Northern Ireland Assembly, 19 September 2016

328 contributions from 63 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am about to make a statement. I will take any point of order after the statement.

Before we start this morning, it would be helpful to remind Members about some of our procedures. I appreciate that there are a number of issues at the moment that Members are keen to pursue through the Assembly, and I will defend their right to do that. However, there is also an onus on Members to use the right procedural routes. A number of Members sought to raise a Matter of the Day this morning that was clearly out of line with what Matters of the Day are intended to be used for. Rather than continuing to have the same problem every week, I advise Members to reacquaint themselves with the ruling issued by the then Speaker in 2008. It is very specific as to the types of issues that will and will not be accepted. I am considering reissuing a similar ruling myself to be helpful to Members, but, in the meantime, the 2008 ruling is the key basis on which these decisions are made. I will support Members in proactively exercising their scrutiny role, but I also have a responsibility to uphold our procedures.

Members will know that the Executive Office is up for questions today. It seems to me that topical questions were specifically designed for circumstances to allow Members the flexibility to raise issues that have arisen since the Order Paper was agreed. However, I also say to Members that scrutiny is not all about raising issues in the Chamber on the day.

Effective scrutiny is about Members using the variety of means at their disposal.

Finally, there are a number of new dynamics in the Assembly in this mandate, and there might be issues for us to look at in the future. One thing that has not changed is the authority of the Speaker under Standing Orders. My decisions are no more open to challenge or debate than those of my predecessors, nor do I intend to allow Members to try to draw me, as Speaker, into areas of party-political debate. However, if Members use our procedures, as they are, to pursue issues as vigorously as they like, they will have no issue with me. Let us move on.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Is the point of order on the matter that I have just referred to?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Yes, Mr Speaker.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am taking no points of order on that matter.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Is the point of order on the matter that I have referred to?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

It is on the processes of the House.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am taking no points of order on the processes of the House. I have made my intentions quite clear. Let us move on.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

To explain, Mr Speaker, it is about you as the guardian of the processes of the House and whether you think that it is appropriate that prerogative powers —

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I ask the Member —

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— should be used to upstage the House —

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I ask the Member —

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— when making legislation.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I ask the Member to take his seat. Let us move on

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

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

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I am pleased to bring the issue to the urgent attention of the Assembly. I am also thankful that the Health Minister is in attendance.

Everyone in the Chamber will at least know someone close to them who has been affected by cancer. Everyone in the Chamber knows the difficultly and stress that it can cause to families, family circles, workplaces and people in every walk of life. We cannot, therefore, fail to be aware of the crushing unfairness of denying access to drugs for people who are going through all that. At the precise time that the health service should be on their side, when they have paid the same taxes and National Insurance as everyone else in the UK, people in Northern Ireland find themselves at a blatant disadvantage purely because of where they live. Far from being helped out, they find yet another obstacle placed in their way.

The position of people living in one part of the UK having access to life-enhancing drugs while people living in another do not is indefensible and has gone on for far too long. It is a basic principle: we pay in the same, we should get the same out. The system is unequal and unjust. Small wonder that the petition that I am submitting today on behalf of the campaign struck such a chord with the public.

Let us not be diverted by any notion that money may be an issue. Health Ministers can always find allocations of tens of millions of pounds for various things when elections are on the horizon. Indeed, we found millions of pounds in the summer, without a business case, to subsidise an airline and, just this morning, we found millions of pounds to prop up a regional airport. Whatever the rights or wrongs of those decisions, the fact is that the budget required to deliver equal access to drugs is but a drop in the ocean in the overall Health and Social Care budget. As so often, it is not merely about money but about the system.

Let me say a word about Melanie Kennedy, who has been working on the petition. That remarkable woman, frankly, could have worked around the system; she could have perhaps taken a friend's address in England or such like. However, recognising the injustice and determined to fight for others as well as for herself, at risk to her own health, she campaigned for what is right. If anyone deserves a successful outcome it is her. The courage of many other campaigners like Melanie, so many of whom are undergoing treatment for cancer or who have people close to them who are, is also remarkable. They are too numerous to mention.

We call on the Minister to look again at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's guidance on access to those drugs. We would like her to make that a top priority for the Department of Health.

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

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I will send a copy of the petition to the Minister of Health, and a copy also to the Committee for Health.

Executive Committee Business

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to introduce the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Bill, which is a Bill to make provision about liquor licensing and the registration of clubs.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Private Members' Business

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for this debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to wind up the debate. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I beg to move

That this Assembly, in the light of the referendum decision by the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, endorses and adopts the approach contained in 'A Vision for Northern Ireland outside the EU', published by the Ulster Unionist Party.

It is nearly three months since the referendum that resulted in the people of the United Kingdom voting to leave the European Union. We as a party are conscious that the people of Northern Ireland and Scotland voted to remain in the EU — the position that we, on balance, campaigned for — but we accept that the vote taken will result in the United Kingdom triggering article 50 in the near future, possibly as early as January 2017. We have asked for this debate because we, as a responsible Opposition, wish to encourage our Government to action — any action. We have listened closely to civil society, business groups, agriculture, the university sector, the travel industry and, above all, the people of Northern Ireland, who have asked us, time and again, what is being done and what is the plan.

We note that, across the UK, the other regional Governments have already embarked on action. In Scotland, we have seen the formation of a Scottish standing council on Europe and a £100 million stimulus package. The Government there have already taken a proactive approach to getting the best deal for the Scottish people. In Wales, a similar approach is being taken, and the English regions and the city of London have been taking part in detailed discussions with Whitehall. Plans have been published, meetings are taking place and all these regions have defined what the impact of the loss of the EU means to them.

What have the Northern Ireland Executive done? They sent a letter to the Prime Minister on 10 August containing what to many, if not all of us, was a statement of the blindingly obvious. Our Executive met the Brexit Minister — separately. Our European office in Brussels has set up more teleconferences. Our civil servants — at least some of them — are talking to one another. Oh, and we have the ear of Liam Fox. That, unfortunately, is about it.

Embarrassingly for a devolved Government, the Secretary of State has done more: he has established an advisory panel, held talks with our nearest EU neighbour and held a wide series of meetings with key stakeholders. He has regular chats with the PM and the "naughty trio" — all of which is a damning commentary on our dysfunctional non-Government. I imagine that David Davis was laughing all the way back to Whitehall, and probably still is.

A blank sheet of A4, unfortunately, is a good representation of what has been achieved so far, and our people continue to ask, "What is the plan?". There are no public discussions —

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Not yet.

There are no public discussions, debates or grand committees, or even an understanding of the scale of the issues involved. Instead, we have a divided Government, pretending to give a facade of unity but still with no proposals or plans. That is why, in the vacuum that is the Government's response to the most significant event to affect our country in over 20 years, we had to take the lead and to publish our vision.

We recognise that, in Northern Ireland, our fellow Opposition party, half of the Government, the Alliance Party and the Green Party still hope that the decision to leave can be halted by the courts.

While the Ulster Unionist Party recommended remaining, we acknowledge that we must now accept the democratic wish expressed by the people to leave the European Union.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for giving way. I am sure that, in acknowledging all those who advocate what he advocates, he will be quick to mention that 85% of unionists voted against staying in the European Union. No doubt you will come to that.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you for that.

As a responsible Opposition, we now offer a vision and a set of key asks to help prepare Northern Ireland for the forthcoming challenges and potential opportunities ahead. It is also useful at this stage to state what those challenges are likely to be. Indeed, as the Member for South Belfast so regularly and graciously points out, we have not yet fallen off the economic cliff into recession. It is good to note that the early action of the Bank of England, which pumped —

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Not quite yet.

It pumped £250 billion of quantitative easing —

[Interruption.]

— we are answering your question — into the economy, which staved off the immediate crisis. That was done by adding a quarter of a trillion to our national debt, which is a moot point. However, according to the 'Northern Ireland Economic Outlook' that was published by PwC this week, growth in Northern Ireland for 2016 is forecast to be 1·2% and is expected to slump even further to 0·3% in 2017. That is worse than the overall UK rates, which are expected to remain at 1·8% in 2016 before dropping to 0·7% in 2017. As the learned members of the Government are or should be fully aware, broad economic modelling of our economy shows that Northern Ireland GDP normally lags around 1% behind that of GB.

We as a party do not want to be accused of doing Northern Ireland down, but, instead of sticking our collective head in the sand, we need to face the reality of what is likely to occur. For a start, we are ill prepared as it is, without facing a shortfall of £500 million — perhaps closer to £1 billion — per annum in post-exit funding. We sell Northern Ireland as a great place to do business, which it can be, by pointing out that we have a highly skilled workforce, while conveniently forgetting that most CFOs read the 'Financial Times' and Bloomberg, and, when they do due diligence, which is something that at least half our Government have a problem with, they discover that our universities are underfunded to the tune of £55 million and are dropping like stones in the global rankings. We export 38% of our brightest youngsters per annum. We have the second highest costs of energy in western Europe. We have appalling infrastructure. Now, we have no plan for Brexit.

Rather than being negative —

[Laughter.]

— we need to build a more positive vision. The border between two great economic groupings can provide considerable economic potential. We have a strong case, if made properly, to become an enterprise zone that could harmonise EU/UK trading positions. It was good to see — unfortunately, he is not here — the DUP Chief Whip's support for an enterprise zone around our great International Airport last week and Mervyn Storey's continued support for the enterprise zone in North Antrim. It is an idea that needs to be explored, and it already has the support of many business groups here.

We would also use any stimulus package to build up our infrastructure, an approach already being taken across the UK, except, of course, here. We should invest heavily in R&D, again using the borrowing potential created by large-scale quantitative easing. I can already hear the harping: "You've always complained about creating more debt" and, through the Executive's new spin doctor, "Is the money coming from the magic money tree?". Well, guess what? After the referendum, we are in an entirely new dynamic. The so-called £350-million-a-week tsunami and the so-called savings from our EU contribution are not going to go far. New ideas about funding will be needed, many of which will involve QE going to infrastructure, potentially through long-term infrastructure bonds, which are being discussed across the UK but, again, unfortunately, not here.

It is not about just economics. We have had a troubled and uncertain history with the Republic of Ireland that has been changed to a positive and growing relationship that has been hard-earned. We can, with sufficient imagination and will, create a dynamic that prevents hard borders in Newry or Cairnryan. Achieving those goals will help us, as proud unionists, maintain the United Kingdom in a manner that avoids our proud nation slipping into xenophobia and isolationism.

You also hear from at least 50% of our Government that it is too early to begin planning because article 50 has not been triggered, they have a special relationship with Downing Street, things are not so bad or the falling pound has significantly improved our economy and the manufacturing sector is strong. Consider the record over the last nine years of Sinn Féin/DUP majority government and consider whether they are ready to get the best deal for Northern Ireland or even whether they have a plan.

We ask the Assembly to endorse and adopt the approach in 'A Vision for Northern Ireland outside the EU' because, frankly, the people of Northern Ireland deserve a plan and the consideration of our Government to doing something. Our vision is the best and only framework to achieve that.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

It is always a pleasure to follow the Member for South Antrim, for his contributions are always so entertaining. He denigrates the Government of Northern Ireland who have served for the last nine years, whilst, of course, conveniently glossing over the fact that the party he is a member of served in the same Government for that period. If he is saying that the Government failed to deliver, he must take responsibility at least for the Ulster Unionist Party's portion of their failure to deliver. A little less of the revision of history would be more welcome from the Ulster Unionist spokesperson.

Any old Opposition can produce uncosted plans: having a costed and sensible plan is the action of a Government-in-waiting. This is no Government-in-waiting. What we have seen from our friends since they published their document are largely uncosted, untested ideas that they know they will not be able to pay for. They know that the resource is not there. During the contribution from Mr Aiken, he referred to quantitative easing, so we are just going to print more money. Just print more money to pay for their ideas: that is the extent of the ambition of the Ulster Unionist Party's "vision".

