Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): First Minister and deputy First Minister, you are welcome to the Committee meeting this afternoon. It is good to have you along to give an update on the work of the Department and the priorities at the moment. As ever, we will pass over to you to give some opening remarks, and then we will move to questions.

Mrs Foster (The First Minister): Thank you very much, Chair. As with the last time, we will give brief opening remarks in an alternating fashion, because we know that colleagues will want to ask questions.

First of all, it is good to be back with you. I am pleased to say that, since we last met in, I think, January this year, we are in a much more optimistic position in our fight against COVID-19. The successful roll-out of the vaccine programme has been amazing. We have seen over 750,000 people receive their first vaccination, and appointments are now being offered to those aged over 40. The achievement is, of course, testament to the outstanding efforts of people across our health service, including all our volunteers who have manned many of the COVID stations. While that is welcome news, it is important to emphasise that the programme remains dependent on vaccine production, supply and distribution, and we will continue to fully support the Health Minister in his efforts to ensure that appropriate allocations come into Northern Ireland.

We will highlight a number of other areas that the Department has been focused on since January, and then, if there are others that you wish to speak to, we will be happy to take those as well: EU exit matters, the departmental financial position for 2021-22, victims and survivors and the Programme for Government (PFG). I will hand over to Michelle.

Mrs O'Neill (The deputy First Minister): Thanks, Arlene. I welcome the opportunity to be in front of the Committee again today and to discuss the current work of the Department. COVID obviously remains our priority, and our response to the pandemic continues to be led by the latest scientific and medical advice. The Executive's focus is on building a careful, ambitious, longer-term plan for moving forward in 2021 and beyond. You will know that the Executive will meet tomorrow, and we will review the potential for easing restrictions. A number of proposals have been received, and those will be considered alongside the advice provided by the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) and the Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA). I am sure that members might want to talk a bit more about that today, without pre-empting the Executive, but, as Arlene said, there are areas that we want to update you on today, and we are happy to respond to members' queries, views and issues that you wish to raise.

Mrs Foster: On EU exit matters, you will be aware that the challenges that our businesses have faced since the end of the transition period continue. At the beginning of January, when we were last in front of the Committee, we advised that businesses had been experiencing disruption. That was in part due to the lack of readiness amongst businesses in England, Scotland and Wales that trade with us, as well as the impact of COVID-19 at that time. Since the end of the transition period, we have continued to work closely with HMG and other devolved Administrations at ministerial and official level to deal with the ongoing issues.

Mrs O'Neill: As an Executive, we keep under regular review the ongoing issues relating to the end of the transition period, including business readiness, sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) checks, VAT and customs and the end of the grace periods. The Committee will be aware of the easements that were unilaterally extended by the British Government last month. It is important to learn from experience and to ensure that those extensions, now that they have been brought about, are used well, so that systems and businesses here and in Britain are ready by the extended deadlines. We will continue to monitor the ongoing discussions with the EU, including the legal action recently initiated by the EU. I saw some commentary on that in the media before we started the meeting this afternoon.

In correspondence to David Frost on 15 March and at a Specialised Committee meeting on 26 March, the EU requested a credible road map with clear milestones for implementation. We understand that the British Government provided the EU with that road map on 31 March, so there is ongoing work there.

Mrs Foster: On the appointment of a new Commissioner for Victims and Survivors, our officials have prepared the comprehensive documentation required to begin the recruitment process. We are looking at that and hope to progress to the next stage of the recruitment exercise as soon as possible. In the meantime, we recognise that continuity is important for victims and survivors, so we have ensured that interim arrangements are in place in the commission to allow the provision of continued support for victims and survivors. Of course, the service will also continue to deliver its services, which are, of course, tailored to meet individual needs.

Mrs O'Neill: On the victims' payments scheme for permanent disablement, as members will be aware, the Court of Appeal has been clear that the Executive Office (TEO) has a legal duty to fund victims' payments. An undertaking was provided by TEO and was accepted by the court on Monday of this week. It confirms that payments will be made to successful applicants to the scheme. We remain committed to delivering the scheme and are mindful of the needs of the victims and survivors who will be the recipients of the payment. The undertaking provides reassurance and confidence that the payments will be made when they fall due under the terms of the scheme, regardless of where the funding comes from.

