northern ireland assembly Tuesday 12 February 2008 Ministerial Statement: Executive Committee Business: Executive Committee Business: Committee Business: Private Members’ Business: Adjournment: The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. British-Irish Council — Environment Sectoral Format Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of the Environment that she wishes to make a statement on the British-Irish Council (BIC) ministerial meeting in the environment sectoral format. The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster): The eighth British-Irish Council environment sectoral meeting was held in the Clandeboye Estate, Bangor, on 1 February 2008. The following report provides an outline of the meeting and has been agreed with Minister Ritchie, who also attended. As Minister of the Environment for Northern Ireland, I was delighted to host the first British-Irish Council environment sectoral meeting to be held in Northern Ireland. I am grateful to Margaret Ritchie, the Minister for Social Development, for agreeing to be the accompanying Minister on this occasion. The UK Government were represented by Joan Ruddock MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for climate change, biodiversity and waste, who also chaired the meeting. The States of Guernsey Government were represented by Deputy David de G de Lisle, Minister of the Environment Department. The Welsh Assembly Government were represented by Jane Davidson, Minister for Environment, Sustainability and Housing, and the Scottish Executive were represented by Michael Russell, Minister for the Environment. The Isle of Man Government were represented by John Shimmin, Minister for Local Government and the Environment, and the States of Jersey Government by Senator Freddie Cohen, the Minister for Planning and Environment. The representative for the Irish Government was John Gormley, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The meeting considered a paper on a climate change adaptation work programme, which was produced by the United Kingdom Government. That document updated the climate change work topics that were agreed at the previous BIC environment ministerial meeting, which was held in Guernsey on 26 July 2006. Mr Roger Street, technical director of the United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP), gave a presentation on the development of a new climate change update. That presentation explored the launch of a fifth-generation set of climate scenarios that will be a significant advance on earlier work. The climate scenarios will offer a comprehensive and user-friendly package of climate information that will allow users to assess the potential impacts that different scenarios will have and to identify effective responses. Dr Jeremy Tomkinson, chief executive officer of the National Non-Food Crops Centre, gave a presentation on the renewable fuels and materials programme on behalf of the UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). He advised the Council that DEFRA and the UK’s Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform published a joint strategy — renewable fuels and materials — in November 2004, which had been updated in 2007. The strategy covers all renewable materials derived from crops and animals for industrial use, bioenergy and transport. His presentation highlighted the business opportunities that exist for converting renewable material into products that would appeal to the marketplace. The UK Government presented a paper on the work of the integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) working group. Ministers were updated on the progress of developing ICZM national strategies, and the paper covered a number of recent developments in the field. Having considered various ICZM and coastal integration issues and strategies, Ministers agreed that each member Administration should continue to share ideas and ensure co-ordination between individual coastal policies and strategies, through the BIC ICZM working group and by other means where appropriate. Minister Gormley suggested that the proposed paper on Sellafield and radioactive waste be tabled at a future meeting. He indicated that officials from the Irish and Manx Governments are working on the structure and content of a revised joint discussion paper on Sellafield and radioactive waste, which will address current operations at Sellafield, the safety of those operations, the final disposal of radioactive waste and the control of environmental discharges. The Isle of Man Government presented a paper and a short film on the Fishing for Litter initiative. Although the initiative has been seen principally as environmental in purpose — by helping to solve the problem of marine litter — it was recognised that it offers significant benefits to the fishing industry, which suffers damage to fishing tackle and contamination of catches, with a consequential detrimental effect on coastal communities. Ministers agreed to support the concept of the Fishing for Litter initiative and agreed to ask the appropriate Departments in each member Administration to examine the feasibility and potential cost to fishing industries and Departments of developing and implementing such schemes in their own jurisdictions. The group also discussed the results of the British-Irish Council environment work review. Several issues concerning future working arrangements were explored, such as: frequency of meetings; developing common areas of interest; and ensuring clear and defined outputs that add real value to policy development through a joined-up approach. The meeting concluded that the climate change adaptation work programme should continue, and that the Council should receive further updates next year; the Republic of Ireland Government should submit their joint discussion paper on Sellafield and radioactive waste; more supporting analysis should be provided on the feasibility and costs of the Fishing for Litter initiative; and member Administrations should continue to share ideas and ensure co-ordination between individual coastal policies and strategies. It was agreed that items for discussion at the next meeting of the Council should include waste; climate change; Sellafield and radioactive waste; and integrated coastal zone management. The Council agreed that its ninth ministerial meeting in environment sectoral format would be hosted by Jersey. Mr Ross: I thank the Minister for her statement. As always, we welcome increased east-west co-operation. Following the Council meeting, the Minister for Social Development, Margaret Ritchie, was very vocal about nuclear power — seemingly ignoring the fact that, to some degree, we are already relying on nuclear power in this country. First, is nuclear power within the departmental remit of Minister Ritchie? Secondly, we know that Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, is now a supporter of nuclear power, but does the Minister have any concerns about nuclear power stations being built in Northern Ireland? Mrs Foster: Nuclear power is not within my remit or the remit of the Minister for Social Development. Energy policy is a matter for the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. However, nuclear energy and nuclear installations are excepted matters and remain the responsibility of the UK Government under the Northern Ireland Act 1998. However, my Department is responsible for ensuring that the environment of Northern Ireland is not adversely affected by activity elsewhere. A continuing programme to monitor the effects of radioactive discharges from nuclear installations in Great Britain on the Northern Ireland coastline has shown negligible levels of contamination on our population and marine environment. Therefore, I have no reason, on environmental grounds, to oppose the building of new nuclear power stations. I read in the press that the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment is considering the issue, so we will await its outcomes. Mr Boylan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I apologise for my little outburst in the Chamber a couple of weeks ago. In light of recent reports about departmental websites being hacked into, and the current problems with the 20/20 system in the Planning Service, can I ask the Minister whether such issues were discussed with representatives of other legislatures at the BIC sectoral meeting? When does the Minister intend to introduce the Electronic Planning Information for Citizens (e-PIC) system into the Planning Service? Go raibh maith agat. Mrs Foster: That is not only the most interesting question that I have had on a BIC environment sectoral meeting but the most inventive use of a statement. We are investigating the hacking incidents of 2 and 3 February; given that the Member is the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment, I am happy to report to the Committee when the full details are available. The e-PIC system is almost complete, and we hope to roll it out in the coming year; I shall also report to the Committee on that issue. Mr Armstrong: I thank the Minister for her statement. Does she agree that waste-repair units would have less of an environmental effect in Northern Ireland than Sellafield-type plants, if they were to be built in certain areas of the United Kingdom? Mrs Foster: I am not sure what the Member is talking about. Is he referring to the waste management strategy, which envisages power plants being built in Northern Ireland? Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to clarify his question. Mr Armstrong: Some people talk about waste repair as incineration. Mrs Foster: I think that the Member is referring to power from waste, which is Arc21’s preferred option in the waste management strategy. Funding has now been granted to Arc21, and it is rolling out its plans. It does not use the word “incinerator”, it uses the expression “power from waste”, which will be developed over the coming years. I am sure that the Member, and the House, will agree that we must find alternative ways to deal with waste. We must fulfil our obligations under the European landfill directive, and I know that the Member will support measures to deal with those targets. Mr Gallagher: I thank the Minister for her statement. Many people, especially those living on the east coast of Northern Ireland, are genuinely concerned about contamination and pollution from Sellafield, and I welcome the fact that that issue was discussed at the BIC sectoral meeting. I note that there is a working group on integrated coastal zone management. Given that Northern Ireland is aligning itself with the UK marine Bill, can the Minister confirm our representation on that working group and give the House further details? I welcome every voice that speaks on our behalf. Mrs Foster: I am happy to do that. The Northern Ireland integrated coastal zone management strategy was launched in June 2006; a key element of that strategy was the establishment of a coastal and marine forum in Northern Ireland, which has been up and running since that time. That forum co-ordinates research and provides expert advice and support towards achieving the strategy’s objectives. As well as our own forum, through the integrated coastal zone management working group in the BIC, we, from the UK perspective, co-ordinate with other involved member states. 10.45 am In December 2007, the Northern Ireland forum published the first in what it is hoped will be a series of booklets on the many important issues facing Northern Ireland’s coastline. It was entitled ‘Striking a Sustainable Balance’. Moreover, the Member will be aware of the National Trust booklet, ‘Shifting Sands’, which had some stark findings regarding three of its properties in Northern Ireland. Integrated coastal zone management is a phrase that will be heard more and more by the Assembly, and the Department wants to assist that where possible. Mr Ford: I thank the Minister for her comprehensive report on what was, obviously, a very interesting and inclusive meeting, given the number of topics covered. Mr Gallagher highlighted the ICZM issue; however, I have questions on two other matters. With regard to business opportunities for renewable fuels, and the detail from the climate change programme, how does the Minister intend to get that information out to the people and businesses of Northern Ireland? The meeting might otherwise make no great impact beyond having been useful to Ministers. Mrs Foster: In relation to Mr Ford’s first point, Dr Jeremy Tomkinson gave an excellent presentation on hemp and its uses. The Minister for Social Development, who accompanied me, found what he did with housing, for example, very interesting. Furthermore, in light of what said he about non-food crops, we suggested that Dr Tomkinson should contact the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment about the business opportunities that are available to Northern Ireland. Roger Street spoke very well on climate change, and Jeremy Tomkinson asked what we intend to do about UKCIP on climate change and our ability with the very useful tools for adaptation that will be available from November 2008. Perhaps it is not a good thing to mention, given the day that is in it; however, I hope that we will be able to do something on the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) website. I hope to use the information technology available to the Department to bring the matter closer to the Northern Ireland people. Again, I shall use the Committee for the Environment, as well as this House, to publish the messages on climate change adaptation, which, it is hoped, will be available to everyone in the UK to see what can be done at a local level to deal with climate change. Mr Hamilton: The Minister, in her statement, spoke of the intriguingly titled Fishing for Litter initiative. Will she outline the advantages and potential problems