Since the referendum, we have witnessed from those on the "Remain" side of the campaign a public display of the five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and, finally, acceptance. I welcome the fact that Mr Aiken has been dragged kicking and screaming to the final stage: acceptance. I wish the same could be said for the other opposition parties because there seems to be opposition within the Opposition to accepting the outcome of the result. I do not really know what stage some of our more enthusiastic Europhile friends are at. Some are still in denial. Some are very angry, largely with the people who beat them in the argument during the campaign. Some are trying to bargain by saying, "Well, maybe article 50 will not be triggered", "Maybe this will happen" and "Maybe that will happen". Some have reached depression, and some will eventually — finally — have to reach acceptance of the decision that was taken by the people of the United Kingdom as a whole in the referendum. The sooner we get to that point, the better it will be. All parties, including those that were on the "Remain" side in the referendum, have a role to play to ensure that Northern Ireland secures the best possible outcome. That is what a responsible Government are doing, and it is what a responsible Opposition should be about.

Unfortunately, we have not seen that in the vision that has been offered to us by the Ulster Unionist Party. The truth of the matter, Mr Aiken tells us, is that his party recommended "Remain". It is true to say it did. It is true to say that the leadership of his party did. I suggest to Mr Aiken that he should take a straw poll of his colleagues sitting round him at the bottom of the Chamber. He should take a straw poll of Ulster Unionist councillors around Northern Ireland. He should take a straw poll of the members and voters who voted for the Ulster Unionist Party in recent elections. I think he would find that not only within unionism but within Ulster Unionism was the "Remain" viewpoint certainly in a minority. We have this attempt to cover the blushes —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Yes, I will.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Is it not the case that the former Prime Minister offered the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party tea and sticky buns and he quickly acquiesced, ignoring what the will of people in the Ulster Unionist Party and, indeed, its voters actually was?

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member has an extra minute.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I am grateful, Mr Speaker —

[Interruption.]

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order, order.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

The bark from the dog betrays the fact that it has been hit. The roar of the beast gives away its guilt. I am glad and grateful —

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

The flush in the face gives away even more.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Now, Robin. The Chief Whip needs to calm himself because he was on the same side as me during the referendum. He is responsible for party discipline, but he was at one with the Democratic Unionist Party, which I welcome.

What we have heard and seen from various parties since the referendum amounts to an undemocratic attempt to overturn the verdict that the people have given. It is in all our interests — the people of Northern Ireland and the people of the United Kingdom — that we accept the outcome and now work together to produce the best — I said the best; do not wave your document at me — possible outcomes for the people of Northern Ireland. I know that we will hear a continuous stream of denial and anger about the reality, but the people made their decision —

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

— and running off to the courts will not change that. I urge the opposition within the Opposition to get with the programme and let us start working to make the best outcome for Northern Ireland.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I welcome the opportunity to debate the motion, although we will be voting against the proposal tabled by the Ulster Unionist Party.

In a strange way, it reminds me of the old story or saying about the leader standing on the hill, watching his people go by, and saying, "There go my people. I must follow them". In this case, however, the Ulster Unionist Party is not following the people of Ulster; it is following the people of England and Wales because, as you are aware, 56% of people here voted to remain in the EU. Over 60% of people in Scotland voted to remain in the EU. When the proposer outlined what the other devolved Administrations were doing, he failed to mention that the Scottish Government are proactively engaged in opposition to being dragged out of the European Union against their will. He failed fundamentally —

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

In one moment. He failed to mention that important fact. When those from whatever Benches have the rally cry that Brexit means Brexit, will somebody please draw me a diagram of what Brexit means? To date, no one has been able to confirm what Brexit means. Even the current Government in Westminster cannot agree on what Brexit means.

Is there a done deal on Brexit? No, there is not. Is there a unified view about Brexit in what is known as the United Kingdom? No, there is not. Is there everything to play for? Of course there is. We are at the start of a journey here, which is the start of a negotiation not only about the future relationship of what is known as the UK with Europe but about the future of what is known as the UK.

At the other end of whatever Brexit means, it is quite clear that there will be significant constitutional change in these islands. In those circumstances, you can be a follower or a leader. My party makes no apology that we see the way forward for this island as a reunified state. Socially, culturally and economically, we believe that that is the way forward. In the period ahead, however, we believe that the best place for the North is in the European Union. The best place for the North is in an island of Ireland in the European Union.

The only way to protect the farming industry, communities that rely on Peace money, businesses and the four freedoms that the Ulster Unionist Party states in its document that it wants to protect is to remain part of the European Union.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I will give way to Lord Morrow first.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for giving way. He is at great pains to point out what Scotland did, what Northern Ireland did, what Wales did and what England did in the referendum, but the referendum was not about that. This referendum was about the United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland is an integral part. If Brexit brings one thing, it will surely bring this: it will remove the heavy hand — the dead hand — of Brussels from the United Kingdom.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member has an extra minute.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

As I have stated in the Chamber today and previously, there is no unified position in what is known as the United Kingdom in relation to Brussels.

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

Members should be very careful about what they wish for because, if we want to continue our trading relationship with the European Union and other parts of the world, the claims that we will remove the shackles of Brussels do not stack up or add up. Indeed, the Ulster Unionist Party's document acknowledges that.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I will not give way any more.

The Ulster Unionist Party acknowledges that in its document. It realises that, if we are to continue to trade with Europe and the rest of the world, we will have to sign up to what are known as the four freedoms and to the European trading arrangements. What is Brexit about then? What is Brexit about if we remain under the same legislative competencies as were there previously? What is Brexit about if we simply change the title of our relationship with the European Union? Is it about immigration? Is it about xenophobia? Is it about the rise in hate crimes that has been witnessed since the EU referendum? Is that what it is about? If that is what it is about, let us be honest with each other. People should stand up in the Chamber and say that that is what it is about.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

No.

Agrifood and the agricultural industries need European labour. There are significant employers who will not remain here if they do not have access to European labour. Members who support exiting the European Union and support exiting in the belief that they will control immigration — pulling down the barriers and forcing thousands upon thousands of European citizens to leave these islands — must remember the impact that that would have on the agrifood industry, the agriculture industry and other industries. Also, remember what you would do to your friends in the property market who rent properties, buy properties and invest in this society. I ask for caution in the hopes and expectations around Brexit, but I will put on the record that this is not a done deal. My party will continue to campaign for the North to remain in the European Union, and we will call on others to support that. We will work with whatever Governments on this island or other islands to ensure that we remain in the European Union.

Claire Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I appreciate the Ulster Unionists bringing this work forward. They deserve credit for at least articulating some of the issues that face Northern Ireland. We will agree to disagree on whether this is plan B or plan A. We are definitely not in the latter group, but we share some of the concerns about the conditions and investments that this place needs to enjoy. What frustrates me and many others about Brexit is the opportunity cost and the lost time.

Many of us came to the debate from the Refugees Welcome demonstration at the front of the Building, which was organised by the Northern Ireland Community of Refugees and Asylum Seekers (NICRAS), Amnesty and all. That was a massive political problem that the European Union really had to get to grips with. Instead of diplomats, policymakers, resources and drafters spending time addressing that huge political problem that affects millions and saves the lives of millions, we are wasting our time trying to solve an unsolvable conundrum that did not have to be thrown into our future.

The Executive parties might dispute this, but it is not in the SDLP's nature to be obstructionist. We believe that, as legislators and as people elected to guard the public interest, it is firmly our duty not just to respect the will of the vast majority of the people here who voted to remain in the European Union, and for the stability, the opportunity and the diversity that that represents, but to do all that we can to prevent this unnecessary change from happening. We are not alone; senior people in every party understand that. Very possibly, Theresa May is seeking excuses not to trigger article 50. Unnecessary as we think that is, we will continue to put forward and take any opportunity that we have to prevent it from happening.

I will address the specific issues in the paper which I think are a useful overview. Many would not think that we were being too cynical to think that the Executive's continued line of, "We are not revealing our negotiating hand", is a cover for, "We did no contingency planning as we were banking on this not happening, and even if we had any ideas we could not agree on them." I notice that the Member who spoke before me did not bother wasting any of his five minutes in actually setting out how we are going to deal with this problem but, instead, threw punches all around the Chamber. Thirty seconds to update us on where our £350 million for the NHS is would not have been too long out of the six minutes that he had.

I will look at some of the issues raised. Trebling our infrastructure, regardless of our future, is vital. People look at the Republic and the advances it secured through corporation tax and fail to learn the lesson. Investors are not hanging around just waiting for the right tax deal; they want skills and infrastructure. I have said before that I am from Galway and that I drive up and down many times in the year. I drive through small towns like Athenry which has a massive number of tech jobs that our young people here deserve. Those jobs did not come just through the low tax rate, they came through investment in skills and infrastructure and, given the fact that London has effectively stolen our lunch by proposing to reduce its own corporation tax rate, the Executive have not set out how that policy will exist if we are outside the European Union.

The enterprise zone links into some of the issues mentioned. We believe that the European Union, in the main, has done well to balance the interests of businesses and employees. We would like that framework of employment law and protections to remain, and some of that can be discussed.

The issue of education and skills is as above — we deserve those 21st century high-quality jobs here. Many of the businesses that wanted to invest here wanted us as a gateway to Europe. If that gateway is not there then we do not know how attractive that proposal will be.

We wish to see financial guarantees too and we repeatedly stated that there is a lack of guarantees. Even if London shared the detailed interest in our well-being, and I do not believe that it does, there is no guarantee that the UK's economy will remain strong enough to do this.

I will not have time to cover all the issues such as research and development, innovation and the European Horizon 2020 fund. If we are outside Europe, people will need to explain how, and if, we will have access to that fund. To debate common travel and the avoidance of a hard border, we would need longer than an hour and a half, and those who say that neither of the Governments want this to change have yet to set out how they are going to keep what we have in place and how they will square that circle. The whole argument was about protecting our borders and keeping Johnny Foreigner out, but how can you do that when our near neighbour is perfectly entitled to have European consistent immigration policies? Similarly, we could not possibly begin to unpick the legal and regulatory framework, and we have not heard from those who want to get our laws back from the faceless bureaucrats. They have not set out their alternatives so —

Patsy McGlone (Deputy Speaker, Mid Ulster)

Will the Member bring her remarks to a close?

Claire Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

— we welcome the Ulster Unionists having the discussion. It is more than the Executive have done but we agree that it is a bit too early to go to plan B.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

The debate is probably of most use if we see it as a take-note debate regarding the response, or lack of response, from the Executive to Brexit rather than an effort to endorse the view of one political party. There may well be some useful points in the document which do indeed reflect things that were said by my party and others and parts of the business community and civil society. I take issue with the notion of reconciling the words "A Vision for Northern Ireland" and the words "Outside the European Union". To my mind Northern Ireland being outside the European Union is a negative. The issue is how deep and far-reaching the implications and consequences are going to be and how we can actually move to address all of them.

The document is framed at one part of a spectrum of different responses that we can envisage. First, there are the ongoing legal challenges, which are about ensuring a proper constitutional process rather than necessarily trying to stop Brexit itself. Those will work their way through the courts in due course, no doubt.

The second aspect of the responses is how Northern Ireland can influence the UK's negotiating position and seek to mitigate the effects of Brexit, and that is where this document lies in that particular spectrum. To date, the response from the Executive has been poor. We have seen the much more coherent and united response from Scotland. In contrast, we have had a letter from our First Minister and deputy First Minister, which very much reflects the lowest common denominator of agreement, and even in that letter a number of important issues were neglected. I appreciate that it is somewhat embarrassing for the DUP, having campaigned to leave, to now accept many of the points made by the "Remain" side during the referendum.

Even with that, they do not fully grasp the full spectrum of the implications for Northern Ireland.

