantitative.

Responses to the original consultation argued that the current changes would impact negatively on older people. Hymans Robertson, one of the UK's largest pension professionals working in the public sector, argued that there would be early retirement strain costs within the cap, the statutory entitlement of unreduced benefits, and that the cap's purpose would be unfulfilled as it would target mostly low- and not high-earning public servants.

Many groups argued that the consultation process was incredibly limited and that the concerns of the majority of respondents were not taken account of fully. The Bill as it stands will negatively impact on many public servants and change their contractual rights. The proper legislative authority on this matter should remain with the Assembly here, and the LCM does not give the Assembly the opportunity to exercise its authority fully and to scrutinise, according to its role, the detail.

We will not be supporting this LCM on the grounds that I outlined. I thank you for the opportunity to contribute. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

Before I call Mr Leslie Cree, I remind the Member that Question Time is at 2 pm, and I may need to interrupt you.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

Yes, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, hopefully we can do that. The enterprise restriction on public-sector exit payments was introduced to the House of Lords on 16 September 2015.

The Bill deals with a number of Government initiatives intended to support the growth of enterprise in the United Kingdom. These are fine, but the Bill also contains measures to restrict public-sector exit payments. Under these measures, the total value of exit payments that an individual, who exits public sector employment through redundancy or early exit, may receive would be capped to £95,000. The Committee for Finance and Personnel was advised on the same date, 16 September 2015, by the Department that HM Treasury had consulted on these proposals from 31 July to 27 August, a mere four weeks in the height of summer. In my opinion, this is inadequate, and it has also led to the whole process being rushed. The Government also screened out a full equality impact assessment. The Department advised the Committee that the Treasury's preferred position was for a single, United Kingdom-wide legislative approach to implement the policy, and that this could be achieved by means of an amendment inserting the relevant clauses into the Enterprise Bill.

The Minister has agreed to that approach in principle, which necessitates the agreement of an LCM. The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister has also agreed to the process. Despite the tight time frame, the Committee has engaged with the Department and other stakeholders, including the trade unions. Again, as has been said, there was discontent with the proposals, which centred on various points. The main ones were these: the exemptions to be granted to certain publicly funded bodies; the lack of detail in the regulations to be introduced by the Department; the impact on the current voluntary exit scheme; the effect on lower-paid public servants; the risk of legal challenges; TUPE protections; and the situation with respect to firefighters.

There was subsequently some correspondence with the Department about the use of exemptions and waivers, but many questions remain. We were assured that the cap will not impact on any accrued entitlement or benefits, which an individual has built up and paid for, in pension contributions, in a public-sector scheme. The Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) and the Equality Commission also highlighted concerns, some of which have been addressed by the Department.

A major concern for many is that full details of guidelines on the flexibility to relax the exit payment cap will not be issued by the Department until after the LCM has been agreed. The Ulster Unionist Party is not opposed to the setting of a cap, but it must be done in such a way that the consequences have all been considered in advance. The current situation is that this has not happened. There is indecent haste, and the Finance Committee is not satisfied that sufficient time has been afforded to scrutinise the issue fully. It is important to ensure that employees who do not earn large salaries and have long public service are not disadvantaged by the proposed cap, which will happen under the present proposals.

Everyone can understand that, in the present difficult times, money has to be saved by the public purse; but it should not be taken from those who have worked and are entitled to it under existing contracts. That is not fair.

The Department needs to clarify the outstanding issues as quickly as possible but, at this point, the Ulster Unionist Party will not support the proposed legislative consent motion.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

As Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the House takes its ease until then. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be the Minister of Finance, to conclude and wind up the debate.

The debate stood suspended.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

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

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I inform Members that no questions have been withdrawn from this session, you will all be glad to hear.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

1. Mr Swann asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline how many freedom of information requests received since May 2011 have been answered within 20 working days. (AQO 9261/11-16)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Since May 2011 our Department has received 664 freedom of information (FOI) requests. We answered 320 of them within 20 working days. Many of the requests that we receive are sensitive or complex in nature, and it is important that we take time to get them right. However, we recognise that our performance could be better, and we are working very hard to try and improve it.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his answer. I think that "could be better" is an understatement, round at 50%. Deputy First Minister, in regard to answering questions for written answer from the Assembly, OFMDFM has about a 15% success rate of answering Assembly questions in time. What is the Minister going to do to increase the transparency and accountability of that office?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Quite clearly, there is an acknowledgement that, in relation to the freedom of information requests, more work needs to be done. We appreciate the difficulties that flow from that, but I think that the Member has to understand that, given the sensitive nature of a considerable proportion of the FOI requests processed by OFMDFM, it is imperative that due consideration is given to responses to such requests. This may involve consultation with other Departments that have an interest in the subject matter of the information. Consultation with third parties necessarily extends the period of time taken to compose appropriate responses. In addition, many more of the FOI requests that come to OFMDFM are from the media and interest groups, rather than from the general public. OFMDFM is not like any other Department, as the Member will know: there are two parties in the Department, and that complicates matters, I think considerably.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

2. Mr McQuillan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the Executive's strategy to improve the lives of people with disabilities 2012-2015. (AQO 9262/11-16)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will ask junior Minister McCann to answer this question.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Executive's disability strategy was launched by the then junior Minister Bell and I in February 2013. The strategy provides a high-level policy framework for all Departments to drive improved service delivery, increase awareness of the needs of people with disabilities and improve opportunities for people with disabilities across all policy areas. The strategy includes priorities and actions to address identified inequalities experienced by people with disabilities and to tackle the barriers that they continue to face in their daily lives.

A 2013-14 annual report on the delivery of the disability strategy has been published on the Department's website. It sets out the actions that all Executive Departments have undertaken under the strategy in the first year. We will shortly be approaching Departments for information on the actions that they have taken during the second year of the implementation of the strategy.

In May, junior Minister McIlveen and I announced the extension of the life of the strategy until 2017 to provide additional time to fully implement the recommendations. The extension is our commitment to continue to protect and promote the rights of people with disabilities in our community and will have the additional benefit of providing adequate time to develop, and to consult on, the new strategy.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the junior Minister for her answer. Will the junior Minister give a guarantee to the House today that by extending the strategy it will not be diluted in any shape, form or fashion?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I certainly can give the guarantee that it will not be diluted in any fashion. I said that we have already taken forward a number of programmes and projects since it was first announced in 2013. We hosted a major conference in May of that year. We also worked in partnership with Disability Action to develop a DVD resource pack, and that was for teachers and youth workers to provide information to pupils.

We have contributed funding totalling £459,000 to Special Olympics Ulster and have also sponsored a symposium event. We continue to carry that through. It is an Executive strategy and all Departments have a commitment to input into its implementation and delivery.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

When will the deputy First Minister or the junior Minister be able to provide clarity on welfare reform mitigations that were promised but not outlined in the recent so-called Fresh Start Agreement — maybe it should have been called the "false dawn report" — which will undoubtedly affect people with disabilities?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Member makes a very valid point; those welfare cuts will impact on people with disabilities. As the Member will know, we have secured a £585 million fund, £345 million of which is earmarked for people who will lose money through welfare cuts.