associated with implementing such a scheme for the fishermen of my Strangford constituency and from elsewhere in Northern Ireland? Mrs Foster: The Isle of Man Government presented a very informative video, which, I presume, came from Scotland because a lot of Scottish people appeared in it. Scotland and the Isle of Man have operated the Fishing for Litter initiative for some time, and there are obvious benefits for the environment. Benefits for fishermen include a likely reduction in the risk of damage to their fishing gear and in contamination of their catches. However, further issues must be explored with regard to funding, and we are happy to be part of a feasibility study on possible costs. On a more general point, initiatives to reduce marine litter benefit everyone, and fit well with integrated coastal zone management. Marine life would benefit from such a scheme, and we hope to develop that in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD). Mr McKay: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Was there any discussion of the possible development of nuclear facilities along the west coast of Britain, and the possible environmental implications of that? Research has been carried out on the east coast of Counties Dublin and Louth on the proven high levels of radioactivity in those areas. Does the Minister have any plans to look into the possibility of carrying out research along the coasts of Antrim and Down to see whether there are higher levels of radioactivity there than in other parts of the North? Mrs Foster: There was only the briefest of discussions on nuclear power, because the Irish and Manx Governments intend to bring a paper to the next BIC detailing the concerns that they voiced briefly at the meeting. There was no discussion about future installations on mainland UK, or anything of that nature. I hear what the Member says about monitoring and what has been found in the Republic of Ireland. However, as I said in response to the first question this morning, there is a continuous programme of monitoring the effect on Northern Ireland of radioactive discharges from nuclear installations in GB, and that will continue. At present, it shows that contamination is negligible in terms of its impact on both the population and the marine environment. I have no plans to step that up, because it continues to be there. Mr T Clarke: I join with other Members in congratulating the Minister on bringing this statement to the House today. Were any specific items discussed at the meeting that are unique to Northern Ireland? Mrs Foster: No, because it was a meeting of the British-Irish Council. What we do is share information across Administrations on the issues that affect us all. I found the discussions with the Manx Government, in particular, to be very useful. As the Member knows, we are only a short distance away from the Isle of Man, and they had some useful things to say about waste, for example. That is one of the areas that we are hoping to look at at the next BIC meeting. Mr Cree: In light of the fact that over 50 illegal landfill sites containing waste from the Republic have been discovered in Northern Ireland, and given the Environment and Heritage Service’s (EHS) estimate that there are some 250,000 tons of household waste in Northern Ireland that have come from the Republic, did the Minister discuss the issue of financial compensation for the return of illegal waste to the Republic with her counterpart, Mr Gormley? Mrs Foster: As this was a BIC meeting, that was not discussed formally. However, the Member may be aware that I took the opportunity to speak to Mr Gormley on the sidelines. Progress on the repatriation of illegal waste from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland has been much too slow. I also gave Mr Gormley a letter in which I proposed a way forward, in so far as we would remove the waste from one particular site in County Fermanagh that is causing concern, and it would then be taken to a landfill site in the Republic. I am awaiting his response. The Member is correct; a road map was set out for dealing with illegal waste between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and I am concerned that progress is not being made. I am taking this very seriously. That is why I mentioned it to John Gormley at the BIC meeting and why I will continue to monitor the situation. Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister and her ministerial colleagues for the work of what seems to have been a very good meeting. I have to correct the Minister on a reference that she made to the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee: the Committee is not looking at the issue of nuclear power. Passing observations on the part of a Committee member were elevated into a news report that stated that the Committee is conducting an inquiry. I miss one meeting, and I have nuclear fallout to deal with. From my perspective as Chairperson of that Committee, I welcome what the Minister said about the business opportunities in the field of renewable energy, rather than just looking at it in terms of challenges and obligations. Will the Minister say whether, at future meetings, she and her colleagues would be prepared to consider a framework for marine management organisations or one organisation for all these islands? That issue arises, of course, in the context of the UK Climate Change Bill [HL]. There will also be the issue for us of what discrete legislation is required here, with a discrete organisation, too. Given the content of the Minister’s statement, which focused on our shared marine life, it seems to me that there could be a distinctive role for an east-west body, or at least a clear network and co-ordinating framework on an east-west basis, in the area of marine management. Mrs Foster: Marine management organisations are dealt with in the marine Bill, on which subject I will come to the House very soon. I have been talking to DEFRA about how we might take that issue forward. Before devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, it would have been much simpler for DEFRA officials because there would have been only one marine management organisation. Now Scotland wants its own organisation for those areas that have been transferred. Wales is also looking into the matter. We are considering a marine management organisation for Northern Ireland, but we will remain linked into the UK one, which has the expertise. As I said, the matter will come before the House soon, and I am in close contact with DEFRA. We do not want to lose control of our marine life, which is why we are considering our own marine management organisation for transferred matters only. Mr P Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I had not intended to speak, but I want to set record the record straight. I chaired the meeting of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment at which the nuclear explosion erupted. Some journalists reported that the Committee was to undertake an inquiry into nuclear energy. As far as I am concerned, that has never been on the agenda. The Chairperson and I put out a statement to that effect, but it did not get any press coverage. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether it would be worthwhile exploring with her counterpart, John Gormley, a common position on nuclear energy. Mrs Foster: As I have already indicated, nuclear energy is the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government, so, from that perspective, I will not be considering a common position with the Republic of Ireland Government. My obligation as Minister of the Environment is to decide whether there is any environmental impact on the Northern Ireland population and on the marine environment. I am satisfied at present that there is not. I will continue to monitor matters, and unless there is something that causes grave concern, I see no reason to worry about the situation as it stands. Mr Storey: I welcome the focus on the east-west relationship. With regard to ICZM and the coastal marine forum, will the Minister assure me that issues relating to the only inhabited island off Northern Ireland’s coast — Rathlin, which is part of my constituency — will be dealt with in a way that engages fully with the islanders and ensures that they are fully informed about the proposals and of the impact that they are likely to have? Mrs Foster: I am very happy to do so. Rathlin is much visited by my Department, and I know that the Member visits it all the time. EHS values Rathlin very much. It is carrying out a seabed exploration around the island, and some of the findings will be of great interest to environmentalists across the UK and Europe. Rathlin is a jewel, and I know that the Executive have a plan specifically for it. I look forward to visiting it again in June. Budget Bill: Second Stage The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr P Robinson): I beg to move That the Second Stage of the Budget Bill [NIA 10/07] be agreed. I want to draw attention briefly to a few points. I am not sure whether I am able to get Members of the House to concede yet — they have been talked to death in around half a dozen finance debates during the past few weeks. Today’s debate follows the Budget Bill’s First Stage yesterday. It also follows the Supply resolutions for the 2007-08 spring Supplementary Estimates and the 2008-09 Vote on Account, which were also considered and approved yesterday. 11.00 am As I explained during yesterday’s debate, for logistical reasons, accelerated passage of the Bill is needed in order to ensure Royal Assent in March 2008. It is needed to provide the legal authority for Departments and other public bodies to spend the cash and use the resources in the 2007-08 financial year and to ensure a seamless flow of public services into 2008-09 by the Vote on Account. I am glad to state that the Budget Bill can be given accelerated passage because the Committee for Finance and Personnel confirmed that, in line with Standing Order 40, it is satisfied that there has been appropriate consultation on the public-expenditure proposals contained in the Bill. The Committee’s confirmation was given in a letter dated 6 February from the Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel to the Speaker. Once again, I welcome and appreciate the Committee’s assistance in the matter. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClarty] in the Chair) The Bill’s purpose is to give legislative effect to the 2007-08 spring Supplementary Estimates and the 2008-09 Vote on Account, approved through the Supply resolutions passed yesterday. Copies of the spring Supplementary Estimates, the Vote on Account, the Budget Bill and the explanatory and financial memorandum have been made available to Members. I do not intend to detain the Assembly with unnecessary repetition of the details that I gave to Members yesterday. However, in accordance with the nature of the Second Stage debate that is envisaged under Standing Order 30, and for the benefit of Members, I wish to summarise briefly the Bill’s main features. The Bill’s purpose is to authorise the issue of £11,851,642,000 from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund and the use of resources that total £14,429,839,000 by Departments and certain other bodies detailed in the spring Supplementary Estimates for 2007-08. Those amounts supersede the Vote on Account that was passed at Westminster in February 2007 and the Main Estimate provision in the Budget Act (Northern Ireland) 2007 that was passed the Assembly in June 2007. The sums to be issued from the Consolidated Fund are to be appropriated by each Department or public body for the services set out in schedule 1 to the Bill, whereas the resources are to be used for the purposes specified in schedule 2. The Bill also authorises a Vote on Account for 2008-09 of cash of £5,335,212,000 and resources of £6,493,908,000 to allow the flow of cash and resources to continue to public services in the early months of 2008-09 until the Main Estimates and the related Budget Bill are approved by the Assembly in June 2008. Again, the cash and resources are to be appropriated and used for the services and purposes set out in schedules 3 and 4 respectively. In addition, the Bill revises the 2007-08 limit on the use of operating and non-operating accruing resources, and specifies the purposes for which they may be used in schedule 2. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will have gathered that the Bill is technical. However, and finally, clause 5 of the Bill authorises temporary borrowing by the Department of Finance and Personnel at a ceiling of £2,667,606,000 for 2008-09. The Budget Bill represents the end of the Budget process for the financial year 2007-08. In this year, the Assembly has begun to juggle priorities, meet emerging pressures within a finite budget and make the difficult decisions that it is our responsibility, as publicly elected representatives, to make. As we enter 2008-09, that will continue to be the challenge, alongside the requirement to maximise efficiencies and deliver on the targets and outcomes envisaged in our Programme for Government. As I have said on more than one occasion in the Assembly in the past weeks, the public will now be seeking the delivery of improved public services in health, education, roads, the environment and many other areas. This Administration must move on and develop a culture of delivery in public services, rather than constantly focusing on spending and attaining additional money. The spending plans in the Budget Bill were yesterday approved and endorsed by the Assembly — the Assembly has few more important duties than authorising public expenditure by Departments. As the Bill gives legal form to the same issues that were discussed yesterday, there is little more that I can usefully add without tiresome repetition. Although Members may feel talked out after so many debates on financial issues in recent days, I am still happy to deal with any points of principle that may arise. The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel (Mr McLaughlin): Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his opening remarks and ask him not to be too concerned, because the intricate and technical details of the Bill are, obviously, meat and drink to my colleagues on the Finance Committee. As I reported in the Assembly yesterday, at its meeting on 30 January 2008, the Committee heard evidence from the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) officials. At a further evidence session on 6 February, officials took the Committee members through the detail of the Budget Bill. The Bill gives formal legal authority for Departments to incur expenditure and to use resources as set out in the 2007-08 spring Supplementary Estimates and the Vote on Account for 2008-09. Following the evidence sessions, and in light of its scrutiny of the in-year monitoring rounds, the Committee was satisfied that it had received appropriate consultation on the public-expenditure proposals in the Budget Bill. Therefore, the Committee was content to grant accelerated passage to the Bill in accordance with Standing Order 40(2). Yesterday, I spoke of the Committee’s active scrutiny role in the quarterly monitoring rounds throughout 2007-08. The Committee published an extensive report in early January on the Budget allocations for 2008-11, of which the Vote on Account for 2008-09, which was agreed yesterday, was the first step. A formal response to that is due from DFP in March, and we await that with interest. Due to the timing of restoration in May 2007, the Committees and the Assembly did not have the opportunity to scrutinise the draft Budget proposals for the current financial year. Instead, it was inherited as a fait accompli from the direct rule period. New circumstances now pertain, and there will be a need to establish processes that maximise the role of the Assembly and its Committees. One of the issues raised in the Committee’s report was the need to implement an effective process to scrutinise the Executive’s Budget proposals as soon as possible. The Committee’s report also included recommendations on several strategic and cross-cutting issues relating to the improvement of financial management across Departments — in particular, the important work to be carried out by the capital realisation task force and the performance and efficiency delivery unit (PEDU). The Committee looks forward to working with the Minister and the Department on those issues, and supports the Bill. Go raibh maith agat. Mrs I Robinson: The Minister will forgive me for selfishly focusing on a matter close to my heart. As he is aware, we in the Castlereagh Borough Council area of the Strangford constituency have been working closely with other agencies — not least the former South and East Belfast Health and Social Services Trust — to build a centre in Ballybeen square for the 10,000-strong community following the demolition of the Enler old people’s home. At one stage, Ballybeen had been designated a targeting social need (TSN) area, but it lost that status as a result of the attention that was being given to rural communities. More recently, however, the Minister for Social Development, Margaret Ritchie, identified it as an area at risk, and her Department earmarked considerable money for the Enler project. However, she and her ministerial colleague the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety withdrew their financial offers, despite our taking seven years to work out our plans. Those plans included engaging with the whole community to identify what it saw as important facilities for the community. Those facilities included a senior citizens’ day centre, a start-up business unit, childcare facilities, a crèche, and shops, which are often in short supply in such large estates. It was also hoped that a new sub-post office could be attracted to the area, given that the previous one had been removed as a result of the recent cutbacks in post office services. I believe that the decision to withdraw the money at the last minute — when we were ready to build — was politically motivated, despite the fact that capital expenditure was not a problem for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS). The impact of those actions put in jeopardy our International Fund for Ireland funding, never mind the hundreds of thousands of pounds that were lost in the years during which feasibility studies were being prepared. Does the Minister agree that additional moneys given to those two Departments would ensure that sufficient funding would be available to enable that life-changing facility to be core funded? That would, of course, depend on people’s having the will to overcome the type of petty point scoring that followed the farce of the Minister of Health, Social Services and Pubic Safety denying during the debate on the draft Budget that he had signed off on that document at a meeting of the Executive Committee, even though he is a member of the Executive. Sadly, Minister Ritchie felt the need to follow her new coalition friends. Will the Minister join me in convincing those Ministers that the long-suffering people of Ballybeen should not be left totally disenfranchised as a result of that behaviour? I am sure that the Minister will join me in congratulating the people who are involved in pushing forward the Enler project. They include Paul Carland from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, officials from our own Castlereagh Borough Council, Sammy Douglas of the International Fund for Ireland, the Ballybeen Improvement Group, and Maurice Kinkead, who did sterling work on raising money and on core-funding projects. Does the Minister agree that if the project does not go ahead, the plans for improving Ballybeen square will be affected? That area has been a trouble hot spot throughout the period of unrest in our Province. I apologise if I have put the Minister on the spot — not the hot spot — but he will be aware of the need to show that predominately Protestant area that this Government will roll out programmes of funding to areas, particularly those in loyalist and unionist communities, that have, sadly, been so wantonly discriminated against by successive Governments. Mr Beggs: I understand that Second Stage is the opportunity to consider the general principles of a Bill. Given that, I agree with the Minister that there is little point in covering areas that were discussed during the Budget debate. I could have taken this opportunity to highlight the lack of capital investment for health facilities in my area and the need for health and care centres in Larne and Carrickfergus. However, that is not the purpose of this Stage, so I will not continue along those lines. The Minister said that the Budget process can be complex, particularly when we try to understand the spring Supplementary Estimates. I have a mathematical background, but one would need to be a well-trained accountant to better understand the spring Supplementary Estimates. I have attempted to gather the information as best I can. However, I hope that the Minister will accept that it would be useful for all Members, including members of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, to be given some training in that area, because it would help us to scrutinise better such matters in future. I simply wished to make that point about the process, and I hope that the Minister will consider my suggestion. 11.15 am Mr O’Loan: A further debate on budgetary matters might give Members a sense of it being: “like déjà vu all over again.” My party has made its basic stance on the Budget clear. Having talked about the principles of the Budget Bill, we can see that there is a clear need for it, and we will not oppose it. I do not wish to labour points that have already been made. In yesterday’s debate on the spring Supplementary Estimates, I talked about the important issue of secondary education. Today, I wish to refer briefly to water charges, about which substantial uncertainties remain. The strand-two report is presenting important proposals on the governance of NI Water, which will have implications for the level of funding required and the charges levied. The exact manner of charging remains to be defined; and, therefore, my party will continue to watch that issue with great interest. Yesterday, important points were made about underspend and overcommitment, and I welcome the steps being taken to better control those related issues. Efficiency savings have been mentioned, but I wish to speak at length about efficiency in broad terms. There is significant inefficiency and waste in our public services. That is no criticism of public servants, the vast majority of whom are committed and hard-working. However, systems are frequently weak and do not provide optimum service; they are not effective in identifying and correcting instances of underperformance. The SDLP is committed to social justice and equality — but low-quality public services can make no contribution to social justice. We do not want equality in inferior service. The word “transformation” has been used in relation to the recent changes that have been made, and continue to be made, to the National Health Service in England. Transformation is not a word that we use frequently here, but we must incorporate the concept into our thinking and vocabulary when examining our own public services. The challenge facing the Assembly is the transformation of the quality of our public services. The Minister of Finance and Personnel’s principle vehicle for transforming public services will be the performance and efficiency delivery unit. When that idea was presented to the Assembly, most Members were inclined to feel that it could only be a good thing. We had a pretty simple idea that it would be some sort of machine, such as an automatic washing machine. Inefficiency would be put into the machine at one end, get churned around in a recognisable and straightforward way, and emerge at the other end as pristine efficiency. Following closer examination, there are questions about how such a unit will work. The Minister knows that the Committee for Finance and Personnel considered the matter and has commented on it. The way in which PEDU will work presents several questions. Will it be invited into Departments, as the Minister suggested on one occasion? That is questionable. Will senior officials and Ministers, who regard themselves as being in charge of Departments, invite in an outside agency, which might do upsetting things to their Departments — things over which they will have no control? That, too, is questionable. Whether PEDU will have the authority to interfere in Departments without their consent is equally questionable. Unless there is agreement and consensus, it is hard to see how one can reach the level of co-operation required to achieve significant change — and significant change is what we are interested in. What issues might PEDU identify? We heard some evidence, by way of comparison with the efficiency unit in the Prime Minister’s office at Westminster, that PEDU might identify the burning issues of the day. At present, it might identify clostridium difficile as the big issue, and decide that that needs attention. One can imagine considerable effort going into dealing with that, probably successfully, and the headlines might be very good. However, it is open to question whether, in the end, PEDU can achieve the best allocation of resources and profoundly alter the efficiency of the broad services within which that particular element of the Health Service rests. The manner in which we achieve efficiency, and the potential contribution of PEDU, is something to which we should give a great deal more thought. Another issue related to efficiency is procurement. In that respect, I look beyond inefficiency to abuse and corruption. I express the following in general terms, but it needs to be said. I do not have sufficient evidence on this issue to be able to walk into a police station and present a case for the police to investigate with a reasonable hope of conclusion. However, enough anecdotal evidence has come before me to convince me that, in certain areas of the public sector relating to procurement, there is significant and endemic corruption and abuse. The existing mechanisms for addressing it are not succeeding. Those close to the relevant sectors know very well that something rotten is going on, and they know what it is. As a political Assembly, in control of the public sector, we must do something about that. As an important side point in relation to industrial derating, I quote from page (ix) of a report, which the Minister received from Economic Research Institute of Northern Ireland (ERINI) in October 2007, ‘Review of Industrial Derating Policy’: “we have been struck when talking to industry at the degree of disillusionment that exists about the willingness of government to understand the problems of business and to create a sustainable supportive regime within which it can prosper. A decision on the future of industrial derating and the first Budget of the new Executive may be an excellent opportunity to forge a new concordat between industry and government that would set out clearly what each can expect from the other in obligation and support.” The Committee reiterated those comments and elaborated on them somewhat in the report that it gave to the Minister. However, I want to bring this to the attention of the whole Assembly, because it is such an important issue. That feature of that report remains to be acted on, and I call on all relevant Departments, including DFP, to do so. Mr Neeson: It will come as no surprise to the Minister that the Alliance Party has serious reservations