northern ireland assembly Tuesday 15 January 2008 Ministerial Statements: Executive Committee Business: Private Members’ Business: Adjournment: The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Dallat] in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Mr S Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The material that I have before me is not an alternative to the newspaper that the Member for West Tyrone Mr McElduff accused me of reading in the Chamber yesterday. Rather, it represents the amount of written material that I received from the Assembly in the two weeks before the Christmas recess. The material stands 1 ft 8 in high — I have a ruler with me should I need to prove that. It follows that, if a full month’s material, multiplied by 108 MLAs, were stood end to end, we would need a bookshelf that stretched from one side of this Building to the other — 365 ft — to facilitate it all. I want you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to raise with the Assembly Commission what we can — Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Wilson. Mr S Wilson: — do to avoid that waste of paper, because I understand that all this material is available online. Mr Deputy Speaker: We have now gone metric, Mr Wilson. [Laughter.] I shall make two points: first, Members are not permitted to use visual aids in the Chamber; and, secondly, you are probably embarrassing the Minister of the Environment. I shall continue. Mr Wells: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I raised a point of order yesterday, but, unfortunately, the Speaker had just left the Chair. It related to an important issue, however, not only for me but for the entire Assembly. During questions to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development after her statement on the December Fisheries Council meeting, I asked a question that contained not one, not two, not three but four separate questions. I have the Hansard report in front of me, and it is very clear that I asked four questions. The Minister’s response was that she did not hear a question, and, therefore, she refused to respond to any of the points that I had made. She did not fail to hear; rather, she did not want to hear, because she was embarrassed by the questions that I had asked. However, what was even more worrying was the Speaker’s response that he did not hear any questions either. If Ministers are able to hide behind awkward, difficult questions simply by saying that they do not hear them, that is a very dangerous precedent for the Assembly to set. Ministers must be held to account; they must answer questions, even those that they do not want to answer. It is unfortunate, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Speaker does not appear to have ruled on that issue, so I ask that you convey my sentiments to him and ask him to rule on this important matter as quickly as possible. Mr Deputy Speaker: I will certainly do that. The good news is that the Speaker is aware of your point of order and will be in touch with you, so it is happy days. Mr Wells: I am delighted. Mrs McIlveen: I wish to raise a point of order in relation to yesterday’s Question Time. I asked a valid question of the Minister of Education regarding how she prioritises her budget. Is it in order for her to label my comments as sectarian, when they clearly related to the budget? Mr Deputy Speaker: I will certainly pass your comments to the Speaker, who will, no doubt, be in touch with you, as with Mr Wells. North/South Ministerial Council — Institutional Format Mr Deputy Speaker: I have received notice from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister that the deputy First Minister wishes to make a statement regarding the North/South Ministerial Council meeting in institutional format. The deputy First Minister: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. In compliance with section 52C(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make a statement on the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in institutional format that was held in Stormont Castle, Belfast on 17 December 2007. Junior Minister Paisley and junior Minister Kelly, who attended the meeting, have approved this report and I make it on their behalf. The Executive were represented by junior Minister Paisley, junior Minister Kelly and myself. The Irish Government were represented by Dermot Ahern TD, Minister for Foreign Affairs. At the meeting, the Council approved the appointment of members to the management boards of the Trade and Business Development Body, the North/South Language Body, the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, and to the advisory board to the Food Safety Promotion Board, including chairpersons and vice-chairpersons, with effect from 13 December 2007, and the appointment of a board member of Foras na Gaelige to serve as vice-chairperson of that body. The Council also approved the appointment of the board members, including the chairperson and vice-chairperson of Tourism Ireland Ltd, with effect from 19 December 2007. The joint communiqué from the NSMC institutional format meeting, with a list of new boards, including chairpersons and vice-chairpersons, was placed in the Assembly Library on 17 December 2007. The remuneration of chairpersons, vice-chairpersons and members was also agreed. The Council thanked outgoing board members and recognised the key role that they played in developing the North/South bodies and Tourism Ireland Ltd. They also congratulated the new board members on their appointments and wished them well in their work. Go raibh maith agat. The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (Mr Kennedy): I thank the deputy First Minister for his statement. Although brief, its content is important, and I request on behalf of my Committee that full details of the list of appointees to the various boards and bodies be provided. Moreover, I ask the deputy First Minister and the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to provide detail on the background to the appointment process, perhaps indicating how appointments were arrived at and made. Was any interview process undertaken for any of the appointments? Were any of them subject to what might be termed “political patronage”? I also ask the deputy First Minister to indicate how long each individual is expected to serve on each body. The deputy First Minister: The full membership lists of the boards are available. If any Member does not have a copy to hand, we can furnish him or her with the information. The term of service is four years, and it is important to say that the work to establish those bodies has continued over almost eight years. Under the Implementation Bodies Agreement of March 1999, the North/South Ministerial Council appoints management boards to the Trade and Business Development Body, which operates as InterTradeIreland, the North/South Language Body, which consists of Foras na Gaelige and the Ulster-Scots Agency, the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, and to the advisory board to the Food Safety Promotion Board. Overall, the boards of those bodies comprise some 60 members. The Special EU Programmes Body and Waterways Ireland, which is the inland waterways body, do not have boards. Tourism Ireland Ltd, which was established as a company that is limited by guarantee, has a board that comprises 12 directors, who were appointed by the NSMC. Effectively, the terms of office of the current members of all the boards, including the chairpersons and vice-chairpersons, ended in December 2007. Given that most of them had served two terms, they could not be reappointed. Many of the outgoing chairpersons, vice-chairpersons and members served on the boards for almost seven years, and I should add that the members of the outgoing boards made a sustained commitment to the work of the bodies. The Executive and the Irish Government made the appointments to the new boards on a 50:50 basis, and the full list of membership of all the boards has been placed in the Assembly Library for Members to access at their own convenience. Those who were appointed to the boards come from a range of backgrounds and bring with them extensive experience and knowledge of the business and voluntary sectors. Essentially, the appointments were made in accordance with the rules, and we used exactly the same process that David Trimble and Séamus Mallon used when they occupied the roles of First Minister and deputy First Minister. Mr Moutray: Members will have noted Tourism Ireland Ltd’s recent announcement that it will change the way in which it markets Northern Ireland so that it reflects aspects of Ulster-Scots heritage and culture, including the Loyal Orders. Does the deputy First Minister agree that that change will benefit Northern Ireland in that more visitors will be attracted here? Was that matter discussed at the meeting on 17 December 2007? The deputy First Minister: That specific issue was not discussed at the meeting. I appreciate that Tourism Ireland Ltd’s responsibilities include a clear duty to reflect culture and tourism opportunities for the benefit of those in the international community who are considering whether to holiday in this part of the world. For example, during the Smithsonian event in Washington, DC, which Ministers from different parties and I attended, individual members of the Ancient Order of Hibernians (AOH) objected to the presence of Orange Order representatives who were explaining the background to their organisation to the Irish-American community. I came out very strongly against the attitude of those members of the AOH who were trying to prevent the Orange Order representatives from describing the Order. I think that I won the argument, given that I received all sorts of letters of support from other members of the AOH in the United States of America who believed that I was absolutely correct. Therefore, it is a good thing, and it is something that is well worth promoting. Mr McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh ráiteas an Aire agus roimh an tuairisc. Rinneadh obair thábhachtach i rith an chruinnithe seo i mí na Nollag. I welcome the Minister’s statement. Mr Kennedy, in his capacity as Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, has already asked several of the questions that I intended to ask. However, will the deputy First Minister tell me whether the meeting in December concerned itself in any way with developing further the roles of the North/South implementation bodies and expanding areas of co-operation? The deputy First Minister: All Members know that a review is ongoing to examine objectively the efficiency and value for money of the existing implementation bodies. That review will also consider the case for creating additional bodies and areas of co-operation within the NSMC framework in matters where mutual benefit would be derived. The first meeting of the review group took place on 31 October 2007. In addition to senior officials from the Executive and the Irish Government, the group comprises an advisory panel of four expert advisers, two of whom were nominated by the Executive and two by the Irish Government. The group undertook intensive work in November and December, and a progress report will be made at the NSMC plenary meeting in February. 10.45 am Mr Attwood: I join the deputy First Minister in welcoming the appointment of the new board members and thanking the outgoing members for their years of service. The deputy First Minister rightly said that these people have been appointed for four years. Of course, the elephant in the Chamber is the review to which the deputy First Minister has just referred. We have learnt from one unionist party this week that its intention is that North/South developments should not expand and deepen in the next phase of politics on this island. Can the deputy First Minister, arising from what Mr McElduff said, confirm that the review will complete its work by the spring, as originally intended? When will the Assembly have the opportunity to discuss fully the review’s report and, I hope, endorse recommendations for a broad extension of areas of co-operation and implementation on the island of Ireland? The deputy First Minister: It is not my place, with the review ongoing, to pre-empt its outcome, except to say that it is the very firm intention of the North/South Ministerial Council that this work should be completed in time for its next plenary meeting. At this stage, the sensible thing is for all of us to bide our time. There will be a plenary meeting on 7 February, at which the report will be considered. Until then, we should allow the review body to get on with its work. Mr Ford: The reconstitution of the five boards is a step forward in the normalisation of politics. However, even by the standards that we have come to expect from NSMC statements, this one was remarkably thin. While there was a lot about membership, there was nothing about achievements or future challenges, even in the context of the review that is under way. Does the Minister agree that if we are to have these statements on a regular basis — and we are obliged to do so under the agreement — it would be a more productive use of his time and that of the House to have a bit more substance in them, rather than a mere list of facts that have already been placed in the Library? The deputy First Minister: The Member has made his point, and no doubt the powers that be in the NSMC will consider what he has said. I agree with him: there are many achievements that we could boast about regarding the effectiveness of the bodies, which have clearly been beneficial to both the Irish Government and to us. The