As you know, Eileen Evason, who is a sterling campaigner for people on disability benefits, disability rights and all sorts of other areas, will bring forward her proposals after consulting her panel of experts in January — next month. We are hopeful that she will be able to use the envelope of money that we secured in the Fresh Start Agreement to alleviate some of the wider impacts, particularly for those who will lose out from welfare cuts and, as the Member mentioned, those with disabilities.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

Does the junior Minister or the deputy First Minister recognise that the failure of Departments to work together for the needs of those with disabilities has led to a loss of provision? How do they plan to address that?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

As I said, it is an Executive strategy and OFMDFM has specific areas of work in bringing that forward. One of those areas is monitoring and evaluating what other Departments are doing. We have published a baseline indicator set, which uses data from 2006 to measure the outputs that are coming forward.

We work with the stakeholder groups and, last week, junior Minister Pengelly and I were at an event in the Long Gallery. At that event, people with disabilities told us that they want to be part of any delivery mechanisms going forward. We are putting that in place at OFMDFM level so that it is not just people who are representing the sector who are involved, but those who are facing those disabilities, barriers and challenges every day of their lives. We will make sure that they are involved in any implementation of the strategy, and certainly in any forward thinking. That will be across all Departments because, as I said, we have responsibility for the monitoring and evaluation of that strategy.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

3. Mr Campbell asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline their efforts to reach a final resolution on legacy issues following A Fresh Start. (AQO 9263/11-16)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

During the talks process, good progress was made in many aspects relating to the past but we were unable to agree a way forward on a number of the key issues within the timescales to which we were working. That was unfortunate but it is recognised that it is not an issue on which there can be a half-hearted or partial agreement for the sake of expediency.

The Fresh Start Agreement commits the British and Irish Governments to reflect on options for resolving the legacy issues, building, therefore, on the sound basis that already exists. Following our earlier discussions, we will engage fully with the two Governments on the options that they may bring forward to deal with that particular issue.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I call Mr Campbell for a supplementary question. I hope that that was not your answer in advance.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The deputy First Minister referred to good progress being made, and that is true. Does he not agree that better progress would be made if, for example, he tried to shore up whatever credibility he has with his past? On a number of occasions in the Chamber, I have alluded to his possession of a sub-machine gun, as was contained in the Saville report; his involvement, if he had any, in the shooting dead of two policemen three days before Bloody Sunday; the Claudy bomb; and the murder of a prison officer a few years after Bloody Sunday. Those things all happened when the deputy First Minister was the 2IC of the Provisional IRA in Londonderry, yet he denied knowledge or involvement in any of them. So, where does his credibility stand?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I never imagined for one minute that the fresh start would extend to the Member who has just spoken. The Member is often, in this Chamber, prepared to quote all sorts of falsehoods and innuendo about my past. I am glad that the Member mentioned the Saville report. The reality is that the most significant ruling made by Lord Saville was that he believed the IRA's evidence. I went forward as a member of the IRA, and my evidence was believed by Lord Saville, and the evidence of the paratroopers and the British Army was rejected. So, it is not a great issue for the Member to raise in this House, particularly as someone who comes from the city of Derry.

From my perspective, I look at all this on the basis that, over the next while, the Member will have a big decision to make in relation to his future and whether or not he will remain in this House or go to another place. I hope that he remains in this House and continues to enjoy sharing power with Sinn Féin.

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

In an attempt to ask a more balanced question than the previous MLA, I ask this: does the deputy First Minister agree that the blanket of national security that the British Government wrapped themselves in during the talks recently was a further example of their resistance to the truth and of truth-telling on their terms only? Does he also agree that the evidence of many years is that republican and loyalist organisations do exactly the same? They resist the truth and will only tell the truth on their terms. How can you reconcile the needs of victims and survivors if that is the attitude of so many?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

First of all, it is critical in the weeks ahead that we see a situation where a very determined effort is made by the Government and the parties to find a way forward. The particular blockage during the Stormont House negotiations was the refusal of the British Government to accede to the requests of many victims' groups in relation to disclosure and the blanket of national security, as the Member talked about. The big test, I suggest to the Member for West Belfast, is to establish the structures and mechanisms that we agreed and reached considerable agreement on in the talks. That will be the test as to whether or not people are prepared to come forward and contribute. I have just cited in my previous answer my willingness on behalf of being asked by the Bloody Sunday families to come forward as a member of the IRA to talk about the situation in relation to Bloody Sunday. I think that is a very clear indicator of where I am coming from in relation to all of it. I have done it; I have been there; I have worn the T-shirt.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The T-shirt that he wore at Saville was to take refuge in the republican code of honour. Does the republican code of honour still trump for the deputy First Minister, who demands wholesale disclosure from Government, the telling of the truth? How does that play with lesser participants in the IRA terrorist campaign if someone of the deputy First Minister's leadership and status in that campaign takes refuge in not telling the truth under the so-called code of honour?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

This Member is one who has never made any positive contribution to any of the difficulties that we have been trying to deal with in the overall policy in the Assembly and the working of the Executive. This is someone who is totally hostile to the institutions that have been so much an integral part of the peace process. From the perspective of the contribution that has just been made — the big challenge is to find a way forward to deal with the legacy issues. When we find that, and I believe that we will find that in the time ahead, there will be a test for everybody: the British Government; the IRA and other armed groups on the republican side; loyalist organisations; and those people in British intelligence who controlled loyalist death squads and, indeed, controlled some republicans in their agenda to try and defeat the legitimate demands of the nationalist and republican community for equality, justice and peace.

The Member needs to try to focus on making a more positive contribution to this place. I am glad that he is here making a contribution and, like the Member for East Derry or, as the electoral authorities call it, East Londonderry, continuing to enjoy sharing power with Sinn Féin.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

4. Mr G Robinson asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline the timescale for details of the successful bidder for the Shackleton site at Ballykelly being announced. (AQO 9264/11-16)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Department received seven proposals to purchase and develop the Shackleton site as part of the open competitive sale process. The proposals are being assessed, and it is expected that the preferred purchaser will be notified shortly. We hope to be in a position to make an announcement about the successful purchaser early in the new year, once the legal work has been completed.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Considering the potential job creation at Ballykelly, will the Minister outline what discussions he has had with Executive colleagues regarding the provision of good vehicular access and public transport provision, including a small rail halt, to the Shackleton site?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I know that the Member has a tremendous interest in the site, as do other Members from the constituency. It is a site that, at the beginning, was seen by many as one that would be difficult to sell. The fact that we were able to negotiate in the Executive the relocation of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to the site brought a huge focus on it, which is why we have seven bidders. That decision will be made in due course.

In relation to DARD relocating there, there is, as the Member suggested, an issue of access. That is being worked on. The advice from Transport NI is that accommodating DARD on the site will require a new access road, which will mean additional land being acquired adjacent to the site on the A2, which is the main Derry to Limavady road. That has required negotiations with the landowners, and DARD officials have engaged with Land and Property Services, which is responsible for the negotiations on behalf of the Government.