about the Budget, for the specific reason that it does not place tackling sectarianism and segregation, rebalancing the economy, and delivering sustainable public services at the centre of Government policy and Government funding allocations. That is based on our vision for this society, which is fundamentally different from that being advocated by the four Executive parties. However, we will not seek to divide the House on the Bill, as we recognise that it is primarily about tidying up a financial situation that was left over from direct rule. The main discussion will come in the summer with the main Budget Bill. Our main and specific financial concern is with the amount of money that the Executive are making available to invest in public services now in order to make savings later, while maintaining a high standard of service delivery to the public. No one minds paying for public services, provided that they are of a high standard and deliver true value for money to the people who use them. Therefore, I agree with Declan O’Loan’s point on efficiencies. The first difficulty remains that the Executive are restricting the full use of the tools available to them deliver an effective Budget. There are three main areas in which improvements could be made. First, our public services are the least efficient in the UK. Therefore, our efficiency targets should be tougher than elsewhere. Achieving that requires an immediate start to addressing the cost of division. My colleague David Ford will be writing to the Minister to set up a meeting to discuss the matter. Secondly, the refusal of the unionist parties to countenance tax-varying powers in line with those that are enjoyed by Scotland limits our potential for movement. It is as though we are telling the outside world that we are not competent to run our finances fully. It severely limits our ability to make the case for lower corporation tax, an issue that remains a high priority for business, if not for the Executive. Thirdly, the Executive must think of other, fair ways to raise the money that is essential for public services. For example, most western European countries fund water through charges that are based on the ability to pay and consumption. We must also consider how the Republic of Ireland was able to finance its motorway network. The Bill fails to link issues together effectively. That is not entirely the fault of the current Executive, but there is precious little evidence that they are putting things right. The failure to invest in education, health and infrastructure now will lead to economic difficulties later. The Alliance Party is committed to low rates, and the Minister kindly referred to that. I thank him for reminding the public of that. However, we would keep rates low through savings on the cost of division, making full use of the financial tools that are available — and are potentially available — and by investing in the right areas now to make savings later. We would not fail to invest the money that is required for education, health and infrastructure, which are essential economic drivers, simply for the sake of covering up what is another new Labour Budget. In conclusion, I will make some general points. I recognise that one of the main priorities in the Programme for Government is to grow the economy, and I welcome that. However, I question whether enough resources have been directed to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to achieve that. The Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment is committed to the development of renewable energy, and I wonder whether enough resources have been focused on that. The Minister knows about my personal interest in maritime heritage. When I spoke in the Programme for Government debate on 28 January 2008, I said that no Department in Northern Ireland has any responsibility for the development of maritime heritage. A major maritime heritage project, which I consider to be of titanic proportions, in the Minister’s constituency of East Belfast, is in real danger of being scuttled. I seek a meeting with the Minister on that project at the earliest opportunity. 11.30 am As a former teacher, I am deeply concerned about what is going on with the education system. Although I have no deep disagreement with what the Minister of Education is trying to achieve, I am concerned that issues such as the education estate have not been fully considered. The Assembly must face up to that major problem, because the public, and teachers and pupils in particular, are deeply concerned about what is happening. We as an Assembly have a responsibility to deal with the issue as a matter of urgency, and it must be tackled in the Budget. The whole question of the future management of the schools estate must be seriously considered. Although the Alliance Party has reservations about the Budget Bill, we will not seek to divide the House on the issue. Mr Hamilton: I wish to pick up on some points that have been made, principally by Declan O’Loan, on the issue of efficiencies. I for one welcome the focus on efficiencies in the Budget. Focus on this important area is much needed, as it was severely lacking under direct rule. It is a serious matter, as inefficiencies — particularly when they are on a huge scale and are easily avoidable — are tantamount to theft. It is public money that is being wasted on inefficiencies, and it could be put to better use delivering efficient public services. I support the creation of the performance and efficiency delivery unit. Mr O’Loan raised some of his personal concerns about the unit, but it will prove to be a worthwhile creation in the long term. The unit will operate not in an ostentatious or obvious way, but in a quiet way to achieve efficiencies in the public sector. The Prime Minister’s delivery unit at Whitehall has had some notable successes in reducing waiting lists, among other things. That is an example of how such a unit can achieve real success. I am optimistic about the creation of the unit and the opportunities that it will present. It is not simply about efficiencies: it is about delivery. The Health Service in Northern Ireland is a good example of where there have been record levels of investment and where health professionals are working flat out, yet no one will say that the performance over those years of record levels of investment has improved at the same scale and trajectory as the funding. The work of PEDU could concentrate on that area, among others, to achieve real results. Mr Beggs: Does the Member acknowledge that there has been improvement in waiting lists in the past year, as a result of concentration on providing a more efficient service? There was an acknowledgement in the Appleby Report that some of the additional costs in Northern Ireland were due to its rurality and the spread-out nature of our population. Does the Member acknowledge that if efficiency is driven too hard, some of the outlying services may be simply cut off in efficiency savings? Mr Hamilton: I thank the Member for his contribution. One can never be too efficient: efficiencies must be pursued at every opportunity. The example that Mr Beggs gave with regard to the improvement in waiting lists is almost justification for the type of work that PEDU will do. Concentration and clear focus on one particular issue, such as waiting lists, demonstrates how such a thing can be achieved. When I raised the issue of waiting lists — Mr O’Loan: Will the Member give way? Mr Hamilton: Wait just a second. I raised the issue of waiting lists as an example of what has been achieved in the Prime Minister’s delivery unit, but concentration should be focused on many other areas of the Health Service in Northern Ireland, such as our massive spend on prescription charges. Mr O’Loan: I thank the Member for giving way. I am cheating a little, because I wish to comment on Mr Beggs’s intervention. However, it is a valuable point of debate. There has been an improvement in waiting lists, but Members should not blind themselves to the fact that there was a considerable cost involved in achieving that. That is probably opaque to most Members; I do not know the detail, but the improvements did come at a cost. That is another illustration of the type of situation that I mentioned. In instances in which there is cost, there is also opportunity cost. Resources invested in one area might have been used in another. Finding particular ways to remedy a particular problem is usually the most efficient way to achieve better performance in that service. On that matter, it is open to question. Mr Hamilton: I am worried that I look like an umpire in a tennis match; it seems that Members are hitting back and forth. The Member raised a good point. Widespread considerations must be made, but I am sure that Mr O’Loan appreciates that considerable focus and determination are required in looking at matters that are not necessarily the topic of the day, but that are endemic and cause widespread problems. PEDU will be useful in that regard. Mrs I Robinson: Although there have been improvements in the hospital waiting lists across the Province, does the Member note that patients are rushed through their procedures to ensure that deadlines are met? Furthermore, the figures that illustrate how many people have to return to hospital because they were discharged too quickly — because deadlines had to be met — make interesting reading. Mr Hamilton: I thank the Member for her contribution on a subject about which she knows a great deal and in which she has had a long-standing interest. There are no simple answers to those questions. Mrs Robinson is right — one can come up with solutions that are merely quick fixes, but they are not the answer. We look for long-term gains and performances that can be improved over time, and not something that, for instance, is simply to satisfy a particular media curiosity or a reaction to achieve deadlines merely for the sake of satisfying the media, for instance. I must watch myself, because, for the second day running, I agree with a point — just one point — raised by an Alliance Party Member. Mr Weir: Resign. Mr Hamilton: I will be in trouble with the Whip. Mr Neeson stated that nobody minds paying for public services if they are delivered at a high standard. That is a relevant point when allied to the comments made about efficiencies. I have said this before, but it is worth repeating: people have paid over the odds, but they have not always received the service that they deserve. The Alliance Party would make the people pay even more, regardless of whether the services were efficient. Furthermore, Mr Neeson called for the Assembly to embrace tax-varying powers. Recently, it has been clear that, were the Alliance Party to get their hands on the tax-varying powers, taxes would be varied in an upward direction, to the detriment, of Northern Ireland’s householders and businesses. One of the main priorities in the Budget is the focus on growing a vibrant and dynamic economy for Northern Ireland. That has been named as the Executive’s number one priority. I have spoken about that before, and I welcome the objective. Given the Northern Ireland economy’s structural weaknesses, the difficulties that we have had through the years and those that we will face if we do not achieve that priority as we move into a sometimes uncertain future, as illustrated by the current uncertainty in the global marketplace, the Assembly wholeheartedly supports the objective. I welcome the increased funding for innovation. That can be seen in the significantly increased budgets for the Department for Employment and Learning, which has an important role to play in developing skills, and for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. A higher concentration of funding has been given to tourism — an area that has been under-exploited in Northern Ireland through the years. There is potential there, and I welcome that boost in funding. One should not think that social issues have not received the same focus in the Budget as has the economy. It is not a trade-off; the two areas go hand in hand. The Department for Social Development received an increased allocation of resources for social and affordable housing. Following the Finance Minister’s Budget statement, there was much concentration on the extra £205 million for new social and affordable homes. However, it is worth restating that that money is on top of the amount that had already been allocated in the draft Budget. My interest in this subject stems from first-hand constituency experience. In common with my constituency colleagues and, I am sure, colleagues throughout Northern Ireland, my workload is dominated by housing issues. In Strangford, there is a social housing crisis. Figures from the Minister for Social Development for settlements in the Strangford constituency — Newtownards, Comber, Ballygowan, Saintfield, Killinchy, Moneyreagh and Killyleagh — show that there are 3,586 applicants on the Housing Executive waiting list, 2,458 of whom are deemed to be in housing stress. Over the past three years a paltry total of 576 allocations were made — an average of fewer than 200 a year — and that is at the heart of the crisis. It is an awful thing to say, but the harsh reality is that we are almost in the situation of waiting for people to die in order that houses become available and new people can move in. That is an awful predicament in which to be. Housing Executive officials do their best, and it is not for want of trying on their part, but they find it difficult to place people because the houses are simply not there. In the extremely unlikely scenario that no new applicants are added to the list, at the current rate of allocations in Strangford, it will take an astounding 19 years to clear the waiting list. That is how bad the situation has become. Nevertheless, I am sure that Strangford is not in the worst position, and