The final point on the spectrum is whether we can work out some type of special arrangement or special status for Northern Ireland, whether that is preferential access to the European Union or as a region within the European Union. We could see a situation where, in line with the principle of consent, Northern Ireland remains a part of the UK, where we have a strong relationship with our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland but also a strong relationship with Brussels. That may well be something that is much more consistent with the fact that we are in a very particular place and a particular political situation; that we are still very much a contested state; that the people of Northern Ireland voted "Remain"; and, indeed, that we have the right to determine our own future, as reflected in the Good Friday Agreement itself.

It is worth reflecting that, even if we do not manage to have a coherent position from our Executive in due course that it can seek to negotiate some type of special status, a special status, or rather an anomaly, will emerge by default. It is important that we bear that in mind. There cannot be a clean Brexit for the UK as a whole and certainly not for Northern Ireland. First, we share a land border on the island of Ireland that brings some particular complexities, and, secondly, people who are born in Northern Ireland have the right to be Irish citizens and, by default, European Union citizens. That is different from the context elsewhere in the UK, so it brings its own particular situation, as well.

On the effects of Brexit, there are probably four in particular that I want to highlight. First, we have the financial impact from the loss of revenue, and I appreciate that the UK as a whole may have been a net contributor, but Northern Ireland was a net beneficiary. Secondly, even if we take the UK perspective, the UK had much more to gain from its ability to trade and its location for inward investment. Today, we have seen some very difficult economic speculation. Whenever we see the figures for the UK as a whole moving in the wrong direction, Northern Ireland is structurally quite a number of points of a percent behind in many respects, so there is a danger there.

Thirdly, we have the complications around the border, and unless we have the softest of soft Brexits, we will see a situation where there is a different regime for immigration and trading between the Republic of Ireland, as part of the European Union, and the UK. That has to be policed in some manner. So we could see policing done on a line across the island or down the Irish Sea. If it is done down the Irish Sea, then we are looking at one massive anomaly to handle, and that is before we even come to the implications for the Good Friday Agreement and the balance of relationships that were carefully set out in that document and that very much depend upon the European Union facilitating the freedom of movement, the immigration policy and trading policy. There is a danger that that now becomes unpicked, with massive consequences for our political future.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate today. I suppose we will start off with the positive; that is one good thing that comes from the motion before the House.

It is interesting to reflect, though, is it not, on the debate that took place here in the days after 23 June. I remember the debate that took place in the House. I remember the prophets of doom. I remember those who were saying that all sorts of terrible things were going to happen to jobs and the economy, and, indeed, I remember our good friend Mr Aiken — Mr Recession himself; "deep recession" are the words that he used, actually. That, of course, has not come to pass. "Oh, but of course", people say, "that is not going to happen now; we mean that is going to happen later on, when Brexit comes". But the goalposts have been moved a little bit already in regard to this, so I think that the Members sitting on the Benches at the end of the Chamber will understand why my party will not be supporting the motion today. Yes, the Members may not like to hear that, but I doubt that they are surprised, because what we have in front of us here is not a vision at all. It is platitudes; very little on substance —

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

It is better than yours.

[Laughter.]

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, yes; I have not produced a plan, but I am not the Opposition —

[Interruption.]

I am not the Executive, either.

The Ulster Unionist Party loves to say that the Executive have done nothing to prepare for Brexit. It does not know what is going on because it did not take up its ministerial positions. It decided not to be part of a Government that are instructing their officials to prepare and meeting other Government Ministers and preparing for the challenges and, indeed, the opportunities that can come from Brexit. That is what this document is very light on; there is nothing in here about the opportunities. Yes, it talks about some of the challenges that we will face and it asks for some answers, but there is nothing about making the most of the opportunities that can come from Brexit. That is why we cannot support it. There is no vision in here whatsoever, so we will not —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank Mr Lyons for giving way. Is it not important to set out a vision in advance of an election and then put that to the people, as this party did? The Ulster Unionist Party put a vision of some kind to the public, but that was rejected, and that is the position that we are in today. The DUP has a vision that has been accepted by the public, and we will work that through.

Patsy McGlone (Deputy Speaker, Mid Ulster)

The Member has an extra minute.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Mr Poots is absolutely correct. The Ulster Unionist Party put a vision for the people of the country ahead of the Assembly election, and that vision was rejected. It did not put a vision for the EU before the EU referendum because it was so badly divided on it that it did not have one and the party was all pointing in different directions.

We are very clear in regard to our position: we believe that the United Kingdom as a whole is better off outside the European Union. We have seen already how the scaremongering from other parties in this House and, indeed, other parties across the UK, has been found to be completely false. So, we are now trying to make sure that we get the very best deal for the people of Northern Ireland. We will work with the European Union, we will work with Her Majesty's Government, and we will even work with other parties in this Chamber to ensure that we get the best deal that we can. I will give way once more.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I am grateful to my friend for giving way. Unfortunately, the Member for South Belfast would not give way to me, but when she refers to people who voted to leave the European Union as being about getting at Johnny Foreigner, do you agree with me that that is precisely the type of sneering, arrogant comment that cost "Remain" the referendum; sneering at ordinary voters and accusing them of being closet racists because they did not vote the way that you wanted them to vote?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Mr Stalford makes a very good point because a lot of people like to say that the result of the EU referendum was entirely because of immigration. That was not the case at all. In fact, that shows how out of touch some people are.

Claire Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I will finish my point first. That shows how out of touch some people are. The people that I spoke to on the doorsteps had concerns about immigration and our borders, but they also had concerns about where our money was being spent in Europe. They also had concerns about our ability to be outward-looking and to trade freely with the rest of the world. So, for Members to say that some kind of xenophobic, inward-looking people enabled this result to happen shows just how out of touch and how wrong they are. On that point, I will give way to Ms Hanna.

Claire Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

The Member will note and Hansard will show that I referred to the campaigners and campaigns that focused on immigration issues as well as the mystery £350 million, and I note that still none of you has updated us on that, but will the Member agree that at no point did the "Leave" campaign condemn those racists? At no point did anybody stand up during the campaign and protest against xenophobic signs showing lines of people queuing up at the border of an entirely different country. Will the Member agree that the position that you took in your August letter was a U-turn when you finally acknowledged the need for migrant labour here, and will you outline why that need was not outlined during your campaign?

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on the motion. Our membership of the EU has a wide and significant impact on our lives. I will speak briefly on infrastructure, rural development and agriculture.

In the North, throughout Ireland and the EU transport is crucial for the free movement of goods, services and people.

That is reflected in our PFG framework, and also in one of the most recently published White Papers from the European Union, 'Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area', which sets out a long-term strategy to make the EU transport system more efficient. Central to this is TEN-T, the trans-European network. TEN-T is a multibillion-pound pot used for the funding of intermodal networks throughout the EU. The objective is to decrease the bottlenecks between EU member states to enable the free flow of goods, services and people. One of the objectives is to have the network created by 2030. Obviously, from our perspective, that begs the question: if the exit happens, what will our access be to that pot? What will happen to this part of Europe as the rest of Europe develops a comprehensive TEN-T network of ports, rail and roads? The danger is that, on the periphery of it, we could be more isolated and left behind.

Quite significant funds have come from the EU over the course of the last 10 years for infrastructure — in the region of £100 million. That includes £58 million in TEN-T projects for the likes of the A8 and the development of the transport hub in Belfast. We know that there are projects, such as the York Street interchange, which are eligible for TEN-T funding. Others, like the A2 and, indeed, the A5 and the A6, are part of the TEN-T comprehensive network — not eligible for the entire main pot, but eligible for parts of it as they are part of the comprehensive network.

Last week at the Infrastructure Committee, we heard from Dr Grieve about the greenway strategy and how INTERREG V will be eligible to develop a greenway network throughout the North. Recently, in County Monaghan, €4 million was secured for their greenway, to bring it right to the border at Middletown in County Armagh. In leaving the EU, questions are raised about our access to pots of money such as that for infrastructure projects.

I turn to rural development. It is important to point out that 87% of farmers' income in the North is single farm payment. Single farm payment is just under a quarter of £1 billion per year. A pot was negotiated during the recent CAP reform in the region of £2 billion, right up to 2020. It begs the question: if the exit happens, where does that come from? Where does 87% of the farmers' income come from in the context of exiting from the EU?

On top of that we have the £623 million rural development programme, signed off in August 2015, which opened up exciting opportunities for rural areas. There is a £250 million farm business improvement scheme, £65 million for areas facing natural constraints (ANC), £10 million for rural tourism and £70 million for LEADER, which is funding for rural projects, small businesses in local areas, community projects, crèches — a whole range — and that is in the process of being delivered. I note my recent correspondence from the Minister where no guarantees can be given beyond 2018 for that, even though the budget has been agreed until 2020, which is the term of the CAP. Being a former member of the DARD Committee, I know that this rural development programme was hard fought for at European level, and had to be agreed and negotiated here in terms of topping it up. We must remember that the Tories negotiated a 22% cut in funding during this CAP negotiations. We had to bridge the shortfall here, and that fact alone — that the Tories negotiated a cut during the CAP negotiations in 2014 — proves that they do not really give a damn about here. It is fanciful that we should create these wish lists, thinking that they will somehow bridge the gap.

In conclusion, the North has one of the highest areas of unemployment and disadvantage in these islands. The danger of exiting is that we will end up being more peripheralised than ever, which will have a huge impact on our communities. We have heard from other Members that there is no such thing as an easy Brexit. The best chance that we have for the future prosperity of the North and this island is for everyone to weigh in behind the "Remain" campaign.

Philip Smith (UUP, Strangford)

Most affected, least prepared — that is the best summary of our current position as Northern Ireland faces a unique challenge as a result of Brexit. We are the only region with an EU land border that needs to remain fully open. Agrifood is our largest industry, which will be massively impacted by any reduction in subsidy. It faces even greater danger from potential tariffs if we no longer have single market access under existing terms. Our local economy shows no sign of recovery nine years after recession. Our net income from the EU is over £500 million per year, which will be slashed if future allocations are based purely on the Barnett formula. The enormity of the task ahead should concern everyone in the Chamber. We need to understand fully the implications of Brexit for Northern Ireland and be in a position to articulate our requirements to Westminster and beyond. If we think that London will prioritise our needs of agrifood and manufacturing over those of the city of London, we are in for a rude awakening.

Furthermore, the UK Government are, frankly, making this up as they go along. "Brexit means Brexit" means whatever you want it to mean. The capacity does not exist in London to come up with all the answers. They are looking for ideas and proposals, and that is why we must be clear on our requirements and have a thought-out Brexit plan for Northern Ireland. That is why it is so unbelievable that we have seen no action, no proposals and no plan from, as we have seen today, an Executive totally split on the issue. That is also why the Ulster Unionist Party has engaged with civic society and, in the absence of anything from the Executive, developed the policy document in front of us.

Gavin Robinson, critiquing this document in the media, asked whether this was all that we had produced in two months. The irony, that his party is meant to be in government and whose silence is deafening, appeared to be lost on him. I am no fan of the SNP, but, to be fair to it, it has appointed a Brexit Minister to argue Scotland's case. It has set up a Statutory Committee to monitor progress and introduced an expert advisory body to guide the Scottish Government through the process. Our First Ministers have sent a letter. The comparison does not flatter us. Our Government need to up their game before we are further disadvantaged.

I campaigned and voted for Remain, but I accept the result and the democratic will of the UK electorate. I see no value in trying to fight rearguard actions. We need to identify opportunities from the Brexit process, and that is why our document provides a vision for the future, which is to make Northern Ireland the UK's gateway to the EU. We also need to see evidence that the Executive are getting Northern Ireland Brexit-ready. We propose the setting-up of a Brexit war room, with the skills and capacity to identify the best policy options and priorities for Northern Ireland, so that we are well prepared and have an effective voice in the upcoming negotiations.