The new access arrangements will be designed sensitively, taking into account the listed structures close to the site, such as the church and the graveyard, to maintain the character of the area. The Central Procurement Directorate is working with the NI Environment Agency and DOE to agree the optimum position for the access road. The advice to date has been that there are no major issues that would prohibit development, as long as the new build and infrastructure are sensitive to the surrounding area.

It is an exciting piece of real estate, and we are very hopeful that whoever acquires the new site will use it to achieve the primary aim of most Members, namely securing much needed employment for the north-west.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an leasChéad-Aire fosta. Does the Minister agree with me that, given the level and diversity of interest, there may be an opportunity to accommodate more than a single bidder on the site?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We all know that that would principally be a matter for the new owner of the site and is something that they would have to consider in due course. We would encourage the new owner to explore all opportunities to maximise the developmental potential of the site. Some of the proposed uses identified in other proposals could well be compatible with the new owner's intended use.

When the assessment process has concluded, the First Minister and I will encourage and facilitate the new owner in exploring opportunities for strategic partnerships with other proposers. We regard the development plan of the new owner very much as the beginning of development on the site and hope that it will be the springboard for wider development activity to generate much needed economic benefits for the north-west.

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

I am sure that people in East Derry will be listening with great interest. It is an area of very high unemployment, where those who have not emigrated live in hope that something significant will emerge out of this former army camp. Can the Minister, in the mouth of Christmas, when we are supposed to be full of cheer, give us some indication of the number of jobs that will potentially emerge out of this wonderful asset that was bequeathed to us?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is very difficult at this stage and would even be presumptuous on my part to do that, but it is important to stress that the preferred proposal for the Shackleton site will be that which attains the highest score. Scores will be allocated on the basis of the number of jobs to be created, the financial offer for the site and the extent to which proposals will deliver community and environmental benefits. We have attached additional weighting to the creation of jobs. That is our priority for the site.

It is a very exciting prospect, and I think the Member knows that. At the very beginning of the process, not too many people held out much hope that there could be anything of real value on the site. It has now become a very exciting opportunity for people in the north-west. The relocation of DARD, with hundreds of employees moving to the site in 2017, will be a major attractor, as will the environmental project that NIW is involved in, as it will serve the interests of the local community.

There is a huge priority on the preferred bidder being able to assure us that jobs will be the key target in all this. That brings into play the question asked by the previous Member about whether whoever acquires the site is prepared to work with others to develop it to its full potential. The First Minister and I have taken a keen interest in the site, and we are keen to see the creation of as many jobs as possible there. I am very confident about the future for the site.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

How has the Department been encouraging bidders to consider the community and voluntary sector as part of their proposed plans?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The First Minister and I have been to the area. We have met people in the local community, and we understand the interest that they have. We absolutely wish to ensure that the community in Ballykelly and the surrounding area benefits from the development of the Shackleton site. For that reason, proposals to purchase the site are being assessed on the extent to which their plans to develop it will deliver community benefits. It is an important subject. It is critically important that, when you have such a major development on a site so close to a village area, the local community feels that it has ownership of and a stake in that site. We are determined to ensure that, however the site is developed, it is developed in the interests of the local community.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

5. Ms P Bradley asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the childcare strategy. (AQO 9265/11-16)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

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

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Consultation on the Executive's draft childcare strategy took place between 28 July and 13 November this year. Departmental officials engaged widely with stakeholders during the consultation period to promote awareness and understanding of the draft strategy and to encourage feedback on draft proposals. The childcare strategy will build on the success of the 15 key first actions launched in 2013 to address priority childcare needs identified through early research and consultation.

The school-age childcare grant scheme was developed to address priority need. The grant scheme is creating new, low-cost quality school-age childcare places and sustaining the places that we already have. To date, the grant scheme has held two calls for applications and has committed £3 million to projects that will sustain or create approximately 2,200 low-cost quality childcare places, mostly in disadvantaged areas.

A third call for applications was launched on 26 November. Other key first actions have enhanced the childcare services for children with a disability and improved the information available to parents on the childcare services available locally. Officials are collating and analysing responses to the public consultation. We will give careful consideration to the range of views put forward to us. We will continue to work in partnership with other Departments through the childcare strategy programme board, and we will aim to finalise the strategy in early 2016.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the junior Minister for her answer. The junior Minister will know how the uncertainty over the introduction of welfare reform and the wreckage that was the ESF affected the women's sector and the women's lobby. Does she agree that we need to be doing everything within our power to empower parents, especially women, to get back into the workplace and to continue with education, because that will have a great knock-on effect on our economy as well?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Yes, I think the Member is right. As you know, the childcare strategy has two high-level aims: to promote child development and to enable parents to get back into the workforce. That has to be, in a sense, parental choice. You made a very valid point regarding the DSD women's centre childcare fund. I have had a number of meetings, and our officials are working very closely with the Minister for Social Development. We want to ensure that the childcare settings that would be adversely affected by the closure of that fund would be open to the new childcare strategy funding, because it is essential. I know from talking to some of the providers of women's centre childcare, for instance, that a lot of the mothers who are returning to education or training, or even going into employment, like to be on sites where their children are being looked after. That is very important. Certainly, we will continue with our deliberations with the Minister for Social Development and officials to ensure that there is, hopefully, a seamless move from that funding to the childcare funding, when that has to happen.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, Cheann Comhairle. I thank the junior Minister for her answers thus far. Can the Minister clarify what is meant by "sustainability" in respect of the childcare strategy?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Sustainability is one of the principles underpinning our childcare strategy. As I said, during the consultation, I heard from many, not only childcare providers but parents, who are concerned about that. Sustainability does not have to mean non-subsidised childcare. For some childcare organisations, subsidies may not be required. However, no subsidies would mean the eradication of childcare provision, especially in some areas across the North where there are high levels of deprivation, particularly areas within my constituency of West Belfast. It is unrealistic, at least in the foreseeable future, to see how some of these areas with extremely high levels of multiple deprivation could support childcare provision without some sort of subvention.

So, when I refer to "sustainability", it is within the context of recognising that government needs to work in partnership with childcare providers to address our shared objectives of addressing child poverty, meeting children's social and emotional developmental needs and providing much-needed employment for childcare workers in areas where there is high unemployment. As I said, "sustainability" does not necessarily mean that those providers have to go on without any subvention. Certainly, there are some provisions that will always need that type of subvention.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire as a freagra. I thank the Minister for her answer. What aspects of family poverty, in particular, are taken into consideration? We have, obviously, heard about child poverty issues and the development of the child being addressed. They are worthwhile and integral parts of the strategy. What aspects of the strategy are dealing with situations where families, particularly young mums, are being forced, because of the exorbitant costs of childcare, to leave their workplace? In other words, what support is there for working families who are on the breadline?

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

As I said to the Member in my previous answer, we have two high-level aims. One is to enable parents to join the workforce. We want to enable this strategy to be affordable for people, because that is a key part of it. We have seen some of the responses to the consultation, and affordability is a key issue. We need to be able to ensure that any subsidies that we give to childcare provision, particularly in areas of disadvantage and need, and where there are families on low income, keep costs very low for parents, as they are in the like of the women's centre childcare fund. In going forward, we will look at all the schemes across the piece to ensure that those parents can avail themselves of that quality childcare.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

That brings us to the end of the period for listed questions. We now move to topical questions.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

T1. Mr Hilditch asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their assessment of the work of the civil contingencies policy branch across the public sector. (AQT 3241/11-16)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I presume that this question is asked in the context of Storm Desmond and the implications for society of severe flooding all over the North. If I am wrong, then the Member can correct me in his supplementary question.