I would not wish to see a constituency requiring a longer timescale to clear up its waiting list. In Strangford, the problem is compounded by the fact that, in addition to suffering from some of the longest waiting lists, we suffer simultaneously from some of the highest house prices in Northern Ireland. A survey by the Halifax in October 2007 showed that Newtownards was deemed to be the United Kingdom’s property hot spot, with average house-price rises of 65% and an average house price of £250,000. Therefore, young people who would otherwise buy a new home simply cannot afford to do so, and they present themselves to the Housing Executive in order to get on the waiting list, which places additional and perhaps unnecessary pressure on that list. The social-and-affordable-home targets in the Programme for Government, backed up by the resources allocated in the Budget, are ambitious but absolutely necessary, and the Budget provides the Minister for Social Development with the cold, hard cash to deliver on her desire, which we all share, for more social housing. Finally, returning to my earlier point about focusing on problems, although we all want to sort out this problem now, it is important to ensure that we do not permit ourselves to get into this sorry situation again. Some years ago, a belief developed that we needed no more, or perhaps minimal, newbuild social housing. Clearly, circumstances have shown that not to be the case, and we must maintain a newbuild social housing programme in order that people can eventually buy those houses and assume the responsibility of becoming a homeowner. We must learn lessons from the current crisis and not repeat mistakes. I support the Budget Bill. Mr Durkan: As other Members and the Minister have said, the Bill is about ensuring that public expenditure flows properly, and, despite the SDLP’s reservations about the overall Budget, it has no intention of impeding that flow. Furthermore, given the debate and consideration that has taken place both in the Committee for Finance and Personnel and in the Chamber, the SDLP agrees with the Committee that the Bill should be granted accelerated passage. I wish to address several of the points that have arisen during the debate. The SDLP expressed serious reservations about the way in which education was treated in the Budget. To point out that the subject is not adequately covered in the Budget and that the proposals for education are unclear is not to have a go at the Finance Minister or the Minister of Education, it is simply to highlight that, if the Assembly is to be deemed a competent authority on the Budget, its Members must be realistic about the fact that they do not have a fully articulated picture of the serious public-expenditure implications of the education proposals. 11.45 am Similarly, there are unknowns and assumptions about water. The Independent Water Review Panel’s strand two report is out for consultation, and we have had the strand one report for some time, but there are parts of that report from which Ministers, or the Executive, appear to have resiled, or to be keeping their distance. In those circumstances, and given that the overall period of the Budget as presented previously was three years — I appreciate that the focus of the Budget Bill is slightly different — that reservation is valid and legitimate, and the SDLP is no more relaxed now than it was before. The SDLP also raised the issue of the move away from cross-cutting and non-departmental funds. We favour those types of funds, not just because we helped to create them in the past, but because they serve to focus Departments beyond just using the money in their budgets as though it were their own private property for their own particular priorities. When we had the Executive programme funds, we were able to encourage some Departments to come together on a cross-cutting basis, and we would have been able to do even more if we had had a clear Executive substructure, or an Assembly Committee, to set priorities and commissioning criteria for possible bids. In a settled process, with a fully working Executive, that substructure would have made good some of the problems of the past. Ministers have said that money for children, instead of going into a children’s fund, is now going into Departments, but the fact is that money that goes into Departments is not always used for the purpose for which it is ring-fenced, and it is not easy to track it to see where it has been used. People outside Departments find it difficult to have their ideas and proposals on funding heard. The children’s fund was open to applications from the community and voluntary sector, and in one of the rounds we did not allocate as much money as had been earmarked for the statutory sector, because of the relatively poor quality of bids from the Departments. Instead, we put that money aside to top up what was available to the community and voluntary sector, or to take revised bids from the statutory sector, on a play-off basis. That approach to funds is used in Whitehall and in the South, where Brian Cowen, in his very first Budget, set aside €800 million to be available for bids from six Departments. Among the priorities that he indicated for those funds were children, families with disabilities and families in stress. At that time, when everybody thought that a lot of money was available to the Southern Exchequer, he felt that it was important to hold some in reserve to await quality proposals, instead of giving the money to Departments to use as they pleased. Those are all rational, constructive and different approaches that we can use in the Budget as framed. In previous debates a number of comments have been made about the past Executive, and about me, that I did not have a chance to respond to at the time. Indeed, some of the Members making those comments would not allow me to answer. I will deal with a couple of them now. During Question Time, the Minister for Regional Development said that money had been allocated by the previous Executive — and by me, as Minister of Finance and Personnel — for new trains on condition of a reduction to the core network. That is absolutely untrue. The record of the time will show that, when the expenditure for the new trains was announced, although officials said that money for new trains should be linked to a reduction in the core network, I rejected that in my role as Minister of Finance and Personnel, the Executive did not adopt that recommendation, and the House passed the Budget on the basis that there was no question of a precondition of a reduction in the core network. Members of all parties asked about that matter during the Budget exercise because of what was said. I absolutely refute the misrepresentation by the then Minister for Regional Development. I said at the time that there would be money for new train sets because the proposals had been worked up and that I was asking for proposals for investment in the network; however, no serious proposals ever emerged. There were some small bids, some of which, we were told at the time, would not be fully spent. That is why the Executive did not meet them. However, it was made clear that the reinvestment and reform initiative and the infrastructure fund would support significant investment in the railway network. Those means were identified; it is just a pity that significant investment in the railway network has not been expedited since. The Minister of Finance and Personnel also referred to a meeting that he said he had had with me at which he attempted to discourage me from breaking the link between water services and the rates. That link had already been broken in the comprehensive spending review: it was partly discussed when the direct rule Minister with responsibility for finance and personnel, Paul Murphy, addressed the comprehensive spending review. That is when the idea that part of the rates should be dedicated to water charges was thrown out. Bizarrely, at the same time, the direct rule Minister was justifying the then projected increases of 7% almost entirely on the need for water charges. When Mr Robinson and I met — when he was Minister for Regional Development and I was Minister of Finance and Personnel — he and his permanent secretary proposed that my Department should convert the entire regional rate to a water rate. It was not an idea that I found particularly attractive, but I shared it with my Executive colleagues, as they had to be in full possession of the facts. Some Executive colleagues were not attracted to the idea because they wanted the revenue from the regional rate to be available to all Departments and not just to the Water Service and the Department for Regional Development. More important, we saw the dangers in converting the regional rate into a water rate, as the Treasury could simply acknowledge that we had introduced water charges but that we were far short of any measure that compared with council tax. The Treasury would have come after us with full steam. That is why the Executive did not act on Mr Robinson’s suggestion. An option was specifically written into the consultation paper that was issued on a rating policy review to the effect that the link between water services and the rates would not merely be restored, but that revenue for the Water Service would be an identifiable component on people’s rates bill. That option was agreed by the Executive and by the then Committee for Finance and Personnel; however, direct rule returned before we had any results from the consultation exercise. References have also been made to the reinvestment and reform initiative and to disastrous deals. First, the transfer of all the significant sites — which are now of great value — happened as a part of that so-called disastrous deal. Secondly, the only borrowing power exercised as part of that deal by the last Executive was the borrowing of £200 million without a penny extra on the rates. That included enabling the regional cancer centre to come about. It was not coming about through the Department of Health, despite requests by me and others for the project to be prioritised. We used the reinvestment and reform initiative, and moneys in the infrastructure fund, to make that project happen — without resort to PFI or anything else. That project was delivered and was a proud achievement, along with other projects that were funded by that package. As for the terms for longer-term borrowing power, the Treasury said that it wanted a linkage to rates — to narrowing the gap between the household rate in Northern Ireland and that of GB. We never agreed those terms, and negotiations were never concluded on that matter. The terms for the borrowing power of the reinvestment and reform initiative were agreed by direct rule Ministers during suspension of the Assembly; they were not agreed by the Executive. We have been told that the Executive signed up for water charges as part of the reinvestment and reform initiative. Neither water charges nor water reform were part of the reinvestment and reform initiative because the Executive did not have control over the water reform agenda. That control rested with a Minister who did not take part in the Executive. During direct rule, a decision was made to include water reform in the reinvestment and reform initiative. At that time, as deputy First Minister, I was involved in a series of meetings with direct rule Ministers about the reinvestment and reform initiative. When those direct rule Ministers took the decision to include water reform in the initiative, I ceased to have any further meetings with them because I had advised against that and had said that I was opposed to its inclusion because it was not part of the reinvestment and reform initiative. The Official Report will confirm that. The then Minister will bear me out on that point. I am dealing with a number of issues on which there has been misrepresentation. The debate provides an opportunity for us to look more widely at some issues of budgetary management and, particularly, at our role in an Assembly that is meant to have serious budgetary competence. Other Members have referred to the importance of the performance and efficiency delivery unit. I fully support that development. I understand that we will be warned not to rely solely on the unit — not to give it total discretion — without anyone else making any assessments or judgements. Nevertheless, the unit will be useful in advancing the wider agenda of performance and efficiency. However, the House has a strong role to play in promoting performance and efficiency. The House rightly values the role of the Public Accounts Committee, which is able — on a cross-departmental basis — to challenge and interrogate the basis of evidence that is provided by the Audit Office. The House needs more cross-departmental Committees so that there is more real-time scrutiny of what Departments and other spenders of public money are doing. The Public Accounts Committee is able to deal with matters only after they have happened. Some real-time scrutiny would be helpful. In the past, we have proposed that there be a Committee of the House to focus on issues such as the cost of Government, administrative spend and efficiencies, policy effectiveness and performance. Such a Committee should be able to use intelligence and information from the Audit Office — and, now, the performance and efficiency delivery unit — to examine and to challenge. That Committee should also be able to initiate some challenges and scrutiny in its own right. After all, MLAs are paid and employed as elected representatives to act as watchdogs. More cross-cutting Committees could help us to do that job. It is easy for us to get stuck in a rut in our departmental Committees and become cheerleaders for particular bids, rather than seriously challenge Departments about the quality of their plans and about delivery. We can learn