Member’s point will be taken on board. Mr P Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. An estimated 9·1 million visitors came to the island of Ireland in 2007, generating a forecasted £3·1 billion — equivalent to €4·6 billion. That represents a 7·5% increase in tourism revenue. Does the deputy First Minister believe, as I do, that Tourism Ireland Ltd is delivering sufficiently sustained revenue and visitor growth in the tourism industry on the island of Ireland? I hope that the new chairperson and vice-chairperson will be able to enhance those figures. The deputy First Minister: Tourism Ireland Ltd has been a huge success. The figures from the tourist boards suggest that last year — sorry, the year before last; I keep thinking that this is 2007 — there was a huge increase in the number of visitors from North America. That is very encouraging, and is primarily because of the changed political circumstances here and the promotional work done by Tourism Ireland Ltd in North America. Tourism Ireland Ltd also has a responsibility to ensure that that progress continues. All the indicators from the powers that be in tourism suggest that we are on an upward trend. Mr Wells: Following on from what Mr Ford said, and given the standard of previous reports to the Assembly about such meetings, today’s report is extremely brief. I must ask a question — and it is a question, Mr Deputy Speaker: is today’s report a full report of what happened at the meeting? If it is, the meeting lasted around five minutes. I notice that it was held just before the Christmas recess: was it a case of having a five-minute meeting followed by a two-hour Christmas lunch at the taxpayers’ expense, or did more business take place that has not been reported? If today’s report represents all the business that was carried out at that particular event, then it was not really worth having the meeting. The deputy First Minister: Well, LeasCheann Comhairle, it will not be surprising that I do not agree with the Member. The meeting was very important as the purpose was to appoint important boards under the auspices of the North/South Ministerial Council. The purpose was not to deal with the work of the boards. The meeting did take a very short time. Mr Wells: How long did it take? The deputy First Minister: It lasted an hour at the most. The cost to the Executive was approximately £250, and there was no Christmas lunch. Mr Deputy Speaker: That is very sad indeed. Mrs D Kelly: I am sure that I will be forgiven for being naive but when the deputy First Minister refers to the “powers that be”, I would have thought that he would be included in that phrase when it comes to directing work programmes for the Executive and the Assembly. Were there any discussions about the Executive’s failure to establish the Civic Forum, and were any concerns raised by the Irish Government about the future of the all-Ireland consultative forum? The deputy First Minister: The Republic of Ireland’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dermot Ahern, did not raise any issue regarding the consultative forum. I stress again that the sole purpose of the meeting was to appoint the boards of the NSMC; it was not held for any other purpose. Mr McCartney: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas. Will the deputy First Minister outline whether there will be proper resources for the boards — and perhaps enough money for the odd Christmas lunch? Mr Deputy Speaker: We are in danger again. The deputy First Minister: The NSMC is satisfied that there are enough resources for the boards. We can be well satisfied that huge progress has been made given the new political circumstances. We can expect the boards to go from strength to strength; and as they do, the Irish Government and the Executive will have to consider whether to put further funding into them. That decision will be taken jointly by the Irish Government and us. Mr Shannon: In his statement, the deputy First Minister referred to the North/South Language Body. In Northern Ireland, promotion of Irish and Ulster Scots has been completed: what is being done in the South to promote the Ulster-Scots language? As an Ulster-Scots language enthusiast, I am quite keen to know that something is being done by the South to promote it. In addition, there has been great disquiet in the unionist community concerning Tourism Ireland Ltd’s ability to deliver for tourism in Northern Ireland. With the introduction of the new board, my party and the people whom I represent wish to be assured that Tourism Ireland Ltd can deliver on tourism for the entire Province. Confidence needs to be restored to the unionist community on that matter. The deputy First Minister: During the course of my contribution today, I stated that we, as an Executive and as members of the NSMC, are satisfied that the work of Tourism Ireland Ltd is benefiting every section of the community, and that those appointed to the board will endeavour to continue to ensure that the upward trend in tourism continues, which is to the benefit of everyone. During Executive visits to the United States, we talk constantly about what the North has to offer and the spectacular scenery in places such as north Antrim, the Sperrins, County Down, the lakes of Fermanagh, the streets of the Bogside and the Shankill Road. Tourists from all over the world visit the North to see those sights. I listen attentively to radio programmes about Ulster-Scots issues, and often people from County Donegal and County Monaghan contribute to those debates. The Ulster-Scots Agency has an office in County Donegal. Everyone takes Ulster-Scots issues seriously, not least members of the Executive. Mr Molloy: Will the deputy First Minister inform the House how many North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meetings have been held during this mandate? When is the next sectoral meeting due to be held? The deputy First Minister: The following meetings were held in sectoral format in 2007: transport on 14 September; inland waterways on 17 October; language on 26 October; environment on 26 October; Special EU Programmes Body on 7 November; tourism on 8 November; agriculture on 9 November; education on 14 November; Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission on 21 November; and health and food safety on 28 November. It is anticipated that the meeting in the trade and business development sectoral format will take place as soon as possible. The next NSMC plenary meeting is scheduled for 7 February 2008 in Dundalk. Mr Durkan: I thank the deputy First Minister for his statement and his ministerial colleagues for their work on the NSMC meeting in its institutional format. The deputy First Minister stated that the meeting focused on appointments to boards. Was the creation of boards for, for example, the Special EU Programmes Body or Waterways Ireland discussed, or is that issue being left to the review? If the opportunity did not arise in this instance to discuss cross-sectoral meetings, for which there is provision, will the deputy First Minister and his colleagues use February’s plenary meeting to set up such meetings? We have an agenda for innovation and competitiveness, and the South has established its ambitions in the national development plan, and cross-sectoral meetings would be useful in progressing that work. The deputy First Minister: The appointment of boards for the Special EU Programmes Body or Waterways Ireland was not discussed at the meeting. In my opinion, that issue is best left to the review. We should consider the establishment of future cross-sectoral meetings. North/South Ministerial Council — Health and Food Safety Sectoral Format Mr Deputy Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety that he wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council meeting in its health and food safety sectoral format. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey): I wish to make the following statement on the North/South Ministerial Council meeting in its health and food safety sectoral format. It took place in Dublin Castle on Wednesday 28 November 2007. This was the first such meeting since the restoration of the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly. 11.00 am The Executive were represented by myself, as Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, and by Michelle Gildernew MP MLA, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. This statement has been endorsed by Minister Gildernew. The Irish Government were represented by Mary Harney TD, Minister for Health and Children. Minister Harney chaired the meeting, which opened with a progress report on the five formal areas of co-operation in health, highlighting some of the key developments since the previous meeting in 2002. Those matters included co-operation on cancer research; planning for major emergencies; pandemic flu planning; health promotion; and co-operation on a number of localised cross-border projects. We also referred to a joint feasibility study, established by my Department and the Department of Health and Children, which has been tasked with identifying the potential for a more strategic approach to co-operation in health and social well-being. That is particularly relevant in view of the recent and ongoing reorganisation and reform programmes in both jurisdictions. I turn to the current and planned activities in the aforementioned five areas of co-operation. The Council received a report on the continuing co-operation on accident and emergency services. We noted and welcomed two pilot projects, commissioned by Cooperation and Working Together (CAWT) for a cross-border GP out-of-hours service. Ministers also welcomed ongoing work involving co-operation on paediatric and congenital cardiac services between the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast, and Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children in Dublin. We requested that officials report on the further development of those services at the next sectoral meeting. The Council welcomed co-operation on training and planning for major emergencies. We were briefed on a major cross-border emergency-planning exercise, which took place in April 2007, and a further emergency-incident exercise, which is planned for 2008. The close co-operation among the two Departments and the Health Service Executive on infectious-disease emergency planning was also welcomed. We noted plans for a possible cross-border exercise on pandemic flu planning, as part of an EU-wide exercise. The Council noted the high level of co-operation between the respective fire and rescue services in dealing with emergencies and road accidents in the border areas. We also agreed that first-responder schemes, which have been piloted, should be managed by the ambulance services in both jurisdictions. The Council considered a report on high-technology equipment, which focused on the provision of improved access to radiotherapy services. We were pleased to note the implementation of an agreement among Belfast City Hospital, Altnagelvin Hospital and the Health Service Executive in the Republic to provide cancer patients from County Donegal with radiotherapy treatment at Belfast City Hospital. It was also agreed that the development of additional radiotherapy capacity should be progressed in parallel with work on the aforementioned joint feasibility study, taking into account the scope for further co-operation. In the area of cancer research, we received a presentation from the two Chief Medical Officers — Dr Jim Kiely of the Department of Health and Children, and Dr Michael McBride of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) — on the work of the Ireland-Northern Ireland-National Cancer Institute Cancer Consortium. The Council recognised the successful implementation of programmes on cancer research, as well as the continuing expanding activity under the auspices of the consortium. Such activity includes the development of common protocols, definitions and datasets by cancer registries; the running of a cancer prevention programme and training workshops for cancer researchers, doctors, nurses and scientists throughout the island of Ireland and in the USA; the use of Telesynergy teleconferencing and diagnostic links with the US to aid the diagnosis of rare conditions and for research collaborations; and the operation of a cancer clinical trials co-operation group. The Council welcomed the broad range of co-operation on health promotion in key areas, such as tackling obesity, research, health-promoting hospitals, training, smoking, workplace health promotion, men’s health, mental health and breast feeding. We also noted the work of the All-Ireland Institute of Public Health, particularly in relation to tackling health inequalities. We also noted joint working in regard to the promotion of mental health and, in particular that an all-island suicide prevention action plan has been developed and agreed. In discussions, we also agreed that aspects of the Internet played a significant negative role in relation to suicide, and we confirmed that we would work together to influence change in that area. In the second part of the meeting, we addressed the work of the Food Safety Promotion Board, which trades under the name Safefood. The Council received and noted a progress report from Martin Higgins, the CEO of Safefood. We welcomed the wide range of promotional activities that it had undertaken and the support given to the food laboratory sector over the past five years. The Council noted the plans for Safefood for 2008-10. The plans included the rolling out of five major consumer information campaigns; the delivery of a joined-up approach