Our 10 key asks in the paper recognise the scale of Brexit's impact on Northern Ireland and therefore show that we need ambition if we are to put in place the transformational policies required to deliver our positive vision. The keywords are "ambition", "transformation" and "vision". That is what Northern Ireland both needs and deserves. We want a massive increase in infrastructure investment to create an economic stimulus to break out of our bottom-of-the-league growth and to provide the connectivity required for success in the 21st century. To transform our economy, we must turn all of Northern Ireland into an enterprise zone and create an emphasis on skill development to build the most skilled workforce in western Europe in our chosen industries. In recognition of our unique status, the Executive must secure guarantees that no group in Northern Ireland will be worse off financially for five years post-Brexit. To deliver our vision for Northern Ireland post-Brexit, we must have continued access to the European single market and a continuation of the common travel area with the Republic, with no hard border to GB ports and airports disadvantaging Northern Ireland.

Those are our requirements to ensure that Northern Ireland is Brexit-ready. The Ulster Unionist Party has risen to the challenge to fill the gap in leadership and direction from the Executive. No doubt some will criticise, but their voices have little credibility in the absence of their own proposals.

Northern Ireland needs a plan. We have provided one. Unless the Chamber wishes to continue as the region most affected and least prepared, I urge you to support the motion.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion, although I do not particularly think that the party opposite is sincere in bringing it. It cannot possibly imagine that anyone would sign up to the vision that it has put to us today. I do not think that it fully expects anyone to. To be quite honest, from looking at the demeanour of its Members over there, I think that they are here for the craic.

Anyway, the party has asked us to sign up to a vision that falls at the first hurdle, because it asks us to sign up to a vision of the North outside the EU, which is in defiance of the mandate that the people of the North gave us during the referendum, which is to defend the position of the North inside the EU, and that is clearly what we intend to do.

When my colleague Mr O'Dowd put it to the Ulster Unionist Party that the stock answer of "Brexit means Brexit" has become a cliché, its leader waved his document as though it were the modern version of the Dead Sea scrolls and all the answers to what Brexit means are contained in it. I find that somewhat laughable, having read through the document itself.

There are no solutions in it. It is predicated on the wrong basis. It is predicated on the generosity of the British Government, who remain committed to huge cuts to public expenditure and have, over the last number of years since the Conservatives came back to power with the support of the Ulster Unionist Party at the time, decimated the budgets available to the Executive. They have reduced our public spend and put severe pressure on spending on things like health, education and infrastructure. Yet somehow the document that the Ulster Unionist Party has produced, probably over a cup of coffee on a Friday afternoon, has with a magic wand waved away its role in putting such a Government into position in the first instance and assumes that the Government will do a complete U-turn on their continued desired objective of reducing the budget deficit through huge cuts to public spending.

It is also predicated on — other Members have pointed this out — an uncosted spending spree on the part of the Executive. A threefold increase in spending on infrastructure would be absolutely wonderful. I am sure everybody around the House would welcome a threefold expenditure on infrastructure going forward and a huge amount of expenditure on other areas. Yet the same UUP, as long ago as July, issued a statement criticising the Executive for what it considered unsustainable borrowing and spending plans. Now, they wish to raise by a level of three the expenditure on infrastructure. In particular, they criticised the Finance Minister and asked him to recognise that every pound borrowed today would mean that even more had to be repaid by future generations. They have brought a proposition to the House today and asked everybody to sign up to a vision that includes a huge amount of public expenditure that has been not costed or budgeted for, when only in July there was public criticism from the party on that.

The UUP has also rehashed the enterprise zone proposition. Again, that comes from the 2010 document produced by, as people may remember UCUNF — that now sounds more like an accusation than a political consideration that was put at that time. Certainly, if any plaudits were to be given for the document the Ulster Unionist Party has produced today, they would be for recycling. It should certainly merit consideration for that.

Clearly, the proposition is predicated on the generosity of the British Government, but that no longer exists and has not existed since the UUP assisted in putting them into power. It is predicated on the basis of ignoring the mandate that was given to us by the people of the North to remain in the EU. It is also predicated on a completely uncosted set of spending propositions that, they know from their relationship with their former electoral partners in the Conservative Party, the Executive have absolutely no possibility of getting access to. I listened to the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party being interviewed, and he said, "Well, if there is all this more money to come, surely we could spend it on this". If that is the basis of this proposition, we are all in trouble.

I do not think that will be any surprise to the Ulster Unionist Party, and I do not think it expected anything less than that. In fairness, a debate on the implications of Brexit is welcome, albeit on the basis of a document that no one could sign up to. I am sure that, if truth be told, half the Members sitting on the Benches over there could not sign up to it either.

Patsy McGlone (Deputy Speaker, Mid Ulster)

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close, please?

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

First, I echo the comments made by my colleague Claire Hanna that it is nice that we have an opportunity to look at and speak to a document in the House. When I compare the document with that of the Government, I find that, of course, there is no comparison to be drawn, because there is none. We have nothing more than a letter.

It amuses me slightly to watch a debate on Brexit in the House become nothing more than a heckling and shouting match, while very good manners are demonstrated when others in government speak. It really is disgraceful that Members have come to the House today without even having an open mind to discuss how Northern Ireland will look and what the consequences will be. Why has the debate not raised issues on single farm payments? Businesses are looking for leadership. Businesses are making decisions based on the uncertainties we face. This debate has offered nothing from the government parties to say to those people that we are even sitting down to consider what is happening. In fact, nowhere in the House can we look for an wider alleged position between the two government parties: one for "Remain" and one for exit. I say "alleged" position because I see neither party doing a whole lot about the position that it holds.

I look at them and think that the one agreed position that appears to have been adopted by this Government is "If we do nothing, the Opposition cannot scrutinise that. If we do nothing, nobody can say that we are doing it the wrong way. Nobody can say that our priorities are different from what they should be". Quite frankly, that is where we and this debate are. Nothing has been shared in the Chamber by the government parties today that is worth carrying out of the Chamber to those who have genuine concerns, those who are making decisions in the boardrooms of small businesses about whether their business will survive, those who depend on agricultural policies to keep their farm business open or those who are asking whether their sons or daughters will be able to carry on in their farm enterprise. There are no answers, there is no thinking, and no pathway has been pointed out here today that allows me to offer any assurance to any of those people.

The level of debate that has been offered here is nothing short of disgraceful. I have listened to debates in which people are very comfortable with breaking things down geographically and boastfully telling us that their constituency voted to leave, yet the mantra that this was a UK decision quickly follows. I also listened to Lord Morrow telling me eloquently about how the majority are unionists who voted to remain. He can cite that, and be dismissive of the fact that the majority of people in Northern Ireland voted to remain.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

Yes, I will give way.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I think that the Member is slightly confused: I said no such thing. What I said, in addressing an issue that the Ulster Unionists were putting forward, was that the majority of unionists who were voting — 85% — voted to leave the EU. I have a high regard for the Member, but she is now treading very close to what we have come to expect from those who voted "Remain". They want to talk down to everybody. The little people have spoken and said that they want the dead hand of Brussels to be removed. You, I, the Ulster Unionists and Sinn Féin should respect that.

Patsy McGlone (Deputy Speaker, Mid Ulster)

The Member has a minute added to her time.

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

May I remind the Member that we are Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly? I am elected to represent the people of Northern Ireland, a truth that may sit uncomfortably with the Member when he makes his reference. I do not dismiss the majority voice of Northern Ireland. If you feel comfortable and take security from breaking it down into green and orange, do that —

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I will in a moment — but do not do it in the hope that people will not notice that this Government are doing nothing.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Does the Member agree that there were ordinary people on both sides of the argument in the UK as a whole and in Northern Ireland? When Lord Morrow refers to 85% of unionists having voted "Leave", he has no basis for making that claim. That is an entirely fabricated statistic, just like all the other ones from the "Leave" campaign.

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I agree with that. We will put that into the catalogue of statistics that we can never really put our finger on.

What has come out of the debate today? If you stand on your feet to make any argument for or against Brexit and do not find yourself uttering the words "single farm payment" or words that are relevant to our business community, I ask you to please be seated and to go away and find a think tank.

Patsy McGlone (Deputy Speaker, Mid Ulster)

The Member should bring her remarks to a close.

Sinéad Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

Perhaps the appointment of external bodies or people, which, apparently, we are not allowed to discuss because there is democracy with a small "d" on certain days, is not a get-out.

Patsy McGlone (Deputy Speaker, Mid Ulster)

The Member's time is up.

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

The Green Party campaigned for the UK to remain part of the EU, and it is unsurprising that that continues to be our position. Having seen a majority vote in Northern Ireland to remain, we continue to uphold that position and to seek to represent those who wish to remain. Northern Ireland did not vote to leave; Northern Ireland does not want to leave; and Northern Ireland would be significantly disadvantaged if we did eventually exit the European Union.

I listened to the debate and heard the statistic about 85% of unionism. I query that and I query continually breaking down this society into unionism versus nationalism — "green and orange", as it is often put, although there are shades of green. I look at my constituency. For those who like to view the world in such terms, it is a unionist constituency, with four unionist and no nationalist MLAs, yet a majority voted to remain. So, the statistic does not stack up under any proper scrutiny.

The motion asks us to envisage a Northern Ireland outside the EU. Let us address that. If we are to leave, how best can we mitigate the damage, as I see it, that it would do to Northern Ireland? It is important that we work together, and I know that the proposer of the motion has been constructive in cross-party discussions on how we can act together and get an agreed platform on how we should best act in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. That is why, to some extent, it may be a question of phrasing that makes the motion a bit disappointing. It calls on us to endorse an Ulster Unionist position, not an agreed cross-party position. If it is a proposal for discussion, yes, absolutely — many Members said that it was welcome in that regard — but I think that seeking endorsement at this stage is taking us a bit far.

I will address some of the aspects that I have difficulty with. I think that we will get cross-party consensus on securing maximum funding for Northern Ireland from existing EU funds and that type of issue. Then, however, there are some genuine policy decisions that we would have to make post-Brexit, if it were to happen. How do we want to address the issue of environmental protection? I am heartened by the document's call for the continued protection of our natural environment and biodiversity. That is excellent and something that we can agree to and sign up to, but the same document calls for Northern Ireland to be an enterprise zone, with the deregulation of planning. In general, planning functions are there to protect our environment. Do we want to protect, or do we want to deregulate? The two rarely go hand in hand. In fact, the document calls explicitly for the protection of biodiversity but also for the scrapping of fishing quotas, which are designed precisely to protect our biodiversity.

In Northern Ireland, we have had the debate about corporation tax. The Green Party and I have long stood as opponents of the proposed reduction. There are further proposals to reduce taxation in this document, but, at the same time, we call for more for Northern Ireland. We go to the Government and say that we want to give back less but take more. Whilst it is not a bad place to start — it is not a bad ask, and I do not think that anyone here would disagree with our paying less in and getting more back — I suspect that we have to anticipate the possibility that the British Government will not be predisposed to that argument.

We do and can work together to make a coherent argument for why Northern Ireland should be made a special case. It was done for corporation tax and for air passenger duty, and I think that we can do it for the EU referendum —

Patsy McGlone (Deputy Speaker, Mid Ulster)

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close, please?

Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)

— but we must work together and agree our asks first.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I agree with some things in this document such as securing financial guarantees for those who are in receipt of EU funding, securing the common travel area, making sure that there is no hard border and making sure that there is increased investment in infrastructure. The document also briefly refers to the freedom of movement of labour, something that my party is resolutely in support of, particularly given the huge economic and cultural benefits that migrants bring to our society.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I will not. Indeed, our NHS would have struggled to survive if it were not for the vital work carried out by migrants in our health service. If we can have movement of capital around the world with the click of a button, the movement of human beings across the world should be a guaranteed right.

I suspect though that we would go further than the proposers of the motion. We are for the freedom of movement of all people, be they EU, or non-EU, citizens. Today's demonstration at Stormont about the refugee crisis should serve as a horrible reminder of the reactionary role that the EU has played in creating "fortress Europe", which keeps refugees caged behind fences; which says nothing, of course, about the comments made by a Member of the House, a representative of the Ulster Unionist Party that proposed the motion no less, who thought it funny to equate refugees with dogs. Shame on the Member for such disgraceful remarks.

Jennifer Palmer (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I will not.