from some of the successes of the Public Accounts Committee, and from the respect in which it is held. We can design more Committees in that mould. The Minister, in the course of previous debates on the Budget, placed some emphasis on the issue of assets. When the House was considering the Resource Accounting and Budgeting Bill, I pointed out that, in future, the House’s budgetary role should no longer simply involve authorising and making decisions on public expenditure; rather, it should also involve making conscious decisions on what should be done with assets. Decisions would have to be made as to whether they were being used properly, whether it costs us money to hold assets that are not being fully used and whether it is better to realise those assets in other ways. 12.00 noon That was the theory, but it has not been fully realised. Although I recognise that the capital realisation task force has taken steps to address that issue, it will be all too easy for Members to see it as some black box quango that examines what happens in Departments, and then Departments brief MLAs or others against some of the proposals or whatever. As a budgetary authority, the Assembly is meant to make decisions on assets, so it should have a way of taking competent, articulate decisions in those areas, too. Therefore, I do not suggest that we do not need a capital realisation task force, rather, I suggest that the Assembly needs an arm and an instrument of its own that enables it to address those issues properly. It should be able to generate ideas itself and pursue other enquiries about our assets base, and not simply work on the basis of what the capital realisation task force says. For many Members, the heat has gone out of some of the more current Budget issues, so this is an opportunity for the Assembly to consider how, structurally, it can get a better handle on the budgetary arrangements along the way. As Members have said, the business of spring Supplementary Estimates and Votes on Account can appear technical and dry. Given that those are some of the key ways in which the Assembly acts as a budgetary authority, we must find ways of exercising that authority in a more relevant, telling and current manner. It would be helpful if some cross-cutting Committees could be developed to assist in that regard. I know that in previous speeches, the Minister has said that he wants Members to help to deliver the efficiency agenda and that he will look for help from the Committee of Finance and Personnel in doing so. It will take far more than the Committee’s help to deliver the agenda, given that the Committee has big departmental issues of its own to deal with, never mind what is happening across other Departments. I welcome the challenge that the Minister has given to the Assembly, and we should create a means by which we can take up that challenge and play a full and positive part in addressing the issues. Mr Ford: I want to add a few comments to those made by my colleague Sean Neeson earlier, and by my colleague Stephen Farry in yesterday’s debate. I apologise to the Minister that I was not present to hear his opening speech, but I was called away by a higher authority — higher even than the Finance Minister. I enjoyed much of Mr Durkan’s contribution. I suspect that the debate between the current Finance Minister and the former Finance Minister will run for some time. Who knows, when Stephen Farry gets involved, perhaps the future Finance Minister will be involved as well. Mr Durkan raised an interesting issue about the Assembly’s scrutiny role. Although there is a degree of expertise in the PAC, it tends to scrutinise events only after they have happened, and the departmental Committees do not currently have the expertise to examine the full financial implications of budgets and expenditure plans as they are developed. Expertise tends to be in the areas with which the Department deals, rather than in financial management. The Assembly must consider that issue and become much more adept at scrutinising financial matters. If the Minister welcomes the Assembly’s assistance in providing such scrutiny, we may be able to increase efficiencies in Government. Of course, a key issue goes back to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, which is chaired by the Minister’s colleague Mr Donaldson. We cannot claim any level of efficiency for public service as long as we maintain 11 Government Departments and 108 MLAs for a population of only 1·7 million people. Speaking as leader of the opposition and in support of my colleague, I must point out that our party does not have the resources to develop a detailed financial model and alternative Budget. However, we do have the right to scrutinise what is being proposed. We will continue to exercise that right and to ask questions about the decisions that are being taken. One question that has not been satisfactorily resolved at this stage relates to the overall level of the resources available. It is clear that the meetings that took place in 11 Downing Street before the restoration of devolution failed to produce any significant extra funding. The outcome of the Varney Review was also disappointing, as the Assembly is still unable to take greater responsibility for fiscal matters. We will have to wait for the outcome of Varney II, but, in the meantime, we have to consider the available resources and what priorities we have for that expenditure. The Minister of Finance and Personnel was right to express concerns about the level of rates increases under direct rule. Increases of between 8% and 19% were completely ridiculous, totally above any level of inflation or any justification in terms of public services. However, making a statement that for three years there should be what is effectively a 2% or 2·5% cut in the regional rate is not necessarily the right measure to take, because it is not inflation-linked. I notice that Economic Research Institute of Northern Ireland, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) have expressed concerns about what is in effect a real-terms cut in rates. There is an issue as to whether we can afford to take such a cut, especially given that we are looking to invest for the future through building the economy, as has been emphasised. Significant efficiency savings are clearly required, but have yet to be identified. There is no doubt that much of Government in Northern Ireland is less efficient than in other regions of the UK. We need to deal with that issue, and we need to be realistic about it. There will be implications as to how we can deal with public services in the future if adequate income is not generated. The Minister would be disappointed if I did not emphasise that part of this involves considering where savings can be made regarding the cost of segregation, allowing funds to be reinvested in more productive services. I know that Sean Neeson has again repeated our offer to engage with the Minister. When a little bit more work has been completed by our limited number of extremely hard-working staff, I hope that we will be able to have a useful discussion with the Minister and contribute constructively to the addressing of that issue. The Minister has said on many occasions that the real issue for us is not that our public sector is too large, but that our private sector is too small. We have a real challenge as to how we divert current expenditure from where it is not achieving full results to where it can assist in developing economic growth and funding the public services in matters such as education and health — particularly mental health — which have a direct contribution to make to the economy. At this stage, we have doubts that the Budget will redirect resources to enable that to happen. We need to invest in the drivers that will develop the economy, and we need to invest in the public services that support the entrepreneurs and investors who will make those changes. We, on these Benches, are entitled to remain sceptical at the same time as saying that, in a spirit of goodwill, we accept the points that the Minister made. We will certainly engage with him to seek to improve the quality of public services and the way in which money is expended by him and his Department. Mr P Robinson: I thank all the Members who have contributed to this debate. A number of issues that have been raised have previously been discussed in the Assembly. However, I will do my best to address as many of the points as I was able to jot down. The Chairman of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, Mr McLaughlin, said that the technical issues involved in the Budget were meat and drink to his colleagues on the Committee. They must be very hungry and thirsty if they are satisfied with all of those technicalities. He mentioned the Committee’s report, which has been forwarded to my Department. It is actively — and, indeed, carefully — being considered by departmental officials, who will report to me. We will respond to the Committee expeditiously; I hope that we will be able to do so by early March. The Chairperson of the Committee made several comments about the performance and efficiency delivery unit, as did Mr Declan O’Loan and Mr Simon Hamilton. It might be worth my taking a moment to explain some of my thinking on that unit. I very much take the same position as Mr Hamilton; I do not think that Departments can be too efficient. In the past, there has been a tendency for Governments and Ministers to dress up cuts as efficiencies, a practice that gave efficiencies a bad name. Of themselves, efficiencies do not reduce valuable, front-line services; rather, they seek to ensure that we get the best value for money from the services that we provide to the public. That is the role that I see for PEDU. I think that I told the House that my views on the performance and efficiency delivery unit had developed over time and that initially, I had considered it very much as a way to create cost-efficiencies in Departments. Indeed, that remains one of PEDU’s key focuses. However, over time, I have considered the importance of improving performance itself, especially of being able to achieve the key targets that have been set out in our Programme for Government and investment strategy. Therefore, performance, efficiency and delivery are all component parts of the work of PEDU. I say to Mr O’Loan, who is a Member for North Antrim, that he is correct to say that PEDU would not get very far if it went about its business by breaking down Departments’ doors and throwing its weight around. Michael Barber headed Tony Blair’s Prime Minister’s delivery unit, and in a conversation with him, I was struck to hear that the unit’s modus operandi involved assisting Departments. Its team made it clear at the beginning of its work with Departments that it was not seeking any publicity or kudos and that whatever it could do to help would be to their benefit. The team also said that each Department could claim any successes that came about. That general approach won him the support of Departments and encouraged Ministers in particular to work with him and his team in order to secure the delivery that was being sought. Therefore, PEDU must adopt a collaborative approach. We have been spending some time putting together our team of officials, and I am in the final stages of holding meetings with individuals who I hope will be part of the panel of advisers, overseers, mentors, or whatever title we choose for them. The team will comprise people who have vast experience in the public and private sectors and who have dealt with issues such as performance, efficiency and delivery. Later in the process, I look forward to being able to give the Committee, in the first instance, and later the Assembly, further details on that issue. My friend, colleague and wife mentioned the Enler project in Ballybeen. I agree that that community needs, and, indeed, deserves, the scheme, work on which was begun. I have been encouraged by the remarks that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety made in response to the Adjournment debate that the Member secured a few weeks ago. I can tell her that on 1 February, DFP supply directorate approved putting the project to tender, on the understanding that once the preferred bidder had been identified, the costs would be updated and the business case resubmitted for final approval. Therefore, the matter is for the Department for Social Development and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to determine. However, DFP Supply has given the business case the green light. 