Obviously, we have seen fairly widespread flooding, indeed all over the island of Ireland and particularly in certain parts of the North. Rivers Agency has been working very diligently on the ground, cooperating with other Departments, to ensure that respite is brought to the local community. The Department of the Environment has already allocated support of £1,000 per household. Quite clearly, the contingency approach that we need to adopt across the public sector has to be to deal with natural consequences, such as those of Storm Desmond, but some contingencies go wider than that. The branch could conceivably be required to be called on in any eventuality.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

My question was more general on the work of the policy branch. In the light of recent events globally, can the deputy First Minister assure us that Northern Ireland is at a level of readiness and preparedness in the event of a civil emergency?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I certainly think that all the emergency services, given the experiences we have seen in other parts of the world, are very conscious of their responsibilities should something untoward happen. It is predicted that the likelihood of something untoward happening here is very remote. My own sense of it is that it is very remote. If you are speaking about the activities of this group ISIS, ISIL, Daesh or whatever you want to call it, it is quite obvious that its focus appears to be on major centres like Paris, London and other parts of Europe. From our perspective, I certainly think that it is very important that we be prepared for any eventuality. As we saw in California last week, something could happen anywhere at any moment. I have no doubt that the emergency services — the Police Service, the Fire and Rescue Service and other services under the control of Departments — have plans in place to deal with any eventuality.

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

T2. Mrs Hale asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether the deputy First Minister agrees that the skill set available in Northern Ireland was a contributing factor to the job announcement by the American company OneSource Virtual. (AQT 3242/11-16)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I was very pleased to be at the official opening along with the Minister for Regional Development, Michelle McIlveen, on Friday. There is no doubt that the educational capabilities of young people emerging from the different educational institutions did have a big impact. It is no mean achievement to acquire that company, which is obviously a young but growing company and will provide anything up to 290 jobs over the course of the next while. Over 40 people are presently employed. Hiring has now started for another 45, and it is building to 290. I think that this has been based on the culture in the city where it has set up, my own city; the quality of the education system and the willingness of a company like this to recognise that, particularly in the context of the European dimension.

For example, what they are opening in the city of Derry is, effectively, their European headquarters. That is a big decision for such a company, but I think that it sends a very powerful message to other companies that are looking at the prospect of locating in the North that we have the quality and quantity of people that they require to fulfil their needs. Obviously, that represents a challenge for the Executive and the Department for Employment and Learning, but we will have to take account of that in any future budgetary discussions as a prerequisite for what these companies need.

Brenda Hale (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his answer. Does he agree, then, that the reduction in corporation tax gives Northern Ireland an unprecedented opportunity for thousands of new jobs in future, sending out a loud and clear message to the rest of the world that Northern Ireland is the place for business?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Anybody who read my article in the 'Belfast Telegraph' or 'The Irish News' in the course of the last week will see that, with the other parties in the Executive, we have stood by our belief in the reduction. Obviously it will all centre around our budgetary challenges and affordability and all the rest of it, but we are working on the basis that we will be able to do this. To put in the region of 30,000 to 35,000 people into jobs is a huge thing for our Executive and for the development of our economy.

The First Minister and I have been involved in all sorts of economic missions to the United States, and for a very long time we have recognised that many companies in the United States are only too keen to locate here in the North. Having an island-wide 12·5% rate of corporation tax is highly advantageous for us because of what we think are the attributes that we have in attracting people to the North and, particularly, to areas of high unemployment, where those figures of 30,000 to 35,000 jobs would clearly have a massive impact on what are unacceptable unemployment figures at the moment. We have to keep our nerve in all this. I know that there are people who are ready to criticise this, but we have made an assessment that we want to put our people into meaningful jobs, and we are very determined to do that. The way in which we work our budgets over the course of the next number of years will be critical to how we can do that.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

T3. Ms P Bradley asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister — following Mr Hilditch’s earlier question and the deputy First Minister’s answer about the adverse weather conditions, in light of the bad weekend just past when businesses were ruined, roads closed and human life was at risk, albeit that, thankfully, we have very good people in our statutory agencies — whether we have an overarching task force that looks at the potential risk from our weather conditions, given that the adverse weather will continue. (AQT 3243/11-16)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The answer to that is yes. Under the stewardship of the head of the Civil Service, these people meet regularly on a consistent basis, not just at a time of crisis but in order to ensure that we are well prepared for any eventuality.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the deputy First Minister for his answer. He has partially answered what I was going to ask next. I welcome that, and it is good to see that we have that in place. We still have the worst part of the winter to come and we know that problems will arise. How often does this task force meet? Does it meet regularly to discuss updates?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Off the top of my head I cannot say how regularly they meet, but we will get you an answer to that. This is an opportunity to pay tribute to everybody in the emergency services who, at a time of crisis, are only too ready to put themselves out in all sorts of weather to ensure the safety of the public and to remediate the challenges that we face.

The Member is quite right that we have been through a very bad experience over the last short while. When we look at how this affects us here, where we do have roads blocked, thankfully, the most important thing is that nobody has lost their life. When you look at mudslides in the Philippines or in India, you see that people are losing their lives by the thousand. The fact that our emergency services are on the ball when something happens is a credit to all of them. At the same time, we have to legislate for the fact that there were unprecedented levels of rainfall over the last short while due to Storm Desmond, and some parts of the country have been worse affected than others. We will come out of it. We have always had the experience that the clean-ups happen very rapidly and that the insurance companies kick in to support those who have insurance. Particularly in the case of households that do not have insurance, the £1,000 per household kicks in from the Department of the Environment.

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

T4. Mr Rogers asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether, having surrendered welfare reform to Westminster, and bearing in mind the extra financial commitments made by the British Government when they decided last week to go to war, the deputy First Minister concedes that we are totally at the mercy of the Department of Work and Pensions in the imposition of a benefit freeze and a reduction in the benefit cap. (AQT 3244/11-16)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The vote that took place in this House was to deal with what I regarded as a technicality, which has a sunset clause that ensures that the power resides with this Executive. I thought that the most significant and interesting aspect of that, given this latest question from the Member for South Down, was that only eight Members from the SDLP bothered to turn up to vote. The new party leader was not present for any of the debate, and the new party leader did not even vote. That is how seriously the SDLP took the decision that was taken in the Assembly.

As a result of our negotiations, we have put in place a fund of £585 million to ensure that we will support the people who are worst affected by the British Government cuts. We will do that under the tutelage of Eileen Evason, who is very experienced in dealing with all of these matters. That is a practical contribution towards alleviating the plight of those people, and it is something that happening nowhere else. It is not happening in England. It is not happening in Wales. It is not happening in Scotland. It is happening here.