to food safety and healthy eating in partnership with sponsor Departments, other food safety bodies and other responsible agencies; the establishment of a collaborative forum to tackle obesity; and the development and maintenance of in-house knowledge and expertise to reliably interpret the scientific evidence to inform its activities. We approved the Safefood corporate plan for 2008-10 and business plan for 2008, subject to the agreement of the respective finance Departments, as well as the budgetary considerations by the Executive and the Irish Government. The Council noted Safefood’s annual report and accounts for 2006, which will be laid before the Assembly soon. We also considered a proposal from Safefood on enteric reference services — expert analysis, interpretation, advice and samples related to diseases affecting the gastrointestinal tract — for the island of Ireland. The proposal summarises possible options regarding the provision of enteric reference laboratory services to meet the needs of service users in both jurisdictions and to further enhance public health. Following consideration of the paper by experts and the two sponsor Departments, a report will be brought to a future sectoral meeting. The Council agreed to meet in the health and food safety sectoral format in spring 2008. The Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mrs I Robinson): I thank the Minister for his statement. As he knows, the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety is undertaking an inquiry into the prevention of suicide and self-harm in Northern Ireland, and I note that the Minister referred to the development of an all-island suicide prevention action plan. Can the Minister provide any further update on the action plan, and inform us of whether it includes any specific targets? Mr McGimpsey: Members are aware that there is a strategy to counter suicide in Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland also has a strategy to deal with suicide in the Twenty-six Counties. The all-island action plan looks at ways that the two plans can work together; for example, by keeping each jurisdiction informed of the other’s strategy, as well as sharing information and good practice. No specific action has been devised that can prevent suicide, and, therefore, each jurisdiction is developing menus and sharing good practice. As part of this joint strategy, a representative from the Irish Republic attends the meetings of the strategic implementation body in Northern Ireland and shares this information with our counterparts in the South. We also have an all-island public information campaign known as “It’s Me” and “the Box”. This involves adverts running in the North and the South as part of a campaign to promote good mental health and to counter suicide. As part of this, we also have the five nations working group, which involves the sharing of good practice as well as discussing the harm being done by the Internet in this area. Therefore, although there are action plans in both Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, the all-island action plan is about seeing how the two can complement each other. Mr McElduff: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a ráitis. The Minister may know that I take a particular interest in the two pilot projects, commissioned by Cooperation and Working Together, for cross-border GP out-of-hours services. I understand that those projects are in the Derry/Inishowen and Keady/Crossmaglen/Castleblayney areas. Will the Minister tell the House whether any consideration is being given to further expanding that necessary cross-border service? There is a perfectly good out-of-hours health centre in Strabane, for example, that can benefit people living one mile away in Lifford and who instead are being encouraged to go to Letterkenny, 15 miles away. That would be a practical outworking of a necessary project, and I would like to see it expanded into the Lifford/Strabane area and, indeed, to other areas along the border. It makes sense to have a seamless provision of health services. Will the Minister also comment on the implementation of the agreement between Belfast City Hospital, Altnagelvin Hospital and the Health Service Executive to provide cancer patients from Donegal with radiotherapy treatment at Belfast City Hospital? Is there a move to provide services either at Altnagelvin or Letterkenny for the benefit of people in the north-west? Mr McGimpsey: Cooperation and Working Together — an organisation that, through funding from the EU, examines marginalisation in border areas — is looking at GP out-of-hours services. A pilot project has just been completed in the Londonderry/Letterkenny area and is being evaluated. Another pilot has been launched in the Keady/Castleblayney area. Once those pilots have been completed and the evaluations carried out, we will be in a position to determine how we should respond. If there is good practice and the need is there, that will inform our response. With regard to the arrangements for radiotherapy treatment, cancer patients from Donegal can access the service at the cancer centre in Belfast City Hospital. That has been agreed between my Department and the Department of Health and Children in the Republic. Approximately 50 patients a year from Donegal use that service. As Members will be aware, the cancer centre in Belfast will have reached capacity by 2015. There are eight radiotherapy machines at present, and the facility can take two more before it reaches capacity. The question then is how do we expand after that — and that is looking purely at Northern Ireland. One of the suggested options is to develop a subregional centre at Altnagelvin, which would work closely with, and be integrated with, Belfast City Hospital. That raises the question, which the Dublin Government have asked, of whether the capacity could be built in to allow patients from Donegal to access the service. The Republic would pay for the capacity and for its patients to access it. It is an ongoing programme, and I am discussing the matter with Mary Harney. The planning has to start now because it will take from now to 2015 to get everything in place. Rev Dr Robert Coulter: I welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly the reference to the activities of the Food Safety Promotion Board. Will the Minister give Members some enlightenment on the work of the board in connection with the use of pesticides in food that is grown in both sections of our country? Will he also tell us whether any tribute was paid to Mr Bertie Kerr, who for eight years was chairman of the Food Safety Promotion Board? There should be some recognition of the excellent work that he did in leading the board from its inception to the present time. 11.15 am Mr McGimpsey: We paid tribute to Bertie Kerr at the meeting. He has been in post for nine years, and he did not expect to be doing the job for that long when he took up office. He has worked very hard and diligently and has been a strong promoter of the work of the Food Safety Promotion Board. Pesticides and food form part of the remit of the Food Safety Promotion Board, which aims to ensure that food safety is promoted and that food is not polluted by pesticides, for example. The board is keeping a very close watch on that issue, and it keeps up to date on best practice in other areas of the UK and Europe. That is why the Food Safety Promotion Board is an important body that does important work, and why it has been one of the most non-contentious areas of cross-border co-operation from its inception. I believe that it will go from strength to strength. Mrs Hanna: I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome the number of areas on which work is being undertaken. Although I have my own contact with our opposite numbers on the Committee on Health and Children in the Republic, I would welcome more detail and feedback on those matters. The Minister’s statement addressed the challenge of lifestyles. Will the Minister inform the House whether alcohol abuse, binge drinking and the associated problems, such as family breakdown and attacks on health staff, were mentioned during discussions? Mr McGimpsey: I take Mrs Hanna’s point about information, and, of course, I am happy to undertake to provide whatever information that I can. This was our first meeting since restoration, but health promotion and alcohol abuse will certainly form part of our discussions — as will suicide prevention, which was raised by Mrs Robinson, and the other lifestyle issues with which we are familiar, such as obesity and family breakdown, which were discussed, although only in general terms, at the meeting. I have no doubt that we will rise to the task ahead. Dr Deeny: I thank the Minister for his statement. I am pleased to hear that the first health and food safety sectoral meeting has taken place. That is important for all of us, particularly those of us who live in the border counties. I concur with my West Tyrone colleague Barry McElduff, and I encourage the Minister and his counterpart in the South to continue with the GP out-of-hours centres on either side of the border so that it will not matter where one falls sick, because a patient will be seen in the most convenient GP centre. One of the five areas that the Minister mentioned is emergency care, which I have been talking about for some time. Do the Minister and his counterpart recognise that when planning for major emergencies, the roads that offer access to accident and emergency departments play a major role? On the north-west road from Dublin, there is not one accident and emergency department. Since the closure of the Omagh and Monaghan hospitals, there is also no accident and emergency department on the N2 from Dublin, which becomes the A5 at Aughnacloy. There is no provision until one reaches Derry, where there is an accident and emergency department at Altnagelvin. There is another at Letterkenny. That is a major road of about 175 miles that is increasingly used by many people on the island of Ireland to travel between Dublin and the north-west — Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Dr Deeny, please ask your question. Dr Deeny: Is the Minister, or his counterpart in the South, Mary Harney, not aware of the glaring absence of an accident and emergency department on a major route from Dublin to the north west of the island of Ireland? What happens if a major incident occurs on that road? That is a glaring deficiency in emergency medical care. Has no one, North or South, been made aware of that? Mr McGimpsey: Dr Deeny will be aware that the one-hour rule operates in Northern Ireland. Therefore, everyone living in Northern Ireland is within one hour of an accident and emergency department, and it is my responsibility to deliver on that rule. Discussions have taken place and operations are under way on cross-border planning for major emergencies. For example, last year “Exercise Medical Bridge” required ambulance services, military personnel and police from both jurisdictions to work together in response to a supposed major medical incident. We are also examining co-operation on a possible pandemic flu outbreak in the UK, on the island of Ireland and in Europe, as such outbreaks are not only regional: they can be on a national and international scale. We are reviewing fire and ambulance services in border areas, in particular the first responder scheme. We are also looking at road traffic accident hot spots and how emergency services can respond and deliver support and medical assistance as and when it is necessary. Mr Deputy Speaker: Twelve Members are still on the list to ask questions. I ask Members to be brief when asking their questions. Mr Buchanan: Although the matter has already been referred to, will the Minister tell me who will be responsible for funding radiotherapy treatment for patients from County Donegal? Will he confirm that cancer patients in Northern Ireland will neither lose out nor be placed on longer waiting lists as a result of the agreement? Will he inform the House of the current waiting times for patients in Northern Ireland requiring that treatment? Mr McGimpsey: There are no waiting times for radiotherapy treatment: patients are seen immediately. As Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, my responsibility is to deliver services for the people of Northern Ireland. As capacity in the radiotherapy centre in Belfast City Hospital will be outgrown by 2015, I, as Minister, through the Department and with support from the House and the Executive, will plan for the delivery of an increase in services. My preference is for services at Altnagelvin Hospital, which will also benefit cross-border patients in County Donegal. The Dublin Government are also making that point and will pay for any extra capacity required and any usage by people in the Irish Republic. However, my first responsibility is to patients in Northern Ireland, and my planning for 2015 will take that on board. Mr McCartney: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas. With regard to the Minister’s response to the previous question, is there any possibility that a new centre could be up and running before full capacity is reached in 2015, and that it would be at Altnagelvin Hospital, as the Minister has already indicated? Mr McGimpsey: That is clearly a possibility. We are looking at that as well as expanding services in Belfast. There are problems with people having to travel from areas such as Londonderry and Coleraine to Belfast for radiotherapy treatment. The question is whether capacity should be placed outside Belfast City Hospital while continuing to work closely with the