That said, there is some common ground between what I might call the establishment Opposition in the Chamber and the anti-establishment socialist opposition that I am a member of on this side of the Chamber. However, I think that the difficulty and problem with this —

Jennifer Palmer (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I will not. The problem with this establishment-style of opposition is that it does not really offer a radically different alternative to the one presented by the Executive. For example, this document calls for the creation of an enterprise zone, which, in reality, is just a slightly more right-wing version of the economic strategy outlined by the Executive. Take corporation tax; the anti-establishment opposition on this side of the Chamber has long warned that talk of reducing corporation tax would be a race to the bottom, costing working-class people and public services hundreds of millions of pounds and with only the wealthiest gaining from it. We have the evidence in front of us. Mr Nesbitt, in his party's document, suggests that we should go further and calls not for a 12·5% rate of corporation tax but for it to be lowered even further to 10% and then — who knows — maybe 8%, 6% or 5% in the future. The Executive might well have initiated this race to the bottom, but the establishment Opposition, and the Ulster Unionist Party in particular, now seem determined to take pole position in that race to the bottom. It is a failure —

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that the Member is newly elected but, a moment ago, he made a very serious accusation and attack on a party colleague, who asked to make an intervention to defend and explain herself. The Member did not allow it. I think that that is very poor form.

Patsy McGlone (Deputy Speaker, Mid Ulster)

If the Member wishes to register a complaint on that matter to the Speaker's Office in her own right, she is entitled to do so.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

In my opinion, it is a failure that the motion merely calls for an accelerated and more extreme version of the Executive's own economic programme. There is no evidence that reducing corporation tax will be beneficial to the mass of people who live here. It will likely wipe hundreds of millions of pounds from the public sector and almost certainly lead to job losses rather than job creation.

The most important point to be made is that we live in a post-Brexit world but the contours of that have not been determined for the future. There are positives in the motion, but, all in all, it falls short of the radical alternative that we need. The kind of alternative that the anti-establishment opposition stands for —

Patsy McGlone (Deputy Speaker, Mid Ulster)

Will the Member bring his remarks to a close, please?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

— is one where we unite ordinary people across the North and the South and, rather than roll the red carpet out for corporations like Apple, Google and Starbucks, we make them pay.

Jennifer Palmer (UUP, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask the Member to withdraw his comments and apologise to me before I take up the opportunity to report it formally.

Patsy McGlone (Deputy Speaker, Mid Ulster)

That may well not be a point of order, but I suggest that, in regard to this matter, if the Member subsequently, during the debate, wishes to intervene and if he interprets your remarks to be correct, he may do so. However, if you have a complaint, as I outlined earlier, you may make it directly to the Speaker's Office.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We are used to shrill voices, excitement and animation when it comes to discussions around Brexit. Today has been slightly less shrill, although some Members have been working themselves up quite well. We were told before all of this, in an attempt to browbeat and scare the public in the United Kingdom, that houses prices would collapse: they have not. We were told that interest rates would go up: they have gone down. We were told that food prices would go up: they have not. We were told that farmgate prices would go down: they have gone up. We were told that share prices would go down: they have gone up. And we were told that an emergency Budget would be initiated, and it has not been.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way. Will he concede that we have not actually left the European Union yet? People seem to have missed that in this debate.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The problem is that people told us that it would happen immediately; we were not going to have to wait until we left the European Union. We now see the delayed apocalypse predicted by the Alliance Party, the SDLP and others in the House. Thankfully, that has not been the case.

I heard someone speak today about farmers as if he was representative of farmers. The farmers voted heavily to get out of Europe. Nationalist farmers voted quite heavily to get out of Europe. That is the feedback that I got. They were told that they were mad, and people said, "You are going to lose out so much". The single farm payment has been guaranteed by the United Kingdom Government for this period of time, and anybody who has an ounce of sense will know that, beyond that time, the single farm payment was going to come down. The accession countries were promised in the previous negotiation that they would get more. The only way that they would get more would be if it were taken off the countries that get it now or, alternatively, if Europe were to take more money off the taxpayer to give to farmers in eastern Europe. Greater subsidies were going east, and farmers had the common sense to see that.

Farmers voted to get away from over 2,700 different regulations that applied to them as they carried out their daily activities. Farmers were sick to the teeth of being regulated by Europe. Many other businesses are sick to the teeth of being regulated by Europe. The red tape that is being applied to them is unnecessary and holds business back. Businesses will be better off outside Europe because they will have the opportunity to get on with the job in hand.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Mr O'Dowd did not give way to me when it was requested, so I will not reciprocate kindly to him on this occasion.

People wanted rid of the shackles of Europe. People wanted democracy restored. The public wanted democracy. In my opinion, the first line of democratic government is local government, then it is regional government and then national government. Europe is the most undemocratic element of our governance, yet on environmental issues, for example, over 80% of the decisions taken in the House are cascaded down from Europe. The public rightly voted to get out of Europe.

I am not sure where the vision is in the document. Mr Aiken did not do a great job of demonstrating much of a vision. Perhaps the person who makes the winding-up speech will show us where that clear strategic vision is.

Let us be clear: we are in a negotiation period and that negotiation will be led by our national Government. I am proud to be part of the United Kingdom and to put my faith in our national Government to negotiate on behalf of the United Kingdom as a whole. Our Executive will be consistently and constantly in contact with our national Government during those negotiations outlining the issues that are of strategic importance to Northern Ireland. It will not be done by being blasted across the media; it will be done in a very positive manner in the way that government should do it. It will be done privately and will deliver the deal for the people in the United Kingdom.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. His point was that the Northern Ireland Executive would be involved. Is it not the case that the Northern Ireland Executive are already involved, that they are having discussions with other Ministers and have told their officials to get on with the work of preparing? If the opposition parties were so good, they would have questioned our Ministers, found out that detail and would have it. That work is going on, and that torpedoes the argument that other parties have made in here, which they have got away with, that nothing is being done.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

You see, a little knowledge is dangerous, and, thankfully, the Member has dispensed some good knowledge to us. The Ulster Unionist Party has little knowledge because it decided to go outside the camp. It does not know what is going on and then tries to create speculation —

Patsy McGlone (Deputy Speaker, Mid Ulster)

Will the Member bring his remarks to a close, please?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

— that things are not happening, when, in fact, things are happening. We will be involved in those negotiations and will deal with Theresa May, David Davis, Boris Johnson and the key people who will be making —

Patsy McGlone (Deputy Speaker, Mid Ulster)

Time is up. I call Jim Allister. Mr Allister, you have four minutes.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

In the day that is in it, Mr Deputy Speaker, I regret that you have not used your prerogative to extend my four minutes, but there you are.

I have to say that, in many places, the content of the document is quite haphazard and random, but the colour scheme is excellent. However, we need to recognise that the Ulster Unionist Party has produced more than any of the rest of us. It has produced a document, which is more than any other party in the House, my own included, has produced and more — where the expectation would be greater — than the Executive have produced. Hence, of course, the rather churlish and embarrassed response from the Executive Benches in the debate. Although the document can be properly critiqued and criticised on many fronts, it is, as I said, more than anyone else has produced, least of all the Executive. Of course, that highlights the fact that we have an Executive who are pulling in opposite directions on this seminal issue. We have Sinn Féin wanting to stay in Europe and the DUP wanting to leave Europe. It is no surprise, then, that there is no cogency or coherence to anything being said on behalf of the Executive as a whole and no surprise that there is no document from them.

I am saddened that, in the debate, many of the "Remoaners" are still fighting the battle that they have lost. On the Sinn Féin, SDLP and Alliance Benches, we have had some of the Japanese soldiers who are still fighting the war in the Philippine jungle. The referendum is over. You lost. We are leaving the EU. Get over it and get into a state of mind where we will grasp the opportunities that have opened up.

I welcome the fact that the Ulster Unionist Party, in this document, has accepted that we are leaving the EU. When we leave, all of the United Kingdom must leave on equal terms. There can be no such thing as special status that keeps Northern Ireland half in and half out. We went in as one nation; we leave as one nation. There must be no compromise on that fundamental issue.

As I indicated, some of the content of the document does not impress me. I am not impressed, for example, by the suggestion that the issuing of visas should be devolved to Northern Ireland. That should never be devolved in a united kingdom: different visa arrangements are totally incompatible with a united kingdom. There is an incongruous proposal for a peace centre. It seems to come out of the blue, for whatever reason. There is a suggestion, too, of a war room. Well, there might be some from the ranks who might be in the war room who might have a little more paramilitary or military experience than others.

What we need is a cogency of approach —

Patsy McGlone (Deputy Speaker, Mid Ulster)

Will the Member bring his remarks to a close, please?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— that embraces the opportunities that lie ahead.

Patsy McGlone (Deputy Speaker, Mid Ulster)

Time is up.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

It is not about making the best of a bad job; it is about embracing the opportunities which are manifold in leaving the EU.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I thank all the Members who have been here, particularly those who contributed to the debate. The first formal Opposition day is next Monday. I am pleased that the final warm-up match, as it were, was on an issue as important as the future of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom outside the European Union. I am particularly pleased to see so many members of the Democratic Unionist Party with us. I am just glad that the debate did not clash with the Conservative Party conference, because I know that they are very keen on a little champagne reception at lunchtime. No austerity for members of the DUP there. Of course, they are in bed and in Government with Sinn Féin.

All Mr Murphy can do is make a tired, jaded reference to the 2010 general election. I would say to him, were he here, that I am very confident that historians can look at our association for one general election with the Conservative Party and tell us what damage that did to the vulnerable, compared with his party's lifetime support for the Provisional IRA campaign and what that did to the vulnerable in this country.

Mr Murphy was among those who were quite disparaging of the document, which, I think he said, was knocked off:

"over a cup of coffee on a Friday afternoon".

We then heard Mr Allister say that he thought that it was a bit confusing. Others have also been less than complimentary. That is fine, but this is not just our work. The Ulster Unionist Party brought together a Brexit advisory panel and populated it with industrialists, businesspeople, trade unions, universities, farmers, people from agrifood processing, economists and others. Lord Morrow, from a sedentary position, asked me to name them. My point to him is this: you do not know who they are, but they know who you are — those of you who criticise their work as shoddy.

This Opposition will do two things: we will scrutinise and, where appropriate, we will offer an alternative. Scrutiny does not necessarily mean criticising; it means taking a close look, although when criticism is due, we will criticise. We are highly critical of what the Executive failed to do in the run-up to 23 June and in its aftermath. There was no contingency planning for potentially the biggest development in the United Kingdom since the Second World War. There were only two outcomes, and the Executive planned for only one — business as usual. In response to a question for written answer about contingency plans tabled by me, the First Ministers wrote back to say that they had instructed Sir Malcolm McKibbin as head of the Civil Service to start doing things. There could be no clearer proof that nothing was done in advance.

We then had the letter of 10 August. Fair enough: they wrote to the Prime Minister, defining five areas of concern. They were quite right to do so, but I have to say that those five areas of concern were as obvious on 10 June as they were on 10 August. Then, for a two-party coalition — just two parties — not to be able to put on a united front when the Secretary of State responsible for the United Kingdom exiting the European Union came to visit is a sin. A house divided has no leverage in political negotiations. I know that Mr Poots is proud that his United Kingdom Government are going to negotiate on our behalf. He said that he has every confidence in the United Kingdom Government to negotiate on our behalf and to protect the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I will not be giving way. I will use my 10 minutes.

I have four words for Mr Poots: the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

That is three words.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

That is four words, Mr Poots, not three. Clearly, you were never Finance Minister, and thank the Lord for it.

We will scrutinise and offer an alternative. This, of course, is not an alternative, because there is nothing to give an alternative to, but it is the next best thing. It is built on an approach that has three legs. The first is a vision. Again, for Mr Poots's benefit, our vision is of Northern Ireland as the United Kingdom's gateway to the European Union, because we have that land border. Then, there is a plan, which is built around the fact that we need to get together the intellectual capacity and the resource to handle six sets of negotiations: those about not just our withdrawal from the EU but our new set of arrangements with it; negotiations with the World Trade Organization; negotiations with third countries; negotiations with London; and negotiations among ourselves. What are our policy priorities? What are the options? What do we want to achieve?