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

I thank the deputy First Minister, and I am not surprised at the attack on the SDLP. I ask him, as an Irish republican, first, whether it was a mistake to surrender this to Westminster, and, secondly, whether he sees it as an attack on devolution.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As I said in my earlier answer, I regard it as a technicality that saved us £40 million. I think that the Member needs to get real and that the SDLP needs to get real. The fact that we took that technical route, which has a sunset clause that ensures that powers reside in this Executive, saved our institutions £40 million, which we can put to good use on behalf of the people who send us to this House.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

T6. Mr Beggs asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether the deputy First Minister will acknowledge the weakness in the Northern Ireland Executive and, in particular, the Office of the First Minister and deputy Minister in that, although they have produced reams of consultations and strategies, they have been less able in their legislative programme. (AQT 3246/11-16)

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Question 6, is it? Sorry, topical question 6.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Junior Minister McCann will take this question.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Let me apologise to you and to Roy. Karen McKevitt withdrew her question in good time and appropriately, but I forgot to alert the House.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Member will be aware that it is set out in legislation that we do have to consult so, with any legislative programmes that we are bringing forward, there is a statutory responsibility on all Departments to set out their consultation within a period of time. No matter what area you are working in, you still have to consult with people and put that out for public consultation. That will be happening.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

You will be glad to hear that time is up.

I apologise again, Mr Beggs, that you did not have time for your supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — Finance and Personnel

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

1. Mr McMullan asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel, in relation to the review of the non-domestic rating system, for her assessment of the additional rates income that could be generated by introducing a 100% rates levy on vacant business premises. (AQO 9275/11-16)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Additional revenue of up to £30 million to £35 million could be raised through the introduction of the rating of empty commercial premises at 100%, including empty factories. Those figures assume that other features of non-domestic vacant rating remain intact, such as the minimum valuation cap of £2,000 and the three-month initial exemption to allow owners to let a property once it becomes vacant.

I say "up to" because the introduction of such a measure could have unintended effects here, given the proportion of vacant properties compared with other parts of the United Kingdom and the relative weakness of the property market here. Those effects could include many property owners taking steps to avoid liability through rendering their property incapable of being let or by encouraging charities to take up occupation.

My Department is consulting on those matters, among others, as part of the review of the non-domestic rating system.

Oliver McMullan (Sinn Féin, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Does she believe that, by doing away with the 50% relief for empty business premises, there would be a downward pressure on rents charged by landlords?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

No, I do not, but there may be other consequences. As I said, some landlords would take precipitative action to make sure that they would not have to pay 100% rates. Maybe they would destroy their premises or let them out in other fashions. The way in which we handled non-domestic vacant rating is a balanced way forward. We are saying to owners that we will charge them rates, but, in recognising the difficulties of the property market in Northern Ireland, we will charge at only 50%. In many cases, 50% rates on non-domestic properties is not insubstantial. That money really is dead money to landlords, yet they still have to pay it. If we were to increase rates to 100%, as has been the case in England and Wales, it would in many instances be a very difficult amount of money to recover.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire. I thank the Minister for her answers. She was moving into the territory where I was going to go, in that many of our town centre shops are vacant because of critically high rates, which many businesses find extremely difficult to sustain. Does she agree that it would be a detrimental move for those businesses, particularly in the town centres that we are hoping to revive in order to get people back into those premises? If you were to add another 50% in rates or whatever it is that Mr McMullan has in mind with his anti-business proposal, that would be detrimental to those town centres and would not act as a catalyst for their development.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I agree with the Member. Business organisations would, frankly, be appalled at any suggestion that I would move to 100% rates on non-domestic vacant properties. At the moment, a lot of people struggle to pay 50% rates and are looking for other sorts of rebates. The Member mentioned town centres. I recently had useful conversations with Chamber of Commerce members about what else we can do to help those town centres and how we can be innovative and move forward. The ongoing review initiated a lot of thought, which I welcome. I look forward to meeting other groups to see what else we can bring forward.

One of the more innovative proposals is about window dressing and having rates rebates for that. That idea came from the Buttercrane shopping centre in Newry. It is only a small element, but it is something additional for the people there, and I hope to include it in the Rates (Amendment) Bill, which will, I hope, come to the House very soon.

Gordon Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I, too, thank the Minister for her answers today and welcome the ongoing review of commercial rates. Will the Minister assure us that she has looked at the option of extending the rates concession to recently vacated properties?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yes, I have. As I said, I am looking at all options to see how we can make a real difference to town centres. The Member will recall that it was after meeting business organisations that my predecessor brought in the small business rate relief scheme, which has been a great enabler for town centres and helped many, many businesses to stay afloat during difficult times. We are looking at that whole area to see what else we can do to help businesses. Whilst it is not necessarily the role of my Department to take the lead in helping town centres, I think that we can assist; therefore we will work with DSD and DETI to see whether there is anything that we can do.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat, Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister. Minister, you mentioned landlords being able to avoid business rates by letting to charity shops, which, of course, do not pay rates. Have you given much thought to that? Is that a loophole being used by landlords, and are we ending up with too many charity shops in our high streets? Can something be done in the rates review to tackle that?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It is fair to say that the subject has already come up in the consultation; it has been raised directly with me and in responses to the Department. I do not think that all landlords use it as a way of escaping rates liability. There are some very good charity shops that provide a function and a service to the community; they have regular opening hours, are open every day and provide a service. I have seen examples where that is not the case, and a charity shop might be open for a limited number of hours one day a week. By doing that, the landlord has avoided rates liability. We will have to look at that in more detail. Many town-centre operators have raised with me that they feel very aggrieved at the fact that people can avoid rates by using charity shop exemptions. Other charity shops, however, provide a real service.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

I think that one of the problems with non-domestic rates is the net annual value (NAV). Will the Minister tell me how she intends to review how we value properties?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

That, of course, is how we decide the rates levied against each individual property. Land and Property Services has a very regulated way of working out what the NAV should be for a particular street and a particular property. I am sure that it would be happy to go through that with the Member if she would find it useful. Do we need to look at the NAV mechanism? I am quite happy to look at that in the consultation. I want it to be a wide-ranging consultation that goes to the heart of what is going on. If the Member has any ideas for other mechanisms by which to levy rates, maybe we should look at those as well. I am open to that.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

2. Mr McGimpsey asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel for her assessment of how the new Independent Fiscal Council for Northern Ireland will work with her Department. (AQO 9276/11-16)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Stormont Agreement document set out the Executive’s plans to establish the Independent Fiscal Council for Northern Ireland. It is envisaged that the council will prepare annual assessments of the Executive’s revenue streams, spending proposals and the overall sustainability of the Executive’s public finances.

A growing number of fiscal councils are being established around the globe, particularly in the advent of the economic downturn. In seeking to determine the detailed terms of reference for the Independent Fiscal Council for Northern Ireland, I will draw on the national and international evidence of what works best to ensure that those lessons can be applied and that arrangements are put in place that suit Northern Ireland.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

Will the Minister explain what lessons she believes can be learned from the operation of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) at Westminster, particularly on managing the Budget and on dealing with so-called financial black holes and emergency borrowing from the Consolidated Fund?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We should look not just at the OBR but at other independent fiscal councils that have been set up recently: the Irish Republic has a fiscal council, Scotland has a fiscal council and we should look at all of those to decide what is most applicable to us here in Northern Ireland.