hospital? Altnagelvin Hospital, as a sub-regional hospital, is one of the preferred options. The decision must be made and the capacity must be in place by 2015, and Altnagelvin Hospital is a possibility. Mr Easton: Will the Minister outline the possible cost for Northern Ireland of the safefood corporate plan? Mr McGimpsey: There will be a 2:5 split in the cost. The cost of running the body was around £7 million per annum, which will translate to £2 million for Northern Ireland and £5 million for the Irish Republic, approximately. The new budget for that body has not been agreed. Our share must first be agreed by the Executive, followed by the Minister of Finance and Personnel and the Department of Finance and Personnel; however, it will be of that order of magnitude. Mr McCallister: I welcome the Minister’s statement, and I also wish to be associated with the remarks about Bertie Kerr and his excellent work over the eight or nine years that he has been involved with the Food Safety Promotion Board. I particularly welcome cross-border co-operation in emergency planning, and the Minister’s earlier response about new developments at Altnagelvin will be welcomed by residents in that area. What developments in such co-operation does the Minister envisage, particularly for the new Erne Hospital and — closer to home for me —Daisy Hill Hospital? Does the Minister consider the North/South co-operation between Daisy Hill and County Louth in the treatment of patients to be a way forward in the delivery of good quality services in rural areas in Northern Ireland? Mr McGimpsey: The decision to provide acute services in the new Erne Hospital was based purely on the needs of people in Northern Ireland — specifically, in the south-west. That was the limit of my responsibility; however, there are possibilities for cross-border co-operation in instances of mutual benefit to the people of Northern Ireland and those in the Irish Republic, which are the responsibility of the Republic’s Minister for Health and Children, Mary Harney. The same principle also applies to Daisy Hill Hospital. Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his statement and his ministerial colleagues for their work in the sectoral meeting. In the short time available, it is difficult to do justice to such an extensive agenda. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be sufficiently encouraged by Members’ interest in these matters to hold the next sectoral meeting in early, rather than late, spring in order that we might hear more about progress. I want the Minister to address two areas. He has covered the first in his answers to other questions, and he will not be surprised to hear that that concerns the provision of cancer services. The development of radiotherapy services at Altnagelvin should not be considered merely as an issue for the north-west, any more than other investment in the cancer strategy should be considered as a geographical issue — including the previous Executive’s investment in the cancer centre at Belfast City Hospital. I hope that the Minister will work with Mary Harney to secure funding to make that a reality sooner rather than later, possibly utilising some of the unallocated reserves in the South’s national development plan. Secondly, the Minister spoke of possible cross-border plans to tackle pandemic flu as part of an EU-wide exercise. Will he tell us more about that, and do such plans depend on close-to-home or EU issues? Mr McGimpsey: I have nothing further to add to what I have said about cancer services and the need to plan for increased capacity. We are discussing the possibility of holding regular meetings about pandemic flu to address issues relating to communication, vaccination, and so on. As Northern Ireland is the only area of the UK with a land border with a country outside the UK, those meetings will be relevant to the UK and the island of Ireland. In addition, such plans must also be integrated with EU policies. Questions will arise about the various governmental responses during such an outbreak, the importance of a common message to our respective populations and common planning for air travel, and so on. Those are the areas that we are discussing, and we are part of the UK-wide response strategy, into which the Government in the Irish Republic will feed — all of which will feed into the EU as a whole. 11.30 am Mr Boylan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Tá ceist agam don Aire. I have a question for the Minister. I welcome his statement, and thank him especially for information on the GP out-of-hours service in the Keady, Castleblayney and Crossmaglen areas. Sadly, the Minister made no mention of the proposed North/South interconnector and the 400-kilovolt overhead cable that will pass through County Armagh. What consultation has he had with other Ministers here and with his counterpart in the South about allaying people’s fears and public perceptions about the health implications of the interconnector? Go raibh maith agat. Mr McGimpsey: The provision of the interconnector is out of my hands. It is not the responsibility of Health Departments, North or South; the responsibility is wider. When a decision is made, and when I know what that decision is, I will examine the health implications. However, evidence of such implications is varied. Mr Shannon: In his statement, the Minister referred to: “continuing co-operation on accident and emergency services.” A helicopter service is one method of response to accident and emergency situations. Has consideration been given to providing a helicopter service on a North/South basis? I ask that question, because I am aware of a group called Alpha 5, which is very keen that the emergency services in Northern Ireland should have a helicopter. Bearing in mind that a helicopter can respond more quickly than an ambulance to emergencies on land or at sea, and that road congestion was mentioned earlier, it is vitally important for responding to emergencies, and I ask the Minister to consider it. Mr McGimpsey: There have been preliminary discussions about an accident-and-emergency helicopter service. The provision of a helicopter is one issue; the provision of its crew is another. Providing a skilled, trained crew would have revenue consequences. I do not have resources for that in my budget, nor have I bid for them. The idea has been raised, and I have had preliminary discussions about it. I agree that an emergency helicopter would add greatly to response times and would be a major help to the Ambulance Service in dealing with accident and emergency situations. Mr D Bradley: Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Fáiltím roimh ráiteas an Aire faoi chúrsaí sláinte agus chúrsaí comhoibrithe Thuaidh/Theas. I welcome the Minister’s statement on co-operation in various North/South health matters. I am sure that he is aware of the recent report from the Centre for Cross Border Studies entitled ‘Removing the Barriers: An Initial Report on the Potential for Greater Cross-Border Co-operation in Hospital Services in Ireland’. One of the proposals in the report refers to a previous report — the Teamwork Report — and the possibility of a major hospital being sited north of Dublin that would also serve south Down and south Armagh. The Centre for Cross Border Studies report also refers to the potential of such a project and its implications for Daisy Hill Hospital in Newry. Will the Minister assure the House that, in any future discussion that he might have on the issue, he will ensure that the status of Daisy Hill Hospital in Newry and its range of services will be defended and maintained in the context of future North/South co-operation? Mr McGimpsey: I have not discussed the Dublin Government’s provision of a new hospital in Louth; that is Mary Harney’s responsibility. As Minister for Health and Children, she must provide for the people who live within her jurisdiction. My responsibility lies north of the border, and Daisy Hill Hospital plays a key role in the provision of services in Newry and south Down. Therefore, it is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the Dublin Government, which will make their decisions known in due course. It is no secret that Dundalk and Drogheda are being discussed as possible venues for the new hospital. Mr W Clarke: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome the work that is being carried out by the Food Safety Promotion Board. Does the Minister agree that the procurement of local produce is essential to the health and well-being of patients in our hospitals, particularly seasonal foods, local meat, chicken and organic produce? Go raibh maith agat. Mr McGimpsey: I wholeheartedly agree with the remarks on the procurement of local produce; that is important. Too often, people buy what appears to be the cheapest option, but, in the long run, as we are now aware, it ends up being more expensive. That is particularly the case when taking into account the carbon footprint that results from buying some foods from supermarkets. Local produce is available, and it is every bit as good and nutritious as supermarket products. Moreover, in the long term, local produce is not as harmful as far as the planet is concerned. Mr Adams: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister and commend him on many of the practical steps that he has outlined. My question is about the promotion of good mental health and suicide prevention. I noted the answer that was given to the Chairperson of the Health Committee when she asked about targets. The answer did not make it clear what those targets are. The Minister stated that: “an all-island suicide prevention action plan has been developed and agreed.” Is it possible for Members to see the details of that plan? Mr McGimpsey: There is a close working relationship between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic on the issue of suicide prevention. The Member is aware that we have a suicide prevention action plan in Northern Ireland. The action plan is managed by an implementation body, which is chaired by Colm Donaghy. That body includes interested parties, including bereaved families. We share best practice and are holding ongoing discussions with the Irish Republic, which is facing similar challenges. Discussions are also ongoing with our counterparts in England, Scotland and Wales. I am happy to share any detail that I have because it is important that we get the message out as best we can. Therefore, I am happy to write to the Member. Mr Deputy Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on the December monitoring outcome. The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr P Robinson): The following statement regarding on spending in 2007-08 after the conclusion of the December monitoring round is made on behalf of the Executive. The December round is the third of the 2007-08 financial year. Members will by now be well aware of the role and purpose of the in-year process. It is, in simple terms, intended to help the Executive to make the most of the resources at their disposal. The first stage in that process is the identification by Departments of resources allocated in previous Budget processes, which, for a variety of reasons, will not be spent in the financial year. In overview, reduced requirements declared by Departments in the monitoring round amount to £107·4 million in respect of current expenditure, and £132·3 million in respect of capital investment. The level of reduced requirements declared in the round is much greater than the levels that were identified at the corresponding time in previous years, and the amount declared to date for this financial year is some 12% greater than the totality of all reduced requirements that were declared last year. That position firmly indicates that Departments have robustly reviewed their in-year financial position and have sought to declare reduced requirements at a time when the Executive can make best use of those resources, rather than simply allowing the amounts to fall as year-end underspend, as has often been the case in the past. That robust assessment of in-year requirements also indicates that my Executive colleagues are working to improve the level and quality of financial management in Departments. I commend them and encourage them to build on that. I cannot overstate the importance of embedding the highest standards of financial management in the public sector. In that context, I am grateful to the Committee for Finance and Personnel for the valuable and positive contribution it made to the issue last week, as part of its response to the draft Budget. I look forward to working closely with the Committee on that issue. However, although acknowledging the improving position on reduced requirements, I must also register a note of caution regarding another aspect of financial management — particularly in the context of the parallel Budget process. It must be recognised that the amounts identified as reduced requirements in this monitoring round represent allocations that were made to Departments in previous Budget processes in response to bids from those Departments. Although I recognise that some of that reduced need may have arisen as a consequence of greater-than-planned efficiency in Departments, the more significant factors are that Departments overstated their original resource needs or have not delivered the planned level of public services underpinning those Budget bids. Members, and my colleagues in the Executive, will agree that neither of the above situations is acceptable, and I must bear that in mind as we consider the final Budget proposals for the next three years. It will take the form of