As Mrs Hanna said, the UK's priorities will not necessarily be Northern Ireland's. Take our universities, for example. I have heard senior members of our universities articulate the fear that, while there will be additional money for research after Brexit has been completed, it is more likely to go to the triangle of the universities in London, Oxford and Cambridge than it is to come to the two universities in Northern Ireland. The fact that Queen's is a so-called Russell Group university does not guarantee it any special status over Ulster University, as it is now called, when it comes to resource.

Mr Aiken opened the debate very well by giving a comparison between what we have failed to do and the achievements so far of Scotland, Wales, the City of London and our Secretary of State. He spoke about the importance of universities and infrastructure rather than just the agrifood sector, on which we tend to concentrate first. The voluntary and community sector will potentially lose out big time on funding.

We then had a sparkling contribution from Mr Stalford. He said that our document is uncosted and untested. What about number 6 of our 10 asks, which is the common travel area? What is untested about the common travel area? It has been around for longer than the Member for South Belfast has been alive. He said that our proposals are uncosted. Of course they are. They are not proposals to take money from one Department and give to another in the current block grant and Budget but the asks that we should get from the UK Government to take out of what we were told was going to be the tsunami of repatriated sterling that would no longer go to Brussels if we voted for Brexit. Of course the asks are a wish list that is not fully costed. Mr Stalford is still counting the votes. He is still fighting the referendum, even though 52% of the United Kingdom said that we should come out. He was followed by his partner in government, John O'Dowd for Sinn Féin, who said that the important vote was the 56% in Northern Ireland who voted to remain. A house divided has no leverage in negotiations.

It is time to move beyond Brexiteers and "Remainers". The people of the United Kingdom have voted: they have voted that we come out. We have to seize the opportunities inherent in that situation.

Mr Lyons opened by looking to the past. He accused us of walking away in some sense from the devolved institutions, yet we all voted to create an official Opposition. If we are going to talk about disrespecting the institutions, what about the use of the royal prerogative? What is democratic about Mrs Foster and Mr McGuinness — particularly Mr McGuinness, a proud republican — conferring on themselves the privileges and authority of a monarch? Queen Marlene I decided, "We will have a new Executive press secretary". What is democratic about that?

There were wonderful interventions from Mr Poots and Mr Stalford, very sneering critiques of those who sneer. As Mr Smith, my colleague in Strangford, put it, we are in the most affected area yet are the least prepared.

There has been a lot of talk about the content of the document, not about the motion. The motion is not about accepting the content of the document; the document makes it clear that these are initial thoughts. What the motion calls for is that the House "adopts the approach" in the document, which is a vision, a plan and some key asks that will be tests of whether we have achieved what we wanted to achieve. You vote for this document, or you vote for this one. Nobody has given an alternative approach. I commend it to the House.

Question put. The Assembly divided:

Ayes 15; Noes 70

AYES

Mr Aiken, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr Beggs, Mr Butler, Mr Chambers, Mrs Dobson, Mr Hussey, Mr Kennedy, Mr McKee, Mr Nesbitt, Mrs Overend, Mrs Palmer, Mr Smith, Mr Swann

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Aiken, Mr Nesbitt

NOES

Mr Agnew, Mr Anderson, Ms Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Ms Bailey, Mr Bell, Mr Boylan, Ms Boyle, Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mr Dickson, Ms Dillon, Mr Douglas, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Dr Farry, Ms Fearon, Mr Ford, Mr Frew, Ms Gildernew, Mr Girvan, Mr Givan, Mrs Hale, Mr Hazzard, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Mrs Little Pengelly, Ms Lockhart, Mr Logan, Mrs Long, Mr Lynch, Mr Lyons, Mr Lyttle, Mr McAleer, Mr F McCann, Mr McCartney, Mr McCausland, Mr McElduff, Mr McGuigan, Mr McGuinness, Miss McIlveen, Mr McMullan, Mr McQuillan, Mr Maskey, Mr Middleton, Mr Milne, Lord Morrow, Mr Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr Ó Muilleoir, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Ross, Ms Ruane, Ms Seeley, Mr Stalford, Mr Storey, Ms Sugden, Mr Weir

Tellers for the Noes: Mr McAleer, Mr Robinson

The following Members voted in both Lobbies and are therefore not counted in the result: Mr Allister

Question accordingly negatived.

Patsy McGlone (Deputy Speaker, Mid Ulster)

As Question Time begins at 2.00 pm I suggest that the House takes its ease until then. The next debate will commence after Question Time.

Mr Speaker [Mr Newton] in the Chair

Oral Answers to Questions — The Executive Office

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Before I call the first Member to ask a question, I remind Members to keep rising in their place if they wish to ask a supplementary question.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

1. Ms Bunting asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their assessment of the Together: Building a United Community summer camps. (AQO 236/16-21)

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

11. Mr Milne asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the summer camps delivered under Together: Building a United Community. (AQO 246/16-21)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Mr Speaker, with your permission I will ask junior Minister Fearon to answer the question.

Megan Fearon (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will answer Questions 1 and 11 together.

A headline action under Together: Building a United Community was to develop a pilot programme consisting of 100 summer camps. This target was achieved with 101 summer camps delivered in 2015-16. The summer camp programme for 2016-17 opened for applications on 15 March 2016, and letters of offer were accepted by 103 groups.

Summer camps are about building positive relationships among young people aged from 11 to 19 on a cross-community basis. They represent an investment of £1·2 million by the Executive, and approximately 4,000 young people have participated in and benefited from programmes this year. Along with junior Minister Ross, I have had the opportunity to visit a number of camps. The young people involved demonstrated an appetite to take an active role in shaping our society. The summer camp programme allows young people to understand each other's perspectives and make new friendships. The programme is helping to create a shared society based on good relations and reconciliation. A reunion event will also be held in early 2017 that will bring all camp participants together and provide an opportunity to further develop friendships and celebrate achievements. I am delighted to be involved with this programme, which has provided an opportunity for our young people to get to know each other through new enjoyable and shared experiences.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for her answer. I note that she mentioned a reunion event, but what mechanisms are in place beyond that to ensure that the established relationships are built on and maintained?

Megan Fearon (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for her question. As I said, junior Minister Ross and I visited many of the camps, and it has been a hugely rewarding experience to engage with those young people and hear their views and get feedback about the friendships that they have made — friendships that have taken on a life of their own thanks to social media. The young people said that, perhaps, the residential part was the most rewarding for them, as they got to spend so much time together in a few days. Participation in the camps is evidence that young people and parents want to work together and want to build a better society based on friendship.

Last year's pilot showed us that 95% of young people made new friendships, and 85% of them wanted to stay in touch. We need to do everything that we can to facilitate that. The Member mentioned the reunion event that we are holding next year, but, beyond that, it will be important for us to get some parental feedback to see if we can get a broader picture and try to make next year's programmes even better.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

How many of the 103 camps that took place were going to take place anyway, and how many were new initiatives brought about by T:BUC?

Megan Fearon (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

All of the summer camps were new. Summer camps were held in every one of the 18 Assembly constituencies, and positive feedback has been received on all of them. The summer camps were delivered in association with the Education Authority, and the districts were based on the old education and library board regions, so the summer camps were spread across the regions.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the junior Minister for the response she has given. I welcome what the summer camps do, particularly in creating and fostering friendships, but can she tell the House how those friendships can develop into genuine reconciliation between communities in Northern Ireland? Is that aspect of the Together: Building a United Community summer camps being audited by the Department?

Megan Fearon (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The summer camps were based very much on a co-design approach, and young people were involved in the development of each stage to design it in accordance with what they felt would benefit them most. They were involved from the very beginning. It is important that we focus beyond the summer camps and put initiatives in place for our young people to maintain those friendships.

As I said before, a lot of the friendships have taken shape naturally, but, beyond that, I think that it is important that we put mechanisms in place.

Ian Milne (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagraí go dtí seo. What rural-proofing measures were taken to ensure access to the summer camp programme in all areas not just in urban ones?

Megan Fearon (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for his question. It has always been the intention that the summer camps would be regionally spread, and I know from my experience how important it is to give opportunities to rural communities. I have said many times before that it is not the case that rural communities do not experience community relations issues; it is just that they manifest themselves differently.

I visited a camp during the week in my area of South Armagh in Kingsmills, Silverbridge and Lislea. Some of those young people live 15 miles apart, and their experiences are very different from those of someone in Belfast or Derry. I am sure that the Member will be happy to know that there are three very successful camps in his area. The summer camp applications were assessed by regional panels with local representatives, and the highest-quality applications were accepted for funding across each of the education and library boards in the district. The need for rural proofing was very much built in to designing this year's programme, and there is a rural impact statement available now on the Executive website with the detail of that.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

2. Mr Boylan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the social investment fund (SIF). (AQO 237/16-21)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

All £80 million allocated by the Executive to the social investment fund has now been committed to projects to improve the quality of life for people living in targeted areas of deprivation. The remaining letters of offer issued last week, including commitments for the Lanyon tunnels, the St Comgall's project and the Thomas Davis project in the southern zone. Not only are all projects now committed, but delivery is progressing apace. Some 38 projects worth over £48 million have commenced delivery, and 15 projects worth £26 million are operational. That includes four capital projects that have completed construction and which are delivering vital services in local communities.

Success equates to over 800 people benefiting from paid work placements and training to support employment worth £18·5 million, and over 80 have already secured jobs; over 1,300 children and families benefiting from early intervention projects, with £5·7 million allocated to support physical, intellectual, social and emotional development; almost 1,000 children and families benefiting from dedicated educational support projects worth £5·5 million. The social investment fund will continue to grow in success as more projects commence and become operational this year.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his response. Will the Minister highlight some of the successes of the programme?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

The greatest success of the social investment programme was the fact that we went out not with a top-down approach but that we went out to communities to ask them what their needs were and how we could prioritise their preferred projects.

The social investment fund has allocated £60 million to community projects. That is proof that the Executive are responsive to community needs and committed to promoting equality and opportunity for all. Our focus beyond spend, however, should be on the difference that the fund is making and will continue to make in our communities. The fund seeks to build confident and resilient communities; it seeks to invest in community assets and creates pathways in training and employment. Indeed, the delivery model developed by SIF is itself a model for future working that engages local people to identify priorities and to work collaboratively with partners to deliver tangible outcomes.

This model of delivery acts as a template for the effective delivery of Executive policy. The legacy of the social investment fund is that it is an investment in the future, an investment in communities, and in the skills and life opportunities of our people. I have been at quite a few events where people have effectively graduated through it, and I can tell you from first-hand experience of talking to people who have benefited from it that they are deeply appreciative in every section of our community that the SIF programme has dramatically improved the quality of their lives.

Justin McNulty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Thank you for your answer, deputy First Minister. I hope that you enjoyed the match yesterday. We are going to get another day out. Will the deputy First Minister provide an update on how dormant bank accounts in the North, which amount to some £7 million, will be used for social investment strategies?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

That is an issue over and beyond that of the money we have allocated to the social investment fund. It is something that we continue to investigate. There have been decisions in the past to utilise whatever funds can be made available for the benefit of local communities. It is something that we will keep continuously under review.

On the match yesterday, it was a wonderful occasion — 80,000 people enjoying themselves. If you want to know what Irish life is like, go to Croke Park on All-Ireland Sunday, whether it be hurling or Gaelic football. It was a match littered with mistakes, but all the more exciting for that, and as the Member has said, we are all looking forward to another day out.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the deputy First Minister for some of that information. Some groups in my constituency of Mid Ulster have had to resubmit their applications due to costings, and for other reasons. Can the deputy First Minister inform the House how many groups have had to resubmit applications or costings and how that will affect the delivery and timing of the projects?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

All of us know that, as capital projects progress, costs are, in many cases, increasing. This is natural, given the time span. This is primarily due to the passage of time, rising construction costs and unforeseen construction issues that typically arise throughout the lifetime of the projects. Officials are working closely with the Central Procurement Directorate, lead partners and project promoters to manage the costs of existing projects as far as possible — and of those going through approvals, to minimise the potential cost increases of future projects.