The fiscal council will add a degree of transparency and independence to our fiscal plans. It will not interfere in any way with what we do as an Executive to drive the economy forward. Indeed, it is up to us to set the Budget, but it will aid with the transparency of the Budget, so, in that way, it will be helpful.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I think I welcome the fiscal council, particularly if it is a brake on profligacy, fantasy Budgets and such matters. The fact that its membership and terms of reference have to be approved by the Treasury, presumably, is good. Can the Minister amplify a little by comparing and contrasting it with the Office for Budget Responsibility? Is it to be a devolved structure of that sort by another name, or is it to be something different?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

First, I welcome the fact that Mr Allister has welcomed something in the House today.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It is a red-letter day for the Assembly.

It is not going to be akin to the Office for Budget Responsibility in a devolved mechanism; it is to be an independent fiscal council, set up with probably a small membership. I imagine that it will be made up of around three or four people with expertise in the area. As the Member rightly said, its terms of reference have to be agreed with Her Majesty's Treasury, but that will be done in conjunction with my Department. I think it will aid with transparency and will give the public more information about the Budget process. Just last week, I had a meeting with my ministerial advisory council, and we discussed how we could engage more with society and the public on budgetary matters so that they had a better understanding of what happens with public money and how it is spent. It will aid in all those ways and should be welcomed by the House.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. Minister, I hope that it is a two-way street and that the Independent Fiscal Council will ask you for some advice as well and that, no doubt, you will give it. Can you confirm to me that, while it will advise, it will be you as Minister and the Executive who will take the decisions ultimately?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Absolutely. The fiscal council is there to advise, aid and, dare I say, shine a light on what happens here in Stormont. We will set the Budget and the trajectory. It can comment on and talk about the issues that we raise, but power will still very much rest with the Executive.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

Before we move on, I inform Members that questions 7 and 8 have been withdrawn.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

3. Mr Lyons asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to outline the impact that the Chancellor's autumn statement will have on the resources available to the Executive. (AQO 9277/11-16)

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

5. Mrs Dobson asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel for an update on the Barnett consequentials for Northern Ireland as a result of Westminster’s health plans arising out of the comprehensive spending review and the Chancellor's autumn statement. (AQO 9279/11-16)

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

13. Mr G Robinson asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to outline the impact that the recent Chancellor's autumn statement will have on the Northern Ireland Budget. (AQO 9287/11-16)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 3, 5 and 13 together.

The UK spending review and autumn statement will see the Northern Ireland resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) fall in real terms by 5% by 2019-2020. That is in spite of receiving some £1·1 billion of consequentials from funding for health services in England. The capital budget fares much better, with conventional capital set to rise by 12% in real terms by 2020-21. Although reducing, financial transactions capital will still make up £410·8 million of our overall capital DEL funding over the period. The Chancellor's decision on tax credits means that the Executive will now have to take decisions on how best to utilise the funding set aside for the mitigating measures.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Further to that, will she be able to outline the process for producing a Budget for the 2016-17 financial year? Can she also give us an overview of the impact that the spending review will have on departmental budgets?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Absolutely. Following the comprehensive spending review announcement on 25 November, we now have a clearer picture of what the block grant will be over the next four years. I have indicated that there will be a 5% reduction in real terms for resource DEL and a growth, especially towards the latter end, in capital spending. Therefore, we are now going to engage with all the individual Departments. I envisage rounds of budget bilaterals between me and my ministerial colleagues before Christmas. We will then bring forward a Budget to the Executive.

I realise that we will not have time to have our usual draft Budget consultation period. I have tasked officials with speaking to individual stakeholders and, indeed, groups of stakeholders to discuss the way forward with them once the draft Budget comes to the fore after ministerial bilaterals have finished. It is hoped that we will then have a Budget in place for the end of January next year; indeed, we need to have a Budget in place by then.

Although the spending review was, perhaps, better than some people anticipated, particularly for capital, there will be difficulties for Departments, particularly if we ring-fence health spending. Health, of course, is such a big part of the Budget here in Northern Ireland. Therefore, colleagues will have to look at efficiency savings again for 2016-17. Just to be clear, we are only setting a one-year Budget at this stage, because we feel that it would be wrong to the tie the hands of those in the new mandate, after May next year, who will want to set their own priorities. I hope that it is clear how we will move things forward over the coming weeks. It will be a busy time with a lot to do, and there will again be challenges for many Departments.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for her answers so far. The Executive have, in the past, treated these consequentials as unhypothecated. Will she — I know that she has touched on this already, but I want to press her on it — press the Executive with a view to ensuring that those moneys are used in the health service, given the great need there?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As I have indicated, one of the reasons why we have a flat-cash situation is that we will benefit under the Barnett formula to the tune of £1·1 billion in terms of health spending, because health and schools have been protected in England and Wales. What that means in actual terms is that, in 2016-17, we will receive £133·1 million extra, and we as an Executive then have to decide how we will use that money. It is, as the Member rightly says, unhypothecated, and, therefore, it comes to us to decide what to do with the money. Of course, we as an Executive have taken steps to make sure that we favour the Health Department and look at it very sympathetically, and I imagine that we will continue to look at it in that way. That is not to say that there should not be efficiencies in the Health Department; indeed, I am told by my ministerial colleague that a wide range of efficiency plans are in place. I look forward to having those discussions with him because, whilst, I think, everyone here wants to see front-line services protected, we also need to see efficiencies in the health estate right across Northern Ireland.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Will the Minister outline what overall impact the autumn statement will have on our health service?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As I have indicated, if we decide to protect the Health budget — of course, that is a matter not just for me but for the whole Executive — we will have to make greater savings in the other departmental budgets. We have asked ministerial colleagues to look at a range of scenarios in their Departments. We will have those discussions at budget bilaterals to see what way we should move forward. It will be a challenging time, particularly for some of the smaller Departments, which have made savings over the past couple of years. Unfortunately, because of the way in which the Budget has come to us, with a decreasing DEL in terms of the relative situation, we have to plan for that, and we need to do so very quickly.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Minister, given the British Chancellor's announcement pertaining to tax credits, what discussions will now take place at Executive level to reach consensus on what is done with the money that was set aside to address the needs of the most vulnerable?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Of course, we all welcomed the fact that the Chancellor moved away from his plans for tax credits. It was always difficult to understand how you could say that you wanted to encourage people into work and then undermine that argument by taking away tax credits, which were there to help them to get into work.

To me, it was a very sensible decision. We had set aside a pot of money to deal with the consequences of the cut in tax credits under the Fresh Start Agreement. We will now have to have those discussions at an Executive level. It is spread over four years, so we have some time to decide the profile of that money. It is £60 million in each year, so we can decide what we want do with the money and how best we can help vulnerable people over that period of time. I look forward to those discussions in the coming weeks and months.