a robust challenge to, and scrutiny of, departmental spending proposals while seeking to develop further a culture of delivery, with appropriate mechanisms to monitor and drive performance. Details of all of the reduced requirements declared by Departments are set out in Table 1 of my statement. Against that level of reduced requirements, Departments have submitted current expenditure bids of £82 million and capital investment bids amounting to £134·5 million. I now turn to the position regarding current expenditure. The Executive are in a position, uniquely, to address all of the bids that have been submitted by Departments. I do not propose to explain each bid in detail; however, this monitoring round has allowed significant resources to be allocated to priority services such as education, health and regional development, while addressing other important issues raised by Departments. For the Department of Education, the main component of its £15·3 million allocation will allow it to meet the additional costs, some £12 million, arising from the classroom assistants’ dispute. The allocation of £17 million to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will allow it to allocate £14 million towards addressing costs associated with the review of public administration, which would otherwise fall to be met during the Budget period. That allocation will remove the need for the Department, over the Budget period, to divert resources away from other areas to address the RPA pressure. For the Department for Regional Development, additional resources of £28·5 million will allow it to address a number of issues, most notably, the ongoing costs of the water Go-co and investment in roads structural maintenance. With respect to capital investment, the Executive have agreed to allocate £74·1 million to Departments. That sum includes £22·7 million to the Department for Regional Development to meet the increased land costs associated with the A1 Beech Hill to Cloghogue road scheme and to enable completion of the Newry to Dundalk road scheme. Almost £50 million has been allocated to the Department for Social Development for a range of social housing initiatives, including the co-ownership scheme, the warm homes scheme and the social housing development programme. That money will enable the Department to achieve its target of starting 1,500 new social houses this year, and, under the co-ownership scheme, assist 525 applicants into home ownership. The consequence of the level of reduced requirements and bids met is that, for current expenditure, the level of planned over-commitment is now £63·5 million. That is in line with the Department’s target of £50 million at the conclusion of the February 2008 monitoring round and represents satisfactory progress in the management of that key issue. 11.45 am With regard to capital investment, there are now unallocated resources of some £57 million. That reflects the fact that many Departments have identified slippage in planned projects and the simple reality that it is difficult to accelerate other capitals projects in order to consume those resources at a relatively late stage in the financial year. That position emphasises the point that I have made about the need for continued improvements in financial and, indeed, project management. All unspent resources will continue to be available for carry forward for the Executive’s use in the future. The final opportunity to review the in-year position will be February 2008. However, the February monitoring round offers limited opportunity to address issues due to the timing of the round and the constraints imposed by the spring Supplementary Estimates position. In conclusion, therefore, I reiterate the good work that Departments have done to robustly assess their in-year requirements. I am confident that through that — aligned with my Department’s ongoing work to improve the level and quality of financial management across all Departments — we will see better financial performance at all levels in those Departments. I commend the December monitoring position to the Assembly. The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel (Mr McLaughlin): Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement. It is a positive outcome. I extend my congratulations to all concerned. The fact that the Minister is in a position to meet all bids shows that Ministers have responded to the general encouragement, supported by their respective scrutiny Committees, to ensure that capital and resource bids are realistically maxed to capacity and the ability to deploy and use those financial resources. Locally elected Ministers have clearly demonstrated that they have taken a sustainable and robust approach to the matter. I support the Minister’s comments on that improvement and the need for it to continue. On Monday 25 June 2007, during his statement on the June monitoring round, the Minister stated that: “The optimum would be to reduce the underspend to close to 1%.” — [Official Report, Vol 23, No 1 p 4, col 1]. The Committee for Finance and Personnel has made recommendations on that as part of its recent report on the draft Budget. How confident is the Minister that that can be achieved for 2007-08? What actions are his officials taking towards that? Mr P Robinson: I welcome the Committee Chairperson’s remarks. Although one swallow does not make a summer, the evidence shows that the devolved Ministers have been more focused and have kept their eye on the ball. They have recognised that for the money to be of value to the whole of Northern Ireland, it is necessary to identify any reduced requirements as early as possible. The fact that that is the highest level that there has been at this point in the year, and that all the bids have been met, indicates that Ministers have done the job that the Assembly, during previous debates, quite rightly directed their attention towards. With regard to the goal of an underspend that is close to 1%, all that my departmental officials can do is examine the evidence that they receive from officials in other Departments, which they monitor regularly. If the information that my Department has received from other Departments is accurate, that target should be realised. Of course, that will require Ministers and their officials to continue to monitor closely any prospective reduced requirement so that it can be used in February 2008, so that we do not end up with a massive underspend at the end of the year and will not have to go through the ordeal of having to bid it back from Treasury. The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel (Mr Storey): I welcome the Minister’s statement. In particular, I welcome his comments about the Committee’s work, which he said was helpful, valuable and positive. The Committee’s report on the draft Budget emphasised the importance of regular Statutory Committee scrutiny of the monitoring process and, in particular, the need for Departments to provide Committees with the necessary information in a timely and accessible manner. Will the Minister confirm that there is a standard format for departmental monitoring submissions to the Department of Finance and Personnel? Moreover, will the Minister comment on the possibility of his officials working with all Departments to agree a standard format for providing Committees with financial information to meet their needs? Mr P Robinson: I thank the Deputy Chairman of the Committee for Finance and Personnel for his comments. There has consistently been, in the early stage of each financial year, a process whereby my officials have issued guidance to each Department on setting out the timetable for the in-year monitoring process and required inputs from each of those Departments. I, of course, would be happy for my officials to work with Departments — and, indeed, the Committee for Finance and Personnel — to develop a standard approach to facilitate Committee considerations and scrutiny of those inputs into that important process. Therefore, I support the comments of the Deputy Chairman of the Committee for Finance and Personnel. Mr Beggs: I welcome the Minister’s assessment that his colleagues are working to improve the level and quality of financial management in their Departments. It is important that the block grant is not returned to the Treasury at the end of the year and that it is put to good use in Northern Ireland. Is the Minister confident that no moneys will be returned to the Treasury at the end of the year and that moneys will have been usefully allocated and accounted for? I notice that, in respect of the review of non-cash requirements, the largest single item — that of £17·9 million — was returned by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. As the term “non-cash requirements” does not provide much information, will the Minister provide some additional information about that matter? Is the Minister confident that the areas of increased expenditure that were included in the draft Budget can be effectively managed to indicate confidence in its future management? Mr P Robinson: If I heard the Member correctly, he asked — in the early part of his question — whether I could offer some type of guarantee that no money would be handed back to the Treasury. There will never be a year when no money will be held back, unless a disaster occurs and we overspend. The sanctions for overspending are much greater than those for underspending. If we underspend, we can bid to have those moneys returned to us. We must ensure that as little money as possible is returned to the Treasury as a result of underspending and make certain that we get that money back by ensuring that we have EYF from the Treasury on a planned basis. We have managed to do that for the next three years as part of the Budget process. The Member for East Antrim made particular reference to the £17·9 million that was returned by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. My Department has carried out a review of non-cash requirements that resulted in reduced requirements with regard to provisions, impairments and cost of capital in a number of business areas. There is a sum of £5·5 million of non-cash easement from Invest Northern Ireland; £5·9 million from central administration; £6·4 million from Harland and Wolff’s asbestosis provision; and £300,000 from depreciation reduction. Mr A Maginness: I too welcome the Minister’s statement. I particularly note the £49·7 million that has been allocated to the Department for Social Development, which will permit the completion of 1,500 homes. I particularly welcome that allocation because extra money was given to that Department in the October monitoring round. That should enable the Department to reach its target, and that is to be welcomed. As the Minister will probably be aware, the warm homes scheme is oversubscribed, and the allocation will help to ease the pressure. Furthermore, it will also be of great assistance to the co-ownership scheme. In effect, the co-ownership scheme pays for itself in that receipts go back to the Department of Finance and Personnel. The statement is good news. Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Maginness, will you come to the question, please? Mr Maginness: I hope that the Minister will be equally generous to the Department in the forthcoming Budget by increasing the funding to areas where it is most needed — in particular, social housing, so that the target of starting to build at least 1,500 social houses can be met. Mr P Robinson: I do not mind the Member going on at length if he is making supportive comments. I hope that the allocations that have been made, in the October monitoring round and in this monitoring round, confirm the priority that the Executive have, as a whole, given to social housing. We are all aware of the growing waiting lists and the need for social housing. The Executive have made this issue a priority in the draft Programme for Government, the Investment Strategy for Northern Ireland and the draft Budget. The targets are there, and they are there to be met. I am glad that this allocation will allow the Minister for Social Development to achieve the kind of figures that Mr Maginness has outlined. In addition to the figure allocated for social housing, there is also the benefit from co-ownership for affordable housing. I hope that Mr Maginness will recognise that the priorities that have been set in the monitoring rounds indicate the kind of priorities that the Executive will set in the Budget. He will have to wait for only a very short period for that, and I hope that he will find that this monitoring round is a harbinger of the Budget. Mr Deputy Speaker: I remind Members to be brief. I know that all Ministers love to hear flattering comments, but 11 Members still have to speak, and I have no guarantee that all their remarks will be flattering. I call Mr Ford from the long list of Members in front of me. Mr S Wilson: He is never flattering. Mr Ford: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take that endorsement from the Chair with enthusiasm. I thank the Minister for the statement, and, in purely financial terms, it recognises significant achievement this year. However, the Minister has outlined three possible reasons for the release of funding: greater than planned efficiency in Departments — which he appears to think is the least important factor; the overstating of resource needs by Departments; and the fact that Departments have not delivered the planned level of public services. Given that every other debate in the Chamber concerns the need for an increased level of public services, will the Minister give Members an assessment of what he thinks the balance is between the two key factors? Is it more a case of the overstatement of requirements or of failure to meet planned needs? In particular, does he recognise that it is clear from Committee reports that a significant increase in the level of public services is required across a range of services? Mr P Robinson: The Member should firstly recognise that the role of an opposition politician — and he very much tries to mould himself as the Leader of the Opposition — is not always to oppose; at times, it is to support. He should perhaps take a lesson out of the playbook of David Cameron, who recognises that, at times, he has to support the Government in their plans. He does not always have to introduce “however” into his remarks. My statement is a good-news statement. We must recognise that Ministers have been operating under a direct rule Budget. The expenditure that Ministers have been given is not what they determined to be the appropriate expenditure. They are working off the figures produced under direct rule, which obviously will change when we have our own Budget. 