12.15 pm The Member for East Antrim Mr Beggs said that he would not use the debate to make comments about Larne and Carrickfergus, yet he did. He said that there were real Health Service requirements there. I am sure that his relationship with the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is as good as, if not better than, mine, and I am sure that he will want to speak to the Minister about improving facilities there. A considerable budget is available to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, and the Minister will want to see the benefits spread across the Province. Mr Beggs also mentioned training for Members, and I assume that he meant members of the Committee for Finance and Personnel in particular. Having seen Committee members in action, I am not sure that I want them to have more training, because they already seem to be very capable. However, if the Committee wishes to receive further training, my officials will be happy to facilitate such a request. Indeed, if other MLAs wish to go into detail on items such as spring Supplementary Estimates, annually managed expenditure (AME), departmental expenditure limits, and other finance issues, my officials will be glad to assist. It is in all our interests to have a grasp of public-sector finances. Mr O’Loan made some comments that were based on the words of Yogi Berra, the US baseball player and broadcaster, who said: “This is like déjà vu all over again.” I prefer his other quotation: “You should always go to other people’s funerals; otherwise, they won’t come to yours.” Of course, neither of those quotations has anything to do with the Budget Bill. Mr O’Loan raised an issue about water charges that his party leader also raised. I can only make estimates and assumptions based on what I know about each Department’s position. When the Budget is being introduced, no time is available in which to stand still and tie up all the loose ends. When a certain point is reached, we must make an educated guess about what will be necessary. The Executive supported some aspects of the strand-one report, and a subcommittee is making real progress on the outstanding issues in the independent panel’s first report. The subcommittee is now considering the panel’s second report. We have made some assumptions in the Budget. Indeed, the Minister for Regional Development has made several statements to indicate the reductions that we believe will be appropriate, because people should not be asked to pay twice for water. We must take account of the situation as it develops. The Democratic Unionist Party readily accepted the Ulster Unionist Party amendment to the motion on the Programme for Government and the investment strategy, because Governments, by their nature, must develop and take new circumstances into account. If developments require us to make reassessments, that is what we will do. The Executive are in the business of dealing with situations as they arise and of planning as well as possible, based on the information available. Mr O’Loan made a number of remarks about procurement, and I take those remarks very seriously. I have spoken to a wide range of people who have been involved in procurement for the Civil Service, and for the public sector generally. I know that the Member would want me to state that the people whom I have met are scrupulous and honest, and are seeking to get the best deal possible for Northern Ireland through the work that they do. However, like in any group of people, there may be someone in the category to which the Member referred. If he has any evidence, or any strong leanings, can he please give us the details; we are happy to investigate. It is vital that people involved in the procurement process are satisfied that it is fair and that their proposals are considered objectively. It is important that a selection process results in the best price or the best job. The Member raised the issue of industrial derating. I am glad that he supports the idea that the relationship between Government and the business sector must be improved, and I believe that that is happening. One of the Member’s leading colleagues wrote to me stating that he doubted the wisdom of holding industrial rates at 30%, and I am glad that the Member, who has a keener view on financial issues, supports that decision. If the Member for East Antrim Mr Neeson’s comments are compared with those made by his colleague the Member for North Down yesterday, they have exposed a serious split in the Alliance Party. However, he still goes on about the cost of division. I am glad that I am meeting members of the Alliance Party to discuss the issue. The Member will meet no resistance whatsoever from me if, in our present circumstances, we can make savings because of the findings of the report on the cost of division. I shall be energetic in seeking out such savings. However, that is a medium- to long-term aim, but I support making use of our improved circumstances in Northern Ireland in order to redirect funds to areas in which they can be of greatest value. The Alliance Party gives the impression that the Executive are not interested in matters about division; of course, they are. The Executive want to deal with issues of division at levels that are other than political. If the Member examines the Programme for Government in more detail, he will find that it deals with reconciliation and sectarianism. I hope that the Alliance Party will support those proposals as the Departments develop them. The Member referred tangentially to an Alliance Party proposal for road tolling. Roads are tolled in the Republic of Ireland, in many European countries and extensively in the United States. I am not sure what road in East Antrim the Member wants to be tolled. However, I am sure that the Minister for Regional Development would examine his proposal closely. The Member said that the Alliance Party was committed to low rates and thanked me for producing quotes to that effect. He ignored the fact that I produced those quotes because his colleague the Member for North Down made a proposal that would have amounted to the doubling of the regional rate. Perhaps it was more convenient for the leader of the Alliance Party to be in the Chamber today to debate the Budget rather than yesterday, but the party seems to be trying to patch up the ship that was scuttled yesterday when it was exposed as a tax-and-spend party. I described it as: “the party that wishes to get its hands into the pockets of the people of Northern Ireland”. — [Official Report, Bound Volume 27, p285, col 2]. I am sure, therefore, that there is some embarrassment in the Alliance Party; however, that did not stop its Members from making further requests for more money. To suggest that, had we kept abreast with inflation at 2·7% in the increases in the regional rate, that would somehow pay for the Alliance Party’s want-list is nonsense. In the next financial year, such an increase might have brought us approximately £7 million. For health alone, the Alliance bill yesterday amounted to £200 million. Some maths is necessary. The Alliance Party said that it had had difficulty with resources and researchers; however, it could go a long way to find a researcher who can pay a bill of £200 million out of £7 million in additional funding from rates. We must seriously examine those issues, and recognise that our real opportunity to direct more money to front-line services comes through efficiencies. In the relevant three-year period, that means realising efficiencies of at least £790 million. Set that beside the Alliance Party proposal to dip, once more, into the pockets of Northern Ireland’s people to acquire another £7 million next year. I point out to the Alliance Party the fact that the people of Northern Ireland have been paying substantially more in rates than they should have been paying, and that cannot be brushed aside. To have a 60% increase in the regional rate over five years is unacceptable, and for that reason I felt that rates should be frozen. If the Member wants to pillory me around the country for keeping rates down, I will even pay for the advertising space for him to do so. It would be good propaganda for us. I am happy to meet the Member for East Antrim on the issue of maritime heritage. We might have more in common on that issue than on others. My colleague Simon Hamilton dealt with such issues as efficiencies. I agree entirely that to throw money away through waste is tantamount to squandering, if not to theft. For that reason it is imperative that every Department does everything possible to make the best use of the money that is entrusted to us by the taxpayers and ratepayers. Furthermore, Simon Hamilton referred to the priority of growing a vibrant and dynamic economy in Northern Ireland. The Budget, together with the targets set in the Programme for Government, helps us to reach that goal. Considerably more funding has been invested in the Departments that lead on the key drivers of the economy, skills, innovation, enterprise, and infrastructure, and we have managed to increase their budgets. On top of that, we have added the innovation fund of £90 million. I agree with Simon Hamilton’s comments on social housing. It is a priority for everyone in the Assembly to recognise that there are people in significant need of better housing accommodation. Some find themselves homeless. It is our responsibility to ensure that the capital is made available to the Minister for Social Development to meet the defined targets. I am convinced that the funding that we have made available should allow us to do more than is set down in the Programme for Government targets with regard to social and affordable housing, and I shall give the Minister every encouragement and assistance in meeting those targets. The leader of the SDLP, Mark Durkan, again touched on the issues of education and the unforeseens. I point out to him that we must make judgements on those issues as they develop; however, the Budget cannot be held back because Ministers are not yet in a position to bring precise proposals before the Executive and the Assembly. 12.30 pm He went back to the issue of cross-cutting funds. By their very nature, those funds were temporary. There are massive advantages in having cross-cutting funding for important issues mainstreamed, and that is what we have done. That will reduce waste and administrative duplication. Members will know from experience that, in most cases, the rolling out of the programmes and the associated spend suffered from delays. It was not an effective way of managing limited resources. There is a very strong argument for cross-cutting policies and monitoring to ensure that those programmes go ahead, but they should be sourced within the various Departments that have direct responsibility. The Member for Foyle also touched on a number of other issues. He got into what might be described as revisionism. I think that his memory is somewhat defective. I am not sure that, had I been left to rely entirely on my memory, things would have been as clear as I will state them. However, I did not rely on my memory; I pulled out the papers. I had the Department provide me with the papers for the meeting that Mr Durkan spoke of, and I put on record at Westminster the precise chain of events at that time. We made it clear to Mr Durkan that he needed to reinstate the link, but, unfortunately, he did not do so. I have to say to the Member for Foyle — [Interruption.] I am not sure whether the Member wants to go somewhere or wants me to give way. Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for giving way. He now, correctly, says that he asked me to reinstate the link. Earlier, as the Hansard report will show, he said that he had asked me not to break the link. He has said several times that the link between water and the rates was broken by the last Executive, or by me; he is now accepting that it was actually broken under direct rule. He was not just asking me to reinstate the link; he was calling for the entire rate to be a water rate. He said to me: “I will set it in future. There will be no question of your having to make unpopular rate rises, no question of a Durkan tax. It will be Robinson tax in future.” My memory is very clear on that. Mr P Robinson: The Member had better go back to his papers, as I have done. A decision had been taken by the direct rule Administration, but the task of putting it through was the then Minister’s. I remember him coming to the Assembly trying to get a very significant increase in the rates, and having to go away with his tail between his legs and come back seeking a much smaller increase. Furthermore, the Member’s recollection of my view that there should be a swap-over of the regional rate to cover water charging belongs not to the meeting of June 2000 but to a much later meeting, when the Executive were seeking some response to the issue of water charging. I was the only Minister to oppose it; it was advocated by the then Executive as being necessary. There is some revisionism on the part of the Member, and the record is very clear on the issue. I still have the letter that I sent, indicating my opposition to water charging — people should not have to pay twice — and advocating a way in which the Minister could have avoided the very things that happened thereafter. The Member for South Antrim Mr Ford indicated that there should be changes that could bring real savings and efficiencies. In particular, he mentioned the wastefulness of having 11 Departments and 108 Assembly Members. I am always glad to welcome converts. The Democratic Unionist Party published policy documents many years ago that showed the massive savings that could be made by reducing the political bureaucracy in Northern Ireland. It is an absurd situation, and there can be no justification, other than as a means of ensuring that smaller parties have places on the Executive, for having 11 Departments. Even the former Secretary of State recognised that six would be quite adequate. I agree that it should in the order of five, six or seven rather than 11 Departments, with all of the private-office costs and additional bureaucratic spend that that number entails. Equally — and this comment may not be too popular — I agree with the Member about the size of this Assembly. It is too large compared with England, Scotland and Wales; the Northern Ireland Assembly should probably have half the number of Members that it currently has. When we are spending public money, we should really make the best use of it. Leadership must be given by political representatives. While the issue may be difficult for some individuals in the Assembly, the political parties should recognise that they need to take steps to resolve the matter. My colleague the Member for Lagan Valley the Rt Hon Jeffrey Donaldson and his Assembly and Executive Review Committee have the task of examining and dealing with that subject, and I hope that they will. In what I assume was an attempt to prop up the weak performance of his colleague yesterday, Mr Ford returned to the subject of increasing rates in Northern Ireland in order meet the £200 million gap in funding. He had to think of a new way of getting that money, so he took the