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

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Is the Minister confirming that she agrees that at least a proportion of the £240 million originally set aside for tax credits can now be used to mitigate the impact on those who are most severely affected by welfare changes?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I do not think that that is what I said at all. If he looks back at the Hansard report, he will see that I said that we are now in a situation where we have £60 million extra that we thought we did not have because we set it aside out of the block grant to deal with tax credit pressures. That pressure is no longer there, so we should now be looking at ways in which we can help the vulnerable in whatever way we use the money, whether we use it in the Health Department, the Education Department or on welfare in the Department for Social Development. We will have those discussions around the Executive table.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

I am delighted to hear the Minister speak so often about the needs of the Health Department. In particular, she continues to use, as other Ministers do, the words, "the most vulnerable in our society". The Minister will be aware of the bombshell created last week when we heard that seven, I think, care homes are to be closed by Four Seasons. Will the Minister confirm that, if and when the Health Minister comes looking for finance to sustain the most vulnerable, her office will be sympathetic to those requests so that the most vulnerable will not be turfed out of their homes after so many years?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I will not answer Health questions today, but I welcome the fact that at least two of the homes seem to be moving to a situation where others will step in and ensure that they continue to exist. I also welcome the fact that my Executive colleague the Health Minister has called a moratorium on the closure of statutory homes in the meantime until we have an assessment of where we are in relation to elderly care. Aside from the seven homes that have been earmarked for closure, it causes a ripple throughout the care system. Whilst no homes were earmarked for closure in the west of the Province, I have taken calls from staff there who are very concerned about what might happen as a consequence of the home closures in the east of the Province. It concerns us all, and, at a constituency level, the care of the elderly and the vulnerable should be uppermost in our minds at all times. I will continue to work with the Health Minister on those matters.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

4. Mr Craig asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel when she will introduce legislation on derating sports facilities. (AQO 9278/11-16)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

My Department is not introducing legislation to derate sporting facilities. However, I intend to bring forward a Bill that will enable relief for some categories of community amateur sports club to be increased from 80% to 100%. The Bill is drafted, and I have gained the support of the Finance Committee to progress it through the accelerated passage procedure.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for that answer. Could she briefly outline the benefits of the new system to those clubs?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

If they do not have a licensed premises on their grounds or in their club, they will be able to avail themselves of 100% rate relief. That will be wholeheartedly welcomed by those community amateur sports clubs. That is my current intention. The Bill, which I have discussed with the Committee, will contain an enabling power that will permit enhanced rate relief for sports clubs, subject to certain conditions. I want to place on record my thanks to the Finance Committee for the way in which it has dealt with the matter, and I hope that we can debate the Bill in the House very soon.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her commitment. Minister, can you also give a commitment that, when you are bringing forward that regulation, you will look at the prescribed recreations that are set out in the Rates (Recreational Hereditaments) Order (Northern Ireland) 2007 for the potential of including pigeon racing?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I think I have already answered Mr Swann in relation to that in a question for written answer, so I will refer him to that answer.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Will the Minister outline why there would be any difference between sports facilities getting rate relief and arts facilities?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am dealing with community amateur sports clubs. They came forward and made a request. They have made an effective lobby. I have listened to that lobby, as did many in the House. This is not new. This goes back to, I think, the time of my predecessor Mr Wilson, who was first engaged with this issue. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise to the Member that this is the way in which we are moving.

Megan Fearon (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

6. Ms Fearon asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to outline the meetings she has had with sports clubs in relation to the planned regulations for the payment of rates in 2016. (AQO 9280/11-16)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have not had meetings with sports clubs in relation to the subordinate legislation associated with my proposed Rates (Amendment) Bill. It is premature to do so, but my Department will be consulting in the new year when the Bill is under way at the Assembly. That will be with not only sports bodies but important stakeholders who were overlooked when the failed private Member's Bill was taken forward, including business organisations, Land and Property Services and other Departments with a direct interest in the matter. My lead official on rating policy has already met representatives from the Sports Forum and the Federation of Licensed Clubs in relation to the matter and will be meeting them again during the consultation period.

Megan Fearon (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for her answer. I am sure that the Minister is aware that the Finance Committee has had some constructive sessions with the hospitality sector and amateur clubs. In light of the Bill having been blocked, does she agree that there may be a compromise on the bars' issue, given that the sector is not averse to that? Will she pledge to work with the Committee on the issue?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Of course I will continue to work with the Committee on the issue. As I indicated, I am pleased that we have been able to process the Bill to this stage. It is in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister for clearance. I think that the Committee hearing with the hospitality sector was just last week, so I look forward to reading what they had to say in relation to the matter. The consultation period will run parallel to the Bill's being introduced into the Assembly, and we will have the opportunity to look at whether amendments can be made at that stage.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

9. Mr B McCrea asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to outline how the Executive will decide on strategic priorities for allocating financial transactions capital (FTC) in the next financial year. (AQO 9283/11-16)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Executive will agree their priorities for the allocation of financial transactions capital next year through the upcoming Budget process.

Basil McCrea (NI21, Lagan Valley)

Minister, I understand that FTC is, in effect, a loan. What procedures are in place for the repayment of a loan, who is it repaid to and how is that accounted for in the Budget and accounts?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The good thing about financial transactions capital is that it does not score against capital DEL. It is a separate stream of money that comes from Westminster. In that regard, it does not score in our borrowings because it is taken forward by third parties. He will recall that recently, when we were talking about November monitoring, I indicated that a large sum had gone to co-ownership housing and Queen's University. That is the mechanism by which the money is paid back, not through DFP. It is taken off the books, as it were.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

I call Mr Conor Murphy, and I am afraid that I will not have time for a supplementary.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Just my luck.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

10. Mr Murphy asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel, following the proposed corporation tax changes, for her assessment of the additional non-domestic rates revenues that could be generated by foreign direct investment. (AQO 9284/11-16)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It is difficult to estimate the amount of rate revenue that will be generated, as that will depend on not only the number of jobs created but the sectoral mix, the nature of those jobs and the working arrangements. By way of illustration, 100 new office jobs could potentially generate up to £80,000 per year in rates if we assume that those jobs are housed in the new grade-A office space. However, it would not be advisable simply to extrapolate that figure, given the variation in the types of jobs we can expect to be created. Furthermore, the spin-off service jobs in the area, which boost economic activity, would also need to be factored in, as those would lead to higher levels of occupancy and increased rates revenue from existing vacant properties.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Speaker, South Antrim)

That ends of the period for listed questions. We move to topical questions.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

T1. Mr McGimpsey asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel, bearing in mind the huge financial advantages that Northern Ireland gains from being a member of the United Kingdom, why it is that the economy of the Irish Republic is currently estimated to be growing at around three times the rate of the economy of Northern Ireland. (AQT 3251/11-16)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome the fact that the economy of the Republic of Ireland is growing at a fast rate. I do so in the knowledge that a wide range of our small businesses will have an export market that has been missing for a number of years. They will very much welcome the fact that they will be able to export into a market that continues to grow.