12.00 noon We do look for greater efficiency, and it is obvious that we want the highest level of public services that our resources allow — I made that point in my statement. Indeed, there are indications that there was too much fat in certain areas of that Budget. However, the Member will note that with regard to the allocations that I have made, in virtually every case in which Ministers gave money back to the centre, I gave it back to them for another purpose, so that they could use it for their own departmental priorities. Mr Weir: I wonder whether the leader of the Alliance Party models himself more on Ming Campbell than David Cameron. Mr McCallister: Look what happened to him. Mr Weir: I will not waste time by lavishing praise on the Minister’s excellent statement. He has made a significant announcement on capital allocation of more than £49 million to the Department for Social Development. Will he tell the House what the total allocation for social housing has been in this year’s monitoring rounds and what signal that sends out about the priority he attaches to that area of expenditure? Mr P Robinson: My best recollection is that approximately £23 million was allocated in the October monitoring round. The Member can quickly do the mathematics for himself by adding on the amount allocated in the December monitoring round. As a rule of thumb, £100,000 is usually equivalent to one new housing start — and the Member can do the maths again. In considering social housing, or many other areas of need, it is clear that what cannot be achieved through the Budget process can often be augmented by the in-year monitoring process — and while that cannot be factored in at the initial stage, it is always of assistance to us in meeting the targets that we have set. However, as far as social housing is concerned, I repeat the commitment that I made to the House when I told the leader of the SDLP that I was a signed-up member of Margaret Ritchie’s club as regards obtaining the funds for the Department for Social Development. I also said that we would examine the work of the capital realisation task force in order to augment the draft Budget statement by the time the Budget is presented. Mr F McCann: A LeasCheann Comhairle, I welcome the Minister’s allocation of an additional £73 million to the Department for Social Development for social housing, the warm homes scheme and co-ownership in the October and December monitoring rounds. Considerable additional investment will be required over many years if we are to deal effectively with the shortage of affordable social housing and the mess that was left by direct rule Ministers. The Department for Social Development and the Housing Executive have said that no new houses will be built next year. Given that dire prediction, will the Minister comment on the impact that the Department for Social Development’s £18·6 million underspend will have on the social housing newbuild programme? Mr P Robinson: Let me be clear. I would be very disappointed if having allocated tens of millions to a Department it could not build new houses with that money. I had a discussion with the Minister for Social Development yesterday on whether to calculate the number of houses built on the basis of starts or completions. That is an issue that the Executive must consider also. The man or woman in the street would prefer that houses are built and that people move in, rather than being told that allocations have been made or that tender agreements have been signed. To me, completions are much more important overall. The targets that were set in the draft Programme for Government, the investment strategy and the draft Budget were based on completions: perhaps we can move in that direction. The target of 2,000 affordable social houses each year has been set. I believe that it is a minimum target, which, if possible, I would like to exceed. Although some “cranking-up” may need to be done to get to that level, the target has been set by the Executive, and that is what the Executive will be judged by. Therefore, it will be up to the Executive as a whole to ensure that the resources are there. It will be up to the Minister to deliver on the ground. We will all be judged on the basis of whether we meet those targets. Mr Hamilton: There has been much concentration on, and concern expressed about, the legacy of the level of overcommitment that has been inherited from direct rule. Will the Minister explain what consequence the improving financial management that he spoke of in his statement has for the setting of the level of overcommitment in the Budget? Mr P Robinson: In response to the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, I said that one swallow does not necessarily mean that we are entering summer, and the current situation does not indicate that we are. If that trend were to continue, there would be a lower level of underspend at the end of the year. Therefore, in the draft Budget, we have been prudent in reducing the degree of overcommitment. We have taken the right steps, and we must be cautious. We will know more clearly at the February monitoring round and at the end of the financial year whether that trend has continued. I predict that the reason that the Executive have managed to achieve a larger level of underspend in the early part of the financial year is because the devolved Ministers have focused on the issue. Mr McCallister: I welcome the Minister’s statement, and I welcome the money for the investment in roads structural maintenance. Maintenance of our roads has been underfunded, so the investment is welcome. I also welcome the money for the Beech Hill to Cloghogue part of the A1 scheme. The Minister will, of course, be aware that the rising costs of that scheme are the consequence of increased land values. In the need to improve the project management, what measures has he taken to ensure that that does not happen again? Mr P Robinson: It will be a matter for the Minister for Regional Development to make the appropriate judgement on the likely costs, and his officials will do that. No Minister could be blamed for the variable land costs, which have increased significantly over the past few years. Particularly over the past year, land and property prices have increased significantly and neither the Minister nor his officials could have predicted that level of increase. However, it is not the current Minister who is responsible because the figures were set much earlier, during the period of direct rule. The trends in the land and property markets must be taken into account and the best possible judgement must be made, but no one can predict whether the market will rise or fall at a particular level. One must make one’s best judgement at the time. At least we have been able to address that issue in the in-year monitoring round, so, happily, it will not hold back the scheme, and we can proceed as planned. Mr Durkan: First, I ask the Minister to take the flattery as read. Has the Minister identified any pattern and form in capital slippage, not only in particular Departments, but in areas that have been tested for PFI consideration? Has there been greater delivery and less slippage in projects that are being assisted by the Strategic Investment Board (SIB) than in those that are being taken forward by the Departments without SIB involvement? On a number of points, the tables indicate that there have been allocations as contributions to pension funds. Has the Minister carried out an overall health check on the state of public-sector pension funds to ensure that they are not faced with serial difficulties? Will the Minister also explain for what purpose the subsidy of Northern Ireland Water is being used? The Executive have said that they will not privatise the water service, but Northern Ireland Water is increasingly using private contractors. Does that money go to Northern Ireland Water, or through Northern Ireland Water to the contractors? Mr P Robinson: It would be more appropriate to put some of those questions to the Ministers who have direct ministerial responsibility for the subjects concerned. The Member asked me whether there are any patterns to capital slippage. To some extent, when a Finance Minister receives money from Departments, few questions are asked. However, perhaps my Department should examine the patterns more closely. When capital schemes have not proceeded, it has always been the standard practice of Government to recoup the money. It is not simply a matter of whether the Strategic Investment Board or PFI schemes have been at fault, although I will try to judge to what extent any slippage is tied up with those. However, the Member knows that legal and planning issues and regulations — particularly for roads — can cause schemes to slip. Indeed, priorities often change when one Minister replaces another. Therefore, there is a variety of reasons behind that level of slippage. The 2007-08 Budget allocations were set prior to the agreement of Northern Ireland Water’s strategic business plan in March 2007, when it was agreed that the residual subsidy requirement of £29·9 million would be considered at the in-year monitoring stage. My Department’s action is consistent with that agreement. The bid of £9·4 million is to meet the remaining subsidy required by Northern Ireland Water for the full delivery of its strategic business plan. The Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure (Mr McElduff): Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. My question relates specifically to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, and I refer the Minister to the table on page 4 of his statement. Members of the Committee — not least Mr Shannon, who is in the Chamber today — have expressed their disappointment at the amount of money intended for the establishment of an Ulster-Scots academy that has been returned. Can the Minister offer any guarantee or assurance to Members that the money can be recovered when the project is at a greater state of readiness? Mr P Robinson: The Chairperson of the Committee may be in a better position than me to deal with several of those issues. I share his disappointment that the scheme has not proceeded. However, the Minister has done the right thing by identifying as early as possible that the project is not ready so that the money can be used elsewhere. The scheme will not become any less beneficial simply because it cannot begin now. Undoubtedly, the Minister will make a new bid for the scheme when he considers that it is ready to go ahead. However, it is up to the Minister and his Committee to examine why the scheme has not been able to proceed at this time. Mr McQuillan: Will the Minister indicate how his allocation to DSD will allow it to provide more social housing this year? He has touched on that subject, but I am interested in his response. Mr P Robinson: The figures in my statement indicate that the additional amount will enable 1,500 social houses to be built this year. That money will also allow the number of houses in the co-ownership scheme to increase to 525. Together, that achieves the target of providing over 2,000 social and affordable houses in the year. Even at this stage, that exceeds the target that the Executive set in the draft Budget, draft investment strategy and draft Programme for Government. It will be up to the Executive, when they examine the final versions of those documents, to assess whether that trend can be sustained. 12.15 pm Mrs I Robinson: For fear of being accused of flattery, I will simply welcome the statement as a whole. The Minister will be aware that the Enler project in Ballybeen was the subject of yesterday’s Adjournment debate. Will he indicate whether in-year bids were made for the project, and, if so, what are his views on it? Mr P Robinson: I confirm that neither of the Departments involved made a bid in respect of the Enler project during the December monitoring round. Given the position that I have outlined, the likelihood is that resources would have been allocated to the relevant Department if such a bid had been made. On 12 December 2007, my Department received a business case from the Department for Social Development — the lead Department on the project — which was also on behalf of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. On 20 December 2007, my officials raised some queries about the business case, and both Departments have now responded to those queries. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety responded on 9 January 2008, and the Department for Social Development responded on 14 January 2008. My officials will continue to examine the business case, and it will be up to those Departments to make any bids. Perhaps it is worth pointing out that we are in a unique position in that some capital is still available — Ministers can still make bids with the hope of having them met, provided that the business cases for their projects meet the necessary criteria. Therefore, both Ministers may wish to consider their position in the light of where we now stand as regards capital allocations. Mr Ross: I note from the Minister’s statement that there are reduced requirements of £132·3 million in respect of capital investment, and that total bids allocated for capital investment amount to £74·1 million. That may cause confusion, particularly among the public. Will the Minister elaborate on why bids were not met if the money was available? Mr P Robinson: The bids that were not met fell into three categories. There was a bid from the Department for Regional Development relating to funding for Northern Ireland Water. The issue was simply whether the organisation needed that funding during this financial year. Our view was that it did not need the funding, although we nodded quietly in the direction of the Minister for Regional Development to indicate that if the funding were required during this financial year, we could address it in the February monitoring round. We do not think that the funding will be needed during this financial year, therefore, the allocation was not met. Bids from the Department for Social Development related to redevelopment land. Those issues are being dealt with in the wider sense by the capital realisation task force. Our view was that the issues should be resolved by the task force before we get involved. The final bid was from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in relation to Forkhill army barracks. The issue was that we had not agreed a business case for the project, and there are still some policy issues arising from it. Until those issues are resolved, we will not agree to the bid. If the matters are agreed, funding could be addressed in the February monitoring round. Mr S Wilson: It is always important to flatter one’s deputy leader, so I will begin by saying that I welcome the fact that he has provided enough money for 700 new social houses, taking into account the previous monitoring round and this one. I hope that the Minister for Social Development and the housing associations will follow through with quick delivery of those projects. I am surprised that, despite his regular pleas of poverty in the Chamber, the Minister of Health is returning £17 million of his budget at this stage of the year. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. Furthermore, despite the Department of Education’s failing to deliver the schools that were promised across Northern Ireland — including one in Island Magee in my constituency — the Minister of Education has returned nearly 10% of her capital budget, which amounts to £30 million. That is a regular occurrence with the Department of Education. How rigorously is the Minister of Finance and Personnel testing capital bids from Departments that regularly hand back substantial amounts of money — not just once but nearly every year — to ensure that they are not overbidding, which deprives other Departments of the money, as a safeguard in case they get round to spending the money? Mr P Robinson: I take the unusual position of defending some of my ministerial colleagues. The Member must not forget that the allocations were made on the basis of budgets which were settled by direct rule Ministers. Although money was handed back, the Member will see that, in return, I agreed to provide money for other schemes put forward by the Ministers concerned. However, there has traditionally been underspend in all those Departments during the course of financial years. Ministers are responsible for ensuring that, if money is allocated for public programmes — which are very important — they are delivered on time. As far as education is concerned, during the process of bilaterals — I should not be turning my back on you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Deputy Speaker: I was reluctant to mention it. Mr P Robinson: During the period of bilaterals that Ministers engaged in, we robustly questioned — I am hesitant to say “cross-examined” — all the Ministers on their ability to spend the money being allocated to their Departments. That was done particularly in light of the type of evidence that the Chairperson of the Committee of Education has produced, which shows that there has been a history of underspend in some Departments — particularly in capital schemes. That is an important factor, and in time we will learn whether devolved Ministers are different from their direct rule counterparts, which I hope they are, and are able to deliver projects as planned. It is important to emphasise that if resources are allocated to one Department but not used, another Department that could use those resources is being denied them. Mr Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has arranged to meet immediately upon the lunchtime suspension. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The sitting was suspended at 12.23 pm. On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) — 2.00 pm Charities Bill Second Stage The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie): I beg to move That the Second Stage of the Charities Bill [NIA 9/07] be agreed. The provisions of the Bill include a series of measures that will create a new regulatory framework for the charity sector in Northern Ireland. I acknowledge the valuable and significant work carried out by charitable organisations — large and small, regional and local — operating in Northern Ireland. Their contribution to a diverse range of social, cultural, sporting and religious activities is important. It is vital that we seek to provide a structure and framework that protects and supports the charitable sector, encourages good governance and, most importantly, provides public confidence in charitable giving. As Members will be aware, the charity sector in Northern Ireland has not, to date, been overly regulated, and it could be said that our approach has been characterised by a light touch. We have not had a register of charities or a charity commission — as exists in England and Wales. However, the environment in Great Britain, the Republic of Ireland and internationally has changed. The Department for Social Development (DSD) has carried out extensive public consultation on a range of proposals, which fed into the Charities Bill. We received numerous responses to the proposals — most of which were favourable. The Department has sought to take on board issues about which people expressed concerns. The Bill provides for a new, more detailed definition of charities for Northern Ireland — based on that which operates in England and Wales, but with added emphasis on the promotion of peace and good community relations. That will provide clarity and reflect a more modern view of the work in which charities are engaged. It is proposed to put in place a strong public-benefit test that states that no purpose will be presumed to be for the public benefit. It will not be enough that an organisation can be considered charitable by nature of their activities; they will be required to demonstrate that in terms of public benefit. It is felt that a strong public-interest test is important to maintaining public confidence in charities. The Bill also establishes a new regulatory body, known as the charity commission for Northern Ireland. That organisation will have a chief charity commissioner, a deputy and three to five commissioners. It will increase public trust and confidence in charities and promote compliance by the charity sector. The Bill will establish a compulsory Northern Ireland register of charities, which will include all charities that operate in Northern Ireland. The register will include details of charities, and it will be available for public inspection. The new charity commission for Northern Ireland will work with other regulators on a form of information sharing for those charities working across the islands and on an all-island basis. All charities will be required to produce annual financial statements in a specified form relative to their income levels and supply those to the charity commission for Northern Ireland. They will also be required to submit a report on their activities during the year, demonstrating their ongoing benefit. That is most important. The commission will seek to ensure that the process of producing the returns and submitting them will be as practical as possible, without diluting the regulatory requirements. In respect of the regulation of public charitable collections, the Bill does away with the artificial distinction between street and house-to-house collections. It brings all public charitable collections under a common umbrella and deals with all collections for charitable, philanthropic or benevolent purposes. It will establish a process whereby any organisation, whether a registered charity or not, that wishes to conduct public collections will first be required to seek a licence from the charity commission, which will entitle it to carry out collections as a fit organisation. For each actual collection, a permit will also be required. Initially, that permit will also be sought from the commission, but, in future, it may be obtained from local authorities. That will ensure accountability and give an assurance to the public, who will be able to check with the commission whether a collection has been authorised. The Bill will also introduce changes to the cy-pres scheme, which is a legal process that winds up charities or changes their purpose. That scheme is currently dealt with through the court system, and it is proposed that that responsibility will become that of the new charity commission, thus saving considerable expense for charitable organisations. Finally, the Bill will introduce a new legal entity for charities, to be called charitable incorporated organisations. Its purpose is to avoid the need for charities that wish to benefit from incorporation to register as companies, thus avoiding the need for them to undergo dual regulation with the charity commission and Companies House. The Bill contains many positives, both for the charitable sector and the general public, and I trust that the legislation will have the support of all parties. It is worth noting that the legislation has the support of all my Executive colleagues. The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development (Mr Hilditch): The most overwhelming reason for progressing the Charities Bill is our need for legislation to modernise charity law. The Government need to create a modern legal framework that will support and encourage a vibrant and diverse third sector — a sector that plays such an important role in the lives of people in Northern Ireland. It provides vital services, strengthens communities and is often an advocate for the marginalised in our society. The third sector has, for some considerable time, been calling for the reform of charity law. It wants registration, regulation, supervision and support. It is to be hoped that this Bill will provide all those things. The Bill also presents an opportunity for the Assembly to give legislative recognition to the important role that charities play in Northern Ireland. It is estimated that the Province’s third sector has an annual turnover of £614 million and that it employs almost 4·5% of Northern Ireland’s workforce. That should give Members some idea of the extent of the voluntary and community sector’s contribution to society in Northern Ireland, and, indeed, to its economy. I do not wish to go into too much detail on the Bill’s specific provisions. As Members will be aware, the Committee for Social Development will conduct its own detailed scrutiny. It will form a view on the Bill’s specifics in due course. However, the Committee believes that the Bill confirms the Government’s commitment to the growing importance of charities in our society. I hope that the legislation will allow charities to keep pace with the modern social landscape, while ensuring that they are accountable to the public. The Bill provides a framework within which charities can thrive and continue to provide an excellent service to society by: providing statutory definitions of “charity” and “charitable purpose”; establishing a charity commission for Northern Ireland and a charity tribunal for Northern Ireland; creating a register of charities for Northern Ireland; introducing the charitable incorporated organisations, which is a new form of charitable body; and setting out new rules on fund-raising and collections. To put the definition of “charity” and “charitable purpose” on a statutory footing is of utmost importance. At present, there is no statutory definition of a charity — the legal concept has been developed through case law. The public must be confident that all charities have been able to demonstrate that they provide public benefit. The results of the Department for Social Development’s consultation on the draft legislation in 2006 included suggestions for what any definition of a charity should include. That is something that the Committee will want to consider. The establishment of a charity commission and a charity tribunal for Northern Ireland is most welcome. The commission will operate a register of charities, and it will perform regulatory and advisory functions. It will also allow charities to demonstrate their legitimacy and effectiveness and