poor example of the Ulster Unionist Party and said that we did not get enough money from the Treasury at the time of devolution. If he were to check the record, he would see that the DUP said that we needed a budget in the region of £1 billion for infrastructure development in Northern Ireland. That was the key element, and it is clear from the figures in the Budget and the investment strategy that there is £2 billion of additional spending as a result of that process. Mr Beggs: Will the Minister give way? Mr P Robinson: I will give way, but I want to finish the point that I was making first. As I said, £2 billion of additional spending is available to Northern Ireland in the form of asset disposal. Under previous regimes, the Treasury would have taken back that money. However, we were able to reach agreement with the then Chancellor that a significant portion of that money should remain in Northern Ireland. In consequent negotiations, that amount has increased further. In addition, we were able to secure and front-load end-year flexibility to our advantage during this comprehensive spending review cycle. We were, of course, able to correct the mess that was made by the then Finance Minister and the Ulster Unionist Party with the reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI). They will know that I welcomed RRI as an instrument — and I still do — but, happily, in those negotiations, my colleagues were able to convince the Treasury to make the fundamental change in the RRI that meant that we were not required to keep ahead of any increases in GB. Previously, past Governments were forced to increase rates so much that the end result was a 19% increase, courtesy of the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party. Mr Durkan: Will the Minister give way? Mr P Robinson: I said that I would give way to the Member for East Antrim. Mr Beggs: The Minister has pointed out that his £1 billion package is now £2 billion. Why, then, have independent economists estimated that the package is worth £100 million? Is the Minister in danger of recounting money that would have come to Northern Ireland in any case in order to try to achieve his figures? Does he not agree that £100 million is closer to the package that was awarded as a result of cross-party lobbying of the Prime Minister? Mr P Robinson: Mr Beggs makes a good case for more training for some Members. I can now see why he sought for such training. I will ask my officials urgently to provide some assistance. No economist can hide away the fact that assets of around £2 billion have been identified that can be disposed of, and which, I believe, will amount to even more than that figure as the years go by. That cannot be wished away. Of course, in addition to that — Mr Beggs: They are Northern Ireland’s own assets. Mr P Robinson: The Member says that Northern Ireland is getting its own assets. However, perhaps he is not aware that, previously, the sale of assets went back to the Treasury and Northern Ireland did not get the proceeds. Indeed, there is every advantage for Northern Ireland in ensuring that it gets the benefits of assets that have not been utilised properly and that are not of value; to ensure that those funds are used to provide Northern Ireland with infrastructure that is of benefit to its people. I am aware that you want to wind up the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for their interest in the legislative Stage of the public-expenditure cycle; not only during the debate, but in the valuable contributions that they have made in Committees, correspondence and questions that they have posed in the Assembly on other occasions. Again, I want to record my thanks to the Committee for Finance and Personnel for assisting the accelerated passage of the Budget Bill and ensuring that the legislative timetable is adhered to. The Bill brings to a close the first financial year under the governance of the current Assembly and Executive. The Executive have already cut their teeth in some difficult choices in the monitoring rounds and in the draft and revised Budget process. That will, undoubtedly, continue to be the case as we go forward in 2008-09. I look forward to the challenges that lie ahead, to commencing the first financial year of the Executive’s Budget for 2008-11, and to building a better future for all of Northern Ireland’s people. Mr Deputy Speaker: Before I put the Question, I remind Members that because the motion is on the Budget Bill, it requires cross-community support. Question put and agreed to. Resolved (with cross-community support): That the Second Stage of the Budget Bill (NIA 10/07) be agreed. Mr Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed 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 12.43 pm. On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Dallat] in the Chair) — 2.00 pm The Draft Disability Discrimination (Private Clubs, etc.) Regulations The junior Minister (Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister) (Mr G Kelly): I beg to move That the draft Disability Discrimination (Private Clubs, etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008 be approved. The regulations were laid in draft form before the Assembly on 31 December 2007. Their purpose is to ensure that private members’ clubs that have 25 or more members be placed under the same duties of reasonable adjustment imposed by part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in respect of providers of goods, facilities and services to the public. The regulations complete the proposals on private clubs that were set out as part of the consultation on The Disability Discrimination (NI) Order 2006. In that consultation, we proposed to make it unlawful for clubs with 25 or more members to discriminate against disabled members, prospective members, associates and — in certain circumstances — their guests. That was modelled on the provisions of The Race Relations (NI) Order 1997. The provisions on private clubs are set out in article 13 of the 2006 Order and came into operation on 31 December 2007. Since then, private clubs have not been able to discriminate unlawfully against a disabled person by treating him or her less favourably. Unlawful discrimination also includes a failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments. However, the detail of the duty to make reasonable adjustments was not set out in the 2006 Order, which instead gave powers to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) to set out the detail of the duty in regulations. During the 2005 consultation on the 2006 Order, a commitment was given to consult further on regulations before imposing the reasonable adjustment duties. That consultation was completed in September 2006, and the majority of responses indicated general agreement on the provisions of the regulations. In keeping with the legislative process set out in the 1995 Act, those regulations must be made under the draft-affirmation procedure. That means that they must first be laid in draft form and considered by the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. That process is complete. The Committee is content with the regulations, and it afforded to them, and other disability regulations, a significant amount of time and consideration in late 2007. I commend the Committee on its detailed consideration of this important legislation, which will have a significant beneficial effect on the lives of many disabled people. What will the duty to make reasonable adjustments mean for private clubs? Many private clubs meet the requirements. Any club that provides a service to the public, such as dining facilities or hiring rooms, must meet the duties on service providers in the 1995 Act. The same duties are now being produced for private clubs. Private clubs will have to make reasonable adjustments in three areas. First, a private club’s practices, including policies and procedures, must be set out, formally or by custom. That could mean that a private club has a practice, which — perhaps unintentionally — makes it impossible, or unreasonably difficult, for disabled people to make use of its services. In such cases, private clubs must make reasonable adjustments to change the practice, policy or procedure. An example of that would be a case whereby a private social club organises an annual dinner for its 30 members upstairs, as it has for a number of years, in a small local hotel. The problem is that the room that is being hired is not accessible to disabled members, who find it very difficult or impossible to climb stairs. There is no lift. Although the hotel has ground-floor facilities of equal quality, the organisers of the dinner prefer the privacy of the room upstairs. In that instance, the club should consider whether a change in that practice would be consistent with a reasonable adjustment to allow access for its disabled members. The second area concerns physical features. In cases in which a physical feature makes it impossible, or unreasonably difficult, for disabled people to use any service that is offered to private club members, reasonable steps must be taken to remove, or alter, the feature so that it no longer has that effect. Alternatively, a reasonable means of avoiding the feature, or a reasonable alternative method to make the service available to disabled people, must be provided. For example, a local private club may hold its meetings in a building that must be entered by steps, and the room in which the meetings are held has a narrow entrance door. To ensure that its meetings are accessible to disabled people, the private club should take the reasonable steps of installing a permanent ramp at the entrance to the building and widening the door into the room. Thirdly, when required, a private club must take reasonable steps to provide auxiliary aids or services, if that would make it easier for disabled people to use any of its services. For example, people with visual impairments could be offered the use of an auxiliary aid or information that is provided on an audio tape. An auxiliary service ensures that a member of staff is able to communicate with deaf clients who use sign language. On the other hand, an auxiliary aid or service might be the provision of a special piece of equipment, or simply extra assistance that staff give to disabled people. Given that those duties are anticipatory, private clubs must consider in advance what adjustments they might need to make. I emphasise that clubs will be asked to do only what is reasonable in all circumstances. What would be reasonable for clubs to do to make their facilities more accessible for disabled people would depend on all the circumstances of the case and would vary according to the type of facility and activity that the club provided, the nature of the club, its size and resources, and the effect of the disability on the individual disabled person. There will, of course, be plenty of advice available for private clubs on how to meet their duties. The Equality Commission has prepared extensive advisory material for private clubs, and its advisers are available to give individuals guidance. I commend the draft regulations to the House. Mr Shannon: I apologise on behalf of the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, Mr Danny Kennedy and Naomi Long, for their absence today. They are attending separate meetings, so I have been asked to speak on behalf of the Committee. On 3 October 2007, the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister was briefed by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister on proposals for a number of regulations that have been designed to give effect to the provisions of the Disability Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 2006. The Disability Discrimination (Service Providers and Public Authorities Carrying Out Functions) Regulations 2005, the Disability Discrimination (Premises) Regulations 2006 and the Disability Discrimination (Questions and Replies) Order 2004 have already been considered by the Committee, and subordinate legislation has been introduced to reflect the provisions of those regulations. New guidance on the definition of disability has been laid in draft form and is due to come into effect within the next few weeks. The Disability Discrimination (Private Clubs, etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008 ensure that larger private clubs — those with 25 or more members — are brought within the scope of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The introduction of the regulations will ensure that it will be unlawful for a club to discriminate by treating a disabled person less favourably, because of his or her disability — compared to a person who is not disabled — or by failing to make a reasonable adjustment so that a disabled person can access its facilities. The Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister is committed to working constructively with the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to ensure that progress is made to introduce effective legislative protection for people with disabilities. Therefore, the Committee supports the motion. It will continue to work with the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to ensure that people with disabilities are afforded full legislative protection. On behalf of the Committee, I take this opportunity to urge Members to introduce, as soon as possible, subordinate legislation that reflects the Disability Discrimination (Transport Vehicles) Regulations 2005. Many disabled people have spoken to me on that subject, making it a matter that is close to my heart. Being able to avail themselves of transport is critical to the quality of life of people with disabilities. The Committee wishes to see the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister prioritising the introduction in Northern Ireland of subordinate legislation to reflect |