Similar cost-saving approaches are being applied at design and construction stage, where possible, to minimise the extent of increases in individual projects. However, we are aware that there is still a likelihood that costs will continue to increase for capital projects and, as such, we have secured revised business case approval to take account of the increased period of the fund, the type of project being delivered and the increased budget anticipated to deliver in full the projects prioritised by local steering groups. We intend to seek Executive agreement to amend and increase the social investment fund budget to allow all current prioritised projects to be delivered.

On the issue of how many groups have been affected, I do not have that figure off the top of my head, but we will write to you with an answer.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The match yesterday was a truly wonderful occasion. Seeing United beaten 3-1 by Watford was absolutely brilliant.

In terms of the work being done, have you had the opportunity to look at Early Intervention Lisburn and how it is being supported by the investment fund? Can you look at how this might be rolled out in other parts of Northern Ireland? Because what you are seeing is transformational difference being made to the lives of youngsters who are almost destined to fail, and who will now have better educational opportunities and outcomes, better employment prospects and better health outcomes. This is an area that badly needs tackled in working-class communities right across Northern Ireland.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

The reference to Manchester United was a low blow, but I would expect nothing else. I said before José Mourinho was appointed that it was a dodgy appointment, and I still think it was.

More importantly, the Member is absolutely right in relation to the huge benefits that the social investment fund can bring for families and for local communities. Our fund is investing £18.5 million in employment-focused projects and, through this, supporting over 800 people in training and paid work placements. They are integrating local people with local employers. Over 80 people have already secured full-time jobs and credit their success directly to their engagement on these funded projects, particularly as most jobs are with the participants' host employers.

One of those now employed was previously unemployed for 26 years. She described, in her own words, how the programme has impacted upon her life:

"I would never have had the confidence to look for work, go for interviews or do up a CV without the support from the programme. I received excellent support and advice on a weekly basis and it has given me a new outlook on life. I have not only gained employability skills but built friendships and a social life all thanks to the programme".

Some £5·7 million has also been invested in early intervention projects across the social investment fund zone, and it is providing a range of family support interventions in schools and communities to support physical, intellectual, social and emotional development. Almost 1,300 participants are already availing themselves of the services, and many are sharing positive examples of how the support has helped them.

The Member is right: we need to learn from those experiences and continue to work with communities, particularly communities in disadvantaged areas.

Philip Smith (UUP, Strangford)

3. Mr Smith asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the Programme for Government. (AQO 238/16-21)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

The draft Programme for Government framework agreed by the Executive on 26 May 2016 sets out the ambition that the Executive have for all in our society. Its focus is on the major societal outcomes that the Executive want to achieve and provides the basis for the actions that we propose to take over the course of this Assembly mandate to bring about the conditions of well-being that we are seeking for our people.

Over the summer, a public consultation process was conducted to seek views on the approach taken in developing the framework as well as on its content. There were over 800 responses to the consultation, and, in addition to informing thinking on the shape of the Programme for Government, they were most helpful in developing the delivery plans needed to achieve the Executive's desired outcomes. We are grateful to all the individuals and stakeholders who contributed to the consultation and welcome the overwhelming support shown across all sectors for the adoption of an outcomes-based approach to the new Programme for Government.

The Executive are now finalising their delivery plans, and they will be incorporated in the detailed programme that we aim to publish for further public consultation over the autumn period. We anticipate finalising the programme by the end of the year.

Philip Smith (UUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Is the Finance Minister's proposal for a one-year Budget now agreed Executive policy? If so, what will be the impact on the Programme for Government?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Everybody will appreciate that the Brexit vote puts us in a completely different situation. Yes, the decision by the Finance Minister to go for a one-year Budget has been endorsed by the Executive. We think that it is a sensible procedure, given the uncertainty that overhangs everything that we are dealing with at the moment as a result of Brexit. The big challenge for us is to ensure that, during that year, we are able to deliver the first-class public services that we are committed to delivering for all our people and, at the same time, try to manage our Budget in a way that allows us to be involved in other initiatives, which the community expects.

Richie McPhillips (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

A key commitments of the draft Programme for Government framework is to tackle regional imbalance in job creation and investment. Coming from Fermanagh and South Tyrone, I could rightly say that I feel that our constituency has suffered greatly over the years. Some 12 months ago next month, 800 Teleperformance jobs were announced for Enniskillen; to date, I have no knowledge of any job creation in that respect. Will the Minister give us an update on the position with those 800 Teleperformance jobs?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

We are not the employers, so we are not responsible for delivering when a company makes a public declaration of investing in an area and outlines how many people it intends to employ. Obviously, there has been some delay, but there has been no suggestion that I have heard of any reneging on the commitment. I work on the basis that, until such times as people indicate that they are no longer prepared to go along with it, it will go ahead. Hopefully, it can be expedited as quickly as possible.

The issue of regional imbalance is something that we are acutely aware of, particularly as the First Minister is from the south-west and I am from the north-west. We are all conscious of the need to ensure that every area gets a fair opportunity to profit and benefit from the Programme for Government and the Budget that will be aligned with it.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Can the deputy First Minister confirm that, in the process of consultation for this Programme for Government, this is the highest level of engagement there has been in the history of drafting a Programme for Government and that, by allowing groups to comment on the draft framework and then the draft programme, we are effectively giving consultees two bites of the cherry in making their views known?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Yes, that is an important point that the Member has raised. Obviously, it is hugely important in putting a Programme for Government together that there is the widest consultation possible. On this occasion, we are going for an outcomes-based approach. That has worked in Scotland, in various states in the United States of America and in Finland, for example. The fact that the consultation we had with stakeholders recorded huge support for that approach is quite striking when you consider that some political parties in the Assembly who are in opposition railed against it. That clearly shows them to be at odds with where the stakeholders and the general public are. Giving people two bites of the cherry is important, because it really shows people in the community that we are listening very carefully to what they have to say.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the deputy First Minister outline the next steps to be taken in the PFG process?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

We are finalising our delivery plans, and we aim to complete that work in the next few weeks. The delivery plans will be incorporated into the next draft of the Programme for Government, and a revised and expanded document will then issue for further public consultation.

A key feature of this Programme for Government is its dependence on collaborative working between organisations and across sectors. It is also a programme in which individuals and communities can play an active part. There have been extensive engagements already with organisations, groups and individuals, and the First Minister and I are keen that that process continue. I encourage everybody — individuals and organisations — to get involved and put their views forward. Departments will continue to engage with delivery partners and stakeholders throughout the autumn with a view to refining and enhancing the delivery plans and ensuring that the final Programme for Government is as robust and complete as possible. Our aim is to finalise the new Programme for Government and have it endorsed by the Assembly before the end of the year.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I note that the deputy First Minister — perhaps this week we should refer to him as "Your Highness" — has said it is important that we have outcomes-based measures. We agree with that as a party and believe it is the right approach. One way of ensuring that outcomes are met by Departments is to make sure that the quarterly monitoring rounds are used effectively by Committees to measure whether Departments have met the targets they set. Can the Minister reassure us that the quarterly monitoring rounds will continue to be presented to Committees, as there appears to have been a problem with that over the June monitoring round?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Obviously, there was a problem over the June monitoring round. We will do everything in our power to ensure that we meet the requirements of the Committee. Obviously, we have a challenging situation before us in relation to the outcome of Brexit, for example. Clearly, however, it is important as we go forward that the Programme for Government and the Budget meet the needs of the Committees of the Assembly. I, for one, am very determined that the Committees are accorded the respect they deserve. They are as much a part of the process as anybody else, and it is very important that they have an input into what we are trying to do.

As for "Your Highness", the less said about that the better.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

If the implementation of the Programme for Government requires any fresh legislation on any subject, will the introduction and processing of that be left to the House — this legislative Assembly — or does the deputy First Minister anticipate again donning his royal persona and changing legislation by royal prerogative?

Does the deputy First Minister intend to further abuse the royal prerogative by usurping the legislative functions of the House?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I suppose that the Member is speaking about the appointment of David Gordon. For me, that is not the issue here. The issue is the relationship and the new dynamic of politics. Some Members would do well to remember that the world extends well beyond the gates of Stormont. We are committed to creating and attracting new and better jobs, improving our public services, investing in our schools, hospitals and roads and supporting the most vulnerable across society.

It would appear, though, that some Members of the Opposition have only woken up with the appointment of a press secretary. There was absolutely no secrecy or underhand dealings.

[Laughter.]

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Except when you changed the law.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Some minority Members can laugh all they like, but the appointment of the press secretary was legally compliant. We have 55 press officers working in Government press offices —

[Interruption.]

— Yes, 55 — not the inflated figure that some others are trying to use. Perhaps if people asked a question rather than running to the media, they might get to the truth, or maybe they do not like or want the truth.

The important thing is that we are continuing to move forward. I have been made aware within the last half hour that the prerogative powers in section 23(3) have been used on a number of occasions. Amongst the Orders that were found was the Commissioner for Public Appointments (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2001, which was signed by David Trimble and Séamus Mallon.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Before I call Mr William Humphrey for the next question, I remind Members that it is a constituency-specific question.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

4. Mr Humphrey asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the Ardoyne and Greater Ballysillan Urban Villages project. (AQO 239/16-21)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

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

Megan Fearon (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Strategic frameworks for all five Urban Villages have been launched. These have been shaped by local communities and reflect their ambition to realise the full potential of the people and places where they live. The frameworks identify collaborative opportunities in each area and provide a road map for a comprehensive and joined-up approach by Departments and wider stakeholders to build community capacity, foster positive community identities and improve the physical environment. In Ardoyne and greater Ballysillan, this means a planned £300,000 investment in this financial year in a range of public realm and environmental improvements. This includes starting work on a new play park in the Glenbryn estate.

Work is also ongoing to shape community-based projects to enhance local partnerships and find better ways of working together. This year, in Ardoyne and Ballysillan, it will include a focus on initiatives supporting education and learning, women as community and peace builders and working with young people. Over the next four years, subject to final budget decisions, we expect a substantial programme of capital investment in Urban Villages, which would see in the region of £45 million in total delivered in partnership with other Departments and councils. Crucially, the strategic framework will help to align efforts by a range of stakeholders across all Urban Village areas and enable current and future investment to be delivered in more effective and sustainable ways.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the junior Minister for her answer. Will she expand on the £45 million investment and the larger investments that there will be in community infrastructure and capital investment? Is there a timescale for the completion of the investment, which I welcome? Both areas are hugely deprived and are in much need of that investment.

Megan Fearon (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for his question. Hopefully, by the end of this year, there will be a spend of £3·6 million in capital and £1·6 million in resource and in supporting local projects to enable each of the areas to get ready for the delivery of the overall Urban Village project. We hope that £300,000 will be spent in Ardoyne and Ballysillan, in particular, by the end of the current financial year. Some of the projects that are being considered in those areas are remedial works at the Crumlin Road and Ligoniel Road junction, a play park in the Glenbryn neighbourhood and improvements to the Marrowbone Millennium Park, such as landscaping and a play area, which will enhance service provision there. There are other works in Ballysillan Park, including new surfaces, planting, signage and public art.

Urban Villages are part of a bigger strategy, and I look forward to support from all political representatives for every single headline commitment under T:BUC, and that includes barrier removal. I am very happy to speak to the Member about that as well.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

We have time for a quick question from Carál Ní Chuilín and a quick response from the Minister.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Further to the response to William Humphrey's follow-on question, will the Minister outline the importance of community participation in the Urban Villages and T:BUC programmes?