Alongside the Justice Minister and the Finance Minister, we last week met Brandon Lewis, the Secretary of State, to discuss the ongoing funding issue. We made it clear at that meeting that the offer of financial support that he had proposed fell considerably short of what was required. We will continue to progress financial discussions with the Secretary of State and the NIO in the context of their funding responsibilities for the scheme, as set out in the statement of funding policy.

Mrs Foster: Moving on to our financial position, members will be familiar with the challenging Budget within which the Executive have had to operate and the Committee has received a briefing from our officials on the specific challenges that the Executive Office faces. For the record, our final budget allocation for 2021-22 provides resource DEL of £120·5 million and capital DEL of just £15·3 million. We have been provided with £46·2 million for the historical institutional abuse (HIA) redress scheme. That will allow the Department to meet compensation levels that the Historical Institutional Abuse Redress Board expects us to pay, as well as other associated costs from the historical institutional abuse inquiry. We have also secured £6·7 million for victims' payments to fund implementation costs, and, of course, there remains an estimated funding shortfall of £19 million in relation to forecast legal obligations of payments to victims for 2021-22, which, as the DFM has highlighted, remain subject to ongoing negotiations with Her Majesty's Government.

Mrs O'Neill: Alongside that, the Department has identified an anticipated COVID-19 cost of about £5·8 million for next year. We have received an allocation of £2·1 million, so we will need to keep that under review to ensure that our COVID-19 recovery requirements are met.

On Shared Future funding, you will be aware that the draft Budget did not provide replacement funding. However, we are glad to say that the final Budget provides the full £12 million that, it is estimated, will be required for this year. Obviously, that is welcome and will ensure the continued delivery of a major programme.

Our capital budget of £15·3 million will also enable us to meet our current baseline capital requirements, and we will continue to closely monitor the overall capital position as part of any future monitoring rounds.

Mrs Foster: Finally, on the Programme for Government, at its last meeting, the Committee received a briefing from officials on the development of our outcomes-based strategic PFG. We have had an extensive and inclusive public consultation to ensure that the new Programme for Government meets the needs and, more importantly, the expectations of citizens and stakeholders. The Executive have been clear and unequivocal in their commitment to delivering an outcomes-based programme that has widespread support, and, as you will have heard from officials, that consultation is now being analysed and will inform and influence our decision-making.

As we have said before, our response to COVID-19 demonstrated clearly the importance of a whole-of-government approach when it comes to public service planning and delivery. Partnership working and co-design are central to an outcomes-based approach, and, for it to be a success, we need to ensure that there is buy-in from every sector.

Mrs O'Neill: In the immediate period, the Executive have positioned a COVID-19 recovery strategy at the centre of a three-step strategic process involving a pathway out of restrictions, recovery and renewal and then agreeing a Programme for Government. The aim is to develop a cross-departmental plan that has an immediate focus on societal, economic and health recovery, taking account of prevailing COVID-19 restrictions. That will be followed by PFG action plans to deliver desired change and improvement towards achieving long-term Programme for Government outcomes.

Looking ahead, it is intended that the new PFG will be maintained in a live format, with work plans being continually evaluated and adjusted to ensure that they achieve the desired impacts. It is certainly a new way of working, but it makes it a real, live format.

I think that that is us by way of introduction, Chair.

Mrs Foster: That is us, Chair. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Ministers, thank you very much. That has been a useful summary; indeed, it is certainly confirmation of many of the presentations that we have had from officers from the Department over the past period. It is good to get it in summary form.

I will open up with a few questions. I want to reflect on the violence that we have seen on the streets in the past week, with so many police officers injured and so much destruction in certain parts of the community. It is important to get some commitments and some understanding of what happened.

I will start with you, First Minister. This day last week, you were on Twitter and referred to an attack on a journalist as being done by "bullies". In another tweet, you referred to:

Could you clarify that for us? There were people committing hate crimes, people attempting murder by throwing petrol bombs at bus drivers and people attacking the police and vandalising properties. Were they not really breaking the law? Do you think that such comments may have given licence to those who were rioting on the streets?