assure the public that, administratively, those organisations are sound. The charity tribunal will hear appeals against some types of decisions that the commission will make. I imagine that the Committee will want to consider the cost and length of the appeals process when looking at clause 14, because we do not want the process to be onerous and inflexible for smaller charities. There is currently no legislation for charities in Northern Ireland. However, the Bill provides for the establishment of a publicly accessible register of charities. The process of registration will require charities to provide specific documents and information to the commission. In considering that process, the Committee will wish to ensure an adequate balance between the need for accountability and transparency, and the need to reduce the regulatory burden about which charities sometimes complain. It must be remembered that the legislation will apply to organisations of varying sizes. Some of the smaller organisations have no paid staff, and proportionality is essential. The Bill provides a replacement for the current licensing system for street and house-to-house collections. The proposed new system to govern the collection of money for charity will ensure strict regulation so that the public, as well as the charity and the collectors, are protected. At present, the activities of professional fund-raisers are not closely regulated in Northern Ireland. The Bill makes provision for the introduction of controls on fund-raising for charities that use professional fund-raisers and commercial concerns. Professional fund-raisers must be more accountable to the charities on whose behalf they collect. The Committee is grateful to officials from the Department for Social Development for their briefing on the principles and detail of the Bill, and thanks them. The Committee looks forward to scrutinising the Bill in detail and, as I said earlier, I do not wish to talk about the specifics of each provision in advance of that scrutiny. It is a large and highly complex Bill, and scrutiny will require much time and effort, not only from the Committee but from the Department and from those organisations and individuals who wish to provide evidence, whether oral or written. Looking ahead, the success of the proposed legislation, which provides only a broad framework, will depend on the introduction of further regulations and guidance. That, too, will be given careful consideration by the Committee. Mr Brady: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for outlining the principles of the Bill, which is welcome. However, it is a complex and technical piece of legislation, with approximately 184 clauses, and it will have an impact across the community. I am sure that any difficulties will be dealt with as the Bill comes before the Committee for Social Development. I understand that the consultation process will begin in the coming week, with advertisements in the local press. Moreover, organisations such as NICVA (Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action) will wish to consult their members. The consultation process normally lasts approximately 30 days, and I ask the Minister whether that period could, if necessary, be extended to encompass all of the groups that may wish to respond. Go raibh maith agat. Mr McCallister: I declare an interest as a member of the Young Farmers Clubs of Ulster, which is a registered charity. I pay tribute, as did Mr Hilditch, to the work of charities, large and small; they give so much to society. Everyone, whether they are making a financial contribution to a charity or working with it, must have confidence in that charity, and confidence that money is seen to be properly and appropriately used, with every penny accounted for. That is why the Bill is important and why it has gained so much support. It is, therefore, important that all Members support the Bill. The Ulster Unionist Party is more than pleased to support the Minister and the proposed legislation. Mr A Maginness: I congratulate the Minister on bringing the Bill to the House, and I welcome the opportunity to speak on its basic principles. The measure to regulate charities in Northern Ireland is long overdue. In many respects, charities have never been properly regulated. Therefore, we welcome the introduction of the new regulatory context in which charities will operate. 2.15 pm Genuine charities have nothing to fear from the legislation. I call on the Minister to reassure any bona fide charities that they should welcome, rather than fear, the Bill. They should see it as a support for their good work, and it should reassure members of the public who donate to genuine charities. Many people fear change because they are used to the old way of doing things. In the new context that the Bill will create, it will be important to support those charities that have done so much good and valuable work for people throughout Northern Ireland. As Mr Hilditch said, charities raise some £600 million a year, which is an enormous amount of money for this part of Ireland. That represents a huge challenge for people who raise funds for individual charities. The establishment of a charity commission is an important element of the Bill. Such commissions have, of course, been established in other parts of these islands. It is therefore crucial that we examine those models to ascertain whether we can use some aspects in our own commission. It is important that the Bill establishes a compulsory register that will comprise all charities that operate throughout Northern Ireland. That register must be open to public scrutiny. It is imperative to harmonise our charity laws with those of the rest of this island, given that we work on an interconnected basis. Therefore, one set of laws regulating charities must support the other and not be contradictory. We should try to harmonise the charity laws of the various jurisdictions of these islands. The regulation of public charitable collections is another crucial — and welcome — aspect of the Bill. The distinction between street and household collections should be abolished in order that both are regarded simply as public charitable collections. Such a move will reassure the ordinary person in the street or in the home that they are contributing to a properly regulated body. I welcome the changes that will be made to the cy-pres scheme, and it is important that we consider those carefully. Cy-pres refers to the point at which a charity has reached the end of its current registered purpose. I particularly welcome the fact that responsibility for cy-pres will move to the new charity commission and that the matter will not be dealt with in the courts. The courts have served us well, but cy-pres is an expensive process, and it is important that charities be given that facility so that they can achieve less expensively and more easily their aims as a charity after their current formation is no longer relevant to the special circumstances in which we live today. I welcome the Bill, and I offer my support and that of my party. Ms Lo: In common with the other Members who have spoken, I welcome the Bill. However, I have a major concern about the provision on the designation of religious charities. Clause 166 states that the charity commission: “may, on receiving an application from the charity trustees of a charity, make a designation under this section in relation to the charity.” It appears that, following the raising of some concerns, DSD officials met representatives of the main Churches and, as a result, the Minister agreed to amend the Bill to include provision for “designated religious charity” status. The Bill stipulates that the charity commission must not make such a designation unless certain conditions are satisfied. Two of those conditions are that the charity: “has been established in Northern Ireland for at least 10 years —” and — “has a membership of at least 1000 persons who are…resident in Northern Ireland”. I am afraid that that provision will have a detrimental effect on small rural churches and on faiths other than the main Christian denominations. The long period of establishment required by the Bill will bar many new faith communities from obtaining designated religious charity status in Northern Ireland for many years. For example, the Belfast Chinese Christian Church in south Belfast has been in existence for less than 10 years, so it will not be granted religious charity status. The Jewish, Muslim and Baha’i communities may have established their places of worship for longer than the required 10 years, but their membership will not be as many as 1,000; again, they will not be granted designated religious charity status by the Bill. I understand that DSD has conducted a screening exercise on the proposals of the Bill, in accordance with section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. As the public consultation on the Bill did not identify any issues affecting any section 75 groups, DSD did not consider it necessary to prepare a full equality impact assessment. I also understand that the Department’s legal advisers did not believe that the Bill would be discriminatory against any section of the community. I cannot agree with that view. The criteria for designated religious charity status will have a negative impact on all the newer and smaller faith communities in Northern Ireland. That must be a concern for the Assembly in being fair to those small communities, which may already be suffering from social isolation and find that their faith offers them emotional and practical support at a time when they most need it. I urge the Minister to amend the conditions of clause 166 and to reduce both the duration and membership requirements, so as not to discriminate against particular sections of society. Mr Craig: As a member of the Social Development Committee, I broadly welcome the Charities Bill, which will introduce an integrated system of registration and regulation, including control of charitable fund-raising and supervision and support for registered charities. The changing nature of charities gives rise to concern about the lack of effective regulation. There is no statutory definition of “charity” in Northern Ireland, and there is no legislation specifically governing the administrative framework of charities. That is unlike the rest of the UK, and so I can see the need to introduce the Charities Bill, which will provide definitions of “charity” and “charitable purpose”, establish a charity commission, create a register of charities, provide for a new form of charitable body and deal with regulation of charities and public charitable contributions. However, we must ensure that the operational costs and the number of staff involved are kept to an absolute minimum, because it is vital that the Charities Bill does not give birth to another over-bureaucratic quango that will cost the public purse an absolute fortune. I agree with Anna Lo in that I am alarmed by some of the criteria that the Bill contains on “designated religious charity” status. The issue of how long a church or religious organisation has to have been established in Northern Ireland needs to be investigated by the Committee, because the length of time proposed in the Bill is much too long. More alarming is the membership criterion of 1,000. That will certainly suit most of the main denominations in Northern Ireland, but, unfortunately, it discriminates against what can be called independent, or congregation-based, faiths or Churches. One was referred to earlier, but there are hundreds, if not thousands, of those little churches dotted all across the Province. We need to take that concern on board. I was pleased to receive support from both the Chairman and a lot of the members when I raised those issues in the Committee, and I was also pleased that they agreed that, where possible, the views of the independent and congregational churches will be sought during the public consultation process. It is vital that we have their views, and I hope that we will be able to change those clauses. I am sure that the Minister will take those concerns on board, and I fully support the Bill. Mrs I Robinson: I am not on the Committee, and I missed some of the Minister’s statement, but I would like the Minister to clarify whether the charity commission will have the power to look at charities that claim that the bulk of their public donations, such as those for health-related issues, go mainly to research, only for the balancing of the books to reveal that most of it goes on administration? Will the commission have the teeth either to pull those charities in and sort the issue out, or to withdraw their charitable status? Mr Speaker: Mr Brady raised a point earlier about the extension of the Committee Stage of the Bill. That can easily be resolved by a motion from the Committee coming before the Assembly. That is the procedure of the House. The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie): I thank the Members who have contributed to the debate for their remarks. The Charities Bill will introduce a framework for the regulation of charities that is, as far as possible, consistent with developments across Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland, and which meets the particular needs of Northern Ireland and will promote best practice in the governance of the charitable sector. The Bill will bring Northern Ireland broadly in line with charity regulations in Great Britain and Ireland. No one wants our standards for charitable regulation to be weaker than those which are in place in GB; that would make Northern Ireland a soft option open to possible abuse by |