Megan Fearon (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for her question. The Executive's endorsement of the Urban Villages framework last week was hugely important and now allows Departments to work together in a truly collaborative way to deliver on that initiative. Engagement with communities is absolutely key, and the local reference groups have been key to advancing that. They have a function to keep all stakeholders updated on the progress of each of the projects. Experience shows us that we achieve better outcomes and better progress when we involve and engage with local people and allow them to be involved in decision-making, particularly when those decisions affect their everyday lives in their area. We are very committed to building on the foundation of community participation and on the momentum of T:BUC, which has really taken off in recent times. Community involvement is particularly important when we are engaged in a process of community transformation and our work to build a better future, whether that be barrier removal, like that on the Crumlin Road earlier this year, or the huge participation across the North in our summer camps. Later this week, the Executive will host the Belfast launch of the Urban Villages framework, and I am sure that Members across the House will be welcome to attend to show their support for the initiative.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

That ends the period for listed questions. We now move to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

T1. Mrs Dobson asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to confirm the powers that David Gordon will have in his role as the Executive’s press secretary that, as a civil servant, Stephen Grimason did not. (AQT 176/16-21)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

It is not a matter of what powers David Gordon will have. His responsibility, as a spokesperson for the Executive, will be to work very positively and constructively with everybody in the executive information service (EIS). It really does not concern me whatsoever, because I am absolutely convinced that the EIS and David Gordon will work very positively together, keeping in mind their job description, which is about presenting for public consumption all the tremendous work being done by the Executive and individual Ministers, and also putting the Assembly in a good light. It brings a different dimension and level of expertise to what is a very challenging job.

Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP, Upper Bann)

There is certainly a lesson on how to spin a spin doctor. However, as we know, the role was created using the royal prerogative. Will you, as a proud republican, confirm how you feel about exercising the powers of a monarch?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I feel grand — absolutely grand.

[Laughter.]

Anything that benefits the working of the Executive and, by extension, enriches the lives of the people whom we represent is a good thing. I have done many things over the last 20 years, none of which I am ashamed of whatsoever, because I think that my contribution to this process has put us all where we are today. We have some catcalling from Members on the Back Benches, but they should remember that they would not be sitting on the Back Benches were it not for the work that I and others in Sinn Féin and republicanism have been involved in.

I am not in the least concerned about the debate around David Gordon's appointment. As far as I am concerned, looking at the way that this has developed, mostly on social media, I see that it is all about the anoraks. It is all about the Opposition. We were criticised, when we had a five-party coalition, for being dysfunctional and unable to take decisions. Now, we have a two-party coalition, and we are taking decisions, and we are being criticised. The Opposition parties need to remember this: we will take more and more decisions, and we will show that we can work together as political parties.

We will leave the Opposition parties, who were very quick to jump out of the Executive because of the very poor elections that they had, in our trail.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

T2. Ms Bunting asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline what the Executive Office has put in place in the dementia services strand of Delivering Social Change, especially because, at the weekend, she had the privilege of participating in the Alzheimer’s Society’s memory walk at the Stormont estate, at which it was clear from the numbers present just how many people that horrible disease impacts. (AQT 177/16-21)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

The previous First Minister Peter Robinson and I were very much involved in that announcement. Atlantic Philanthropies was also very much involved in contributing to it. The Member is absolutely right. The whole issue of dementia and Alzheimer's represents a huge challenge to not just our health service but our society as a whole and will continue to do so in coming years. Of course, great efforts are being made to try to find a cure. Huge expenditure is going in to assessing whether it is possible to find a cure and the type of drugs that are required to slow down the onset of these terrible diseases.

There was also a very well-attended walk in the Derry area. Martina Anderson, our locally elected MEP whose mother suffers from this, was there with the entire family. No family is untouched by this. There is a huge responsibility on all of us to do everything in our power to ensure that our lights in the Assembly and the Executive are contributing to what must be an overall effort to find ways forward that relieve the burden on families and the suffering of patients.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

What do you anticipate will be the tangible impacts of what you have outlined for people who suffer from dementia and their families?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

The tangible impact has to be how we can relieve people's suffering and help those who care for them. We all have a responsibility, and Michelle O'Neill, our Health Minister, and the various stakeholders who contributed to the discussion around the Programme for Government continuously explore what more we, as an Executive and an Assembly, can do to contribute in a positive way towards relieving people's suffering. That obviously represents a huge challenge for us, but larger countries than ours and people with much more expertise are working day and daily to find a way forward on this. Every couple of months, you hear about new developments that require years of testing. In the meantime, we will just have to ensure that we contribute in the best way that we can. The project that we were involved in with Atlantic Philanthropies is benefiting people here to some degree.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

T3. Mr Aiken asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, given that it was good to hear the deputy First Minister talk about the world outside Stormont, what further advice can be expected from Kim Jong-un on message management in the Northern Ireland Executive. (AQT 178/16-21)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

The Ulster Unionist Party went into opposition at the time of the last Assembly, and it was not the only party to do so. I think that that sort of language really does not reflect the importance of the work that we are doing in the Assembly. There were many remarks like that prior to the election. They came mainly from the Opposition parties and were pitched at the electorate, but they did not work. When it came to the election, the people of the North of Ireland decided that they wanted Sinn Féin and the DUP to be in the lead. They have more faith in us than the opposition parties have. I will not rise to that sort of language. It is silly and childish and certainly shows how distant some of the opposition parties have become from the people. It is only a few months since the election. People gave us a tremendous endorsement. They put their faith in us to take this process forward. Of course, we know that, because they did not get the result that they wanted, the opposition parties did not come into the Executive and they hope that, by staying out, they will make gains between now and the next Assembly election. God help them.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Yes. Can the deputy First Minister — thank you for those words — give an assurance that the appointment of David Gordon —

[Interruption.]

— has been conducted — listen — within the correct employment and equality legislation and that, as a member of the Government, he will be appropriately security-vetted as he will have access to classified and commercial-in-confidence documentation? Will the deputy First Minister confirm to the Assembly that the appropriate due diligence has been carried out?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I wonder whether people who were appointed as advisers to the Ulster Unionist Party during the last term of the Assembly were security-vetted by anyone and, if not, why there was no demand from the Ulster Unionist Party for that. This is all nonsense, folks. It is all a two-day wonder. The reality that you have to deal with is that David Gordon will soon be in post. We have every confidence in his ability to do the job. The fact that he is going to do the job is what is scaring the opposition parties more than most.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

T4. Mr Frew asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister what the Executive Office is doing to reduce hate crime, encourage community relations and reassure members of the public, given that, this morning, the BBC’s ‘Good Morning Ulster’ reported a hate crime incident at a tourist spot in the North Antrim constituency. (AQT 179/16-21)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I absolutely and roundly condemn any hate crime anywhere. I am sure that it is not just restricted to the Member's constituency. We have it in probably every constituency throughout the North. The First Minister and I were delighted last week to attend and speak at the inaugural meeting of the new racial equality subgroup, which was very well attended. We are very conscious of the need to ensure that we give as much support as possible to people who have been targets of racist thugs. There is a huge responsibility on our police service to ensure that it is very proactive in trying to apprehend those who are involved in criminal and cowardly attacks on defenceless people. Working with the police and the representatives of our ethnic communities, it is very important that we continue to stand together and send out a very clear message that such behaviour is absolutely despicable and should stop.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Thank you, deputy First Minister. He will be aware of the work of the Ballymena Inter-Ethnic Forum in the Mid and East Antrim Borough Council area. Whilst the figures for hate crime have risen by something like 87% in the last five years, they have reduced dramatically in Ballymena and east Antrim. What more support can the Executive Office give to groups like the Ballymena Inter-Ethnic Forum to assist them in their work?

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

We will give every support. I want to pay tribute to that group for the tremendous work that it is involved in. I know that, in every part of the North of Ireland, people from the unionist and republican/nationalist communities are working together to send out a very powerful message to our ethnic minorities that they are hugely respected, much loved and make a massive contribution to and enrich our society. Our meat processing and agrifood industry would come to a halt if those people withdrew their labour and went back to their own countries. It is hugely important that we do everything in our power to support local communities that recognise the massive contribution that they make. Of course, we have policies and strategies, such as the racial equality strategy and others, but we also have to work with the police to ensure that we continue to bear down on people — it is only a tiny minority in our society — who believe that it is OK to say "bravo" to attacking somebody who is thousands of miles from their own country and is basically defenceless.

I have great faith that our people in the unionist and in the nationalist/republican communities will continue to work together to defeat those people.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

T5. Mr Anderson asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister what progress has been made on disbanding paramilitary organisations. (AQT 180/16-21)

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I think that everybody knows that, during the Fresh Start negotiations, the political parties, mainly the DUP and Sinn Féin, came to an agreement. We established a three-person panel to bring forward a strategy. It is a strategy that we have accepted in total and are absolutely committed to implementing.

That work will roll out over the next while. Of course, working closely with the Police Service, it is very important that we send a clear message to the tiny minority that exists in our community that being involved in criminality or paramilitary activity of any description is a total abhorrence to the people who want to get on with their lives and build a better future for their children. The work that was done was good work. A report was published with many proposals, all of which have been accepted by the First Minister and myself, and that will be a huge benefit to the people whom we represent as it is rolled out.

Robin Newton (Speaker, Belfast East)

Time is up. We do not have time for a supplementary question. I ask Members to take their ease while we change the top Table.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker [Ms Ruane] in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions — Infrastructure

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

Question 11 has been withdrawn.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

1. Mr Douglas asked the Minister for Infrastructure for an update on the review of taxi legislation. (AQO 251/16-21)

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Following my meeting on 3 August with a new taxi group established in the North, I made clear my intention to deal as quickly as possible with this legacy issue. It is vital that there is clarity for consumers and those in the taxi industry on the way forward, and my decision to instruct my officials to commence work immediately on a review demonstrates my commitment to finally putting in place a taxi industry that fully meets the needs of consumers here.

I have also been aware that rumours are being spread among taxi operators and drivers that the requirement to have an approved meter and printer is being scrapped. Let me reiterate that that is not the case and that the legislative requirement to have an approved meter and printer installed in all class-A and class-B taxis remains in place. My officials have also commenced work to set up a taxi forum, which will include statutory bodies, stakeholders from across the taxi industry and consumer groups. That group will help to inform the content of the review and how it will be progressed.

I trust that Members, those in the taxi industry and other key stakeholders are now left in no doubt that I intend to ensure that, at the end of the review process, we will put in place a taxi industry that fully meets the needs of local people and those who visit this part of Ireland.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he agree with me on the importance of communicating the proposed changes to taxi drivers and operators? There is also an October deadline for some taxi drivers. Maybe the Minister would respond to that.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I agree entirely. I was very clear in the summer when I met the operators and went to the public to lay out my concerns about the legacy issues that we took on. I was also very clear today, and I think that people will understand that the date is still in place and that there will be no further periods of grace. I will meet officials in the morning to discuss enforcement issues and the best way forward for those who, through no fault of their own, given the huge scale of those applying, have not been able to put a meter in place. Let the message be very clear: meters and printers will be part of our taxi industry going forward.

Nichola Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I record my apologies for not being in my seat last week when called for a topical question to the Health Minister.

Can the Minister outline how changes to legislation may impact on the operation of Uber in the greater Belfast area?

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I do not intend to take action in relation to any particular industry, such as Uber. Like every taxi operator in the North, Uber must adhere to the law. I understand that, along with some others, it has adopted class-C licences for at least some of its taxis. As I intend to take action to ensure that the scope of the class-C licence reflects the original policy intentions, all those using class-C licences will have to comply with the requirements of class C.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Minister give an assurance that he will look at the issue of new taxi drivers, in particular, wanting to sit the examination? If he speaks to his officials about it, he will be aware that I have had meetings with them recently about this — I appreciate the help that they have given. There is a concern, however, that the current process to ensure that the system is open and transparent is not working in the best way that it possibly could.

Caitriona Ruane (Deputy Speaker, South Down)

Has the Member a question? That is a very long question.