The global outlook for all economies is good. Our economy is to grow on projections of about 1·2% and the Republic of Ireland — the Member is right — is to grow at a rate of over 3%; I think it is somewhere in the region of 3·6%. We have structural issues to deal with; we do not have a lower rate of corporation tax, which, of course, we are very much looking forward to being able to set in April 2018. We are working through those structural issues. I think that we can benefit from being on the island of Ireland but in the United Kingdom as well, so that we have the best of both worlds.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

The latest reports show that the Republic's economy will grow at around 5·8%, so there is a major differential between us and the Irish Republic. What steps are we taking and what proposals does the Minister believe we can come forward with to allow Northern Ireland to play catch-up and actually close the gap, rather than us lagging behind the Irish Republic?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

There was a time when we were certainly not lagging behind the Irish Republic. Indeed, the Republic has had a pretty difficult time over this past five or six years. Look at its unemployment statistics, which are still at a rate that is much higher than ours. However, the Republic has a sovereign Government and, therefore, they can put in place policies to drive forward their economy. That is why it is critical that we all endorse the principle of a lower rate of corporation tax so that we can go out and sell it to the rest of the world and take up all the other advantages that we currently have. Those other advantages, frankly, allowed us to bring in the best rate of foreign direct investment per head of population in the United Kingdom in 2014. Those are the sorts of statistics that we should now take forward in relation to the corporation tax argument, and go into those companies that we have not been able to access in the past. We can now access them because we will have the tax product by April 2018 and that will certainly drive the economy forward.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

T2. Mrs Overend asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel for an update on her progress on the Budget 2026-27 preparations. (AQT 3252/11-16)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Maybe not for 2026-27; I am not quite sure that I will be here then.

[Laughter.]

I can do so for 2016-17. In the 2016-17 Budget process, as I have indicated in other substantive answers, we will have Budget bilaterals, hopefully before Christmas, so that we can take the issues forward.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Apologies for the slip; I do not know what happened to me there. Once again, the Assembly will be forced to rush through a Budget. Does the Minister agree that this is an extremely unfair way to work, given the uncertainty that it provides for so many organisations, such as local environment organisations?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I do not think that it is "once again" in terms of the Budget process. Normally, we have a 12-week consultation period. We bring out a draft Budget, there is a consultation period and then we bring forward the Budget. I accept that that is not the case in these circumstances, and that is because the comprehensive spending review came only on 25 November. Of course, Westminster is dealing with its own processes. That leaves things very difficult for those of us in the devolved Administrations, whether in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. We have to bring forward Budgets in a very short timescale. I think that not to have a multi-year Budget is the right decision. We will have a single-year Budget so as not to tie the hands of the new Members who are returned to the Assembly in the next mandate so that they can set their own priorities.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

T3. Mr Douglas asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel, while empathising with her on the major flooding problems in her constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone and, indeed, in other areas of Northern Ireland, to outline what support will be offered to owners of premises damaged by the recent flooding. (AQT 3253/11-16)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

First of all, I am very glad that he has mentioned the flooding issue, because, indeed, my constituency has suffered disproportionately on this occasion. Many areas that have not experienced it in the past have had to deal with flooding, particularly towns like Lisnaskea, which was totally unaware of flooding; and that is down to problems that have arisen in terms of the Rivers Agency. I think that we will have to have an in-depth look at what has occurred in those particular areas. There are other areas in Fermanagh where, unfortunately, flooding is no stranger to them, particularly Boho, where they have had a horrific time.

I would hope, in answer to his question, that all the agencies will give support, not only to householders but to schools, community organisations and, indeed, businesses, not only to deal with the immediate aftermath but to plan for the future. I think that that is what most of them will want to see — an effective plan for dealing with this in the future.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

Lord Morrow, I think, is going to table a question for urgent oral answer about flooding, particularly in the Linen Green shopping complex in Dungannon. Could the Minister outline what specific support is available for businesses?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

At present, the DOE scheme, which actually was introduced when I was the Environment Minister, back in 2007 to 2008, deals with householders; it does not deal with businesses or small businesses. I know that the Environment Minister is looking to see whether that should be changed in future. Of course, many businesses will have insurance in place to deal with the issues. As for those that do not, we will have to see how we can help them moving into the future. But I really do think that some of the causes of flooding could have been avoided. We need to look at that, and we need to make sure that there are effective plans in place to ensure that it does not happen again.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

T4. Mr Maskey asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel, while sympathising with her constituents in Fermanagh and South Tyrone who have suffered as a result of Storm Desmond, whether any of the businesses affected by the flooding will qualify for a rates rebate. (AQT 3254/11-16)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It is probably too early to say whether they will qualify for rates rebate. Certainly, it will be something that the Department will look at if an application is forthcoming.

I was thinking, when I heard that this is the fourth storm, I think, that we have had named in Northern Ireland, and it is the first male, that it seems to have done more damage than the three females put together, but that is a separate matter. Certainly, it has caused a great deal of pain and anguish to a lot of people right across not just Fermanagh and South Tyrone but, indeed, the west of the Province.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat. Again, I thank the Minister. Certainly, in my experience over the last number of years, Belfast City Council has been a lead agency in the response, both to homeowners and to small businesses. I know that the Minister has alluded to various agencies and Departments working together. Would it be useful if all other council areas, which may be starting to experience some of these difficulties as well, were able to avail themselves of the expertise that has been accrued in Belfast City Council?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am a great believer in sharing expertise, and I absolutely think that Fermanagh and Omagh District Council, for example, should be pulling together all the agencies and, indeed, learning from other areas that have had to deal with specific instances of flooding. We did have a very bad case of flooding back, you may recall, in 2009. We had a task force set up at that particular time, when the former Minister of Agriculture Ms Gildernew and I were to the fore. We need to look back at that task force report and see whether it was completely dealt with at that time. But I think that it would be very useful if the lead agencies could come together in Fermanagh and Omagh District Council and work with other councils, if there is expertise there.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

T5. Mr Milne asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel whether she agrees that the rates revaluation process needs to be enshrined in legislation so that we no longer have the 10-year revaluation, which, in his opinion, has an adverse effect on businesses, which like to operate with certainty and less risk. (AQT 3255/11-16)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I think that the revaluation needs to take place more frequently; 10 years is too long. That is what caused a lot of shock for some retail businesses and, indeed, other businesses across Northern Ireland. The revaluation is not about bringing more money into the Department or to Government — it is neutral. Many people have seen their rates fall significantly, but others have seen them rise significantly. In conversations with me, some of the business organisations made the case that the revaluation should take place every three years. I do not know whether that is a little too short and whether it should be five years, but we certainly need to have more frequent revaluations than every 10 years. That is too long a period.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her answer. Does she agree with me that the rates review needs to look at reliefs that could boost hospitality and ensure more growth and job creation in that area to prevent a similar situation happening?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We will work with any organisations that want to come forward with new ideas that are sustainable into the future.

Obviously, no one likes to pay rates — if we could get away without paying rates, we would be very pleased about it — but we have to bring rates in to our Budget. Last year, in the region of £1·175 billion came in through the rates system. That, of course, is money that we allocate to public services. Therefore, we need to be able to recover that. Actually, the recovery rate has increased. We are pleased about that, because, for too long, a lot of the rates processes did not bring forward people who were avoiding rates. We are pleased that that is being dealt with effectively by Land and Property Services.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

T6. Mr Sheehan asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel, given that she will be aware that the Halo business angel investor network in Belfast has contributed £10 million from local businesspeople to start-ups, whether there is anything that her Department can do to incentivise such giving. (AQT 3256/11-16)