Mrs Foster: First of all, absolutely not. Nobody can take anything that I have said as giving licence to do anything. The point that I was making in the tweet, however clumsily it was worded, was that ab initio — in other words, from the beginning — the lawbreaking back on 30 June 2020 was by Sinn Féin. That was the point that I was making. Of course, people who riot, people who injure police officers and people who destroy their own communities are breaking the law. That is clear for everybody to see. The point, from my perspective, is that the rule of law is fundamental to everything that needs to be done, but it has to be administered in a way that is without fear or favour. The whole point of justice is that justice is blind. It does not matter how powerful you are, and it does not matter who you are, justice has to be administered in a fair and equal way. That is the point that was being made, and I hope, Chair, that there will not be any mischief made today about clumsy wording when I have been unequivocal in my condemnation of violence from all sides during the past week; indeed, I have always been unequivocal in my condemnation of violence throughout my long time in elected office.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Thank you for that, First Minister. Of course, accountability is never mischievous. It is important to get accountability, and the reference that the remark was clumsy is certainly welcome as clarification.

Another element that needs to be addressed is that, for nearly a full week, there was a volley of remarks being made at the Chief Constable and the senior management team of the PSNI that they should resign. As we approached the weekend, we had large gangs of youths throwing petrol bombs and stones at the police.

Do you see a connection between the remarks used by politicians and the way in which people in the community perceive and use them and turn that into violence? Do we need to be careful with the words that we use?

Mr Stalford: Mr Chairman, I am sorry. That is not accountability; that is political grandstanding.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Order. The First Minister is responding. Please, Christopher.

Mr Stalford: I think that everyone can see exactly what is going on, Mr Chairman. It is political grandstanding. I am sure that you will get your headline in your local newspaper, but, if you want to ask the Minister about the function of her Department, I suggest that your time would be better spent doing that.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Let us go back to the First Minister.

Mrs Foster: I always know, when I come to this Committee, Mr Stalford, that it is not about the departmental functions that I am asked by the Chair but about political matters. So be it. The Chair has lectured me on accountability. Of course, as a public representative, I have a right and a duty to hold to account those who behave in a way that allows the law not to be administered in a fair and equitable way. That is exactly what I will continue to do. I will hold people to account, just as you will hold me to account. I think that that is clear.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Thank you very much. I welcome your acknowledgement that it is for everybody to hold everybody to account. That is what I see as the purpose of the Committee.

Deputy First Minister, the places that were most impacted by the recent violence were areas of the highest deprivation in the North. There has been a failure by the Executive and previous Executives and by the Communities Department to deliver a comprehensive anti-poverty strategy. What impact do you think social deprivation has had on the actions that we saw last week? Do you think that it is time to demand that the Communities Minister deliver the much-needed anti-poverty strategy so that we can challenge the root causes of deprivation that are so evidently linked to the social unrest that we saw?

Mrs O'Neill: Thanks, Chair. I am not sure whether you were in the Chamber or engaged in the conversation that we have had over recent weeks, when the Communities Minister was forthright in speaking about the need to address poverty. She has put the anti-poverty strategy in the public domain. That stuff is all being worked through right now. She is committed to delivering an anti-poverty strategy. She will need the support of every Minister in the Executive to which all our parties belong and of every Department in order to tackle that. We know that poverty comes in many forms, and we need to be able to address the root causes, as you say. I am a big believer in making sure that we get in at the front end, as opposed to tackling the symptoms of poverty. We need to get into it from the outset. We all need to be focused on making sure that that is a priority. I am glad that the Communities Minister has put that work in the public domain and is working on the design of it.

You started off by making a point about justification. Let me be clear that there is no justification for what we saw on our streets over recent weeks. The destruction, the violence and the threat of violence are completely unacceptable. That is not justifiable in any form, no matter what concerns people have. People are entitled to have legitimate community concerns, but they should be voiced in a way that is dealt with via politics, discussion and debate. I am certainly open to that conversation, as, I am sure, you and all members of the Committee are.

There are people who are attempting to use and abuse our children. They need to be called out, and there can be no place for them to hide. It is incumbent on all of us in political leadership who hold elected office to make sure that we do that and that we work together. I say to you, Chair, and to everyone that we need to work together to make sure that the violence does not happen. We all have our individual responsibilities to the communities that we represent, and then we have a collective responsibility. I welcome the fact that the Executive have unity of purpose in calling that out. We called for calm last week when we came together and issued a collective Executive statement. I welcome the fact that we have got to that point. We need to remain in that position in the coming weeks. We cannot allow the violence and unrest to return to the streets. A policing response, a community response and a political response: that is the only way to deal with the issues.

Finally, Chair, I am sure that the Committee will join me in sending our best wishes to all the officers who were injured as a result of what happened in the streets in recent weeks. All our attention and focus in the weeks ahead should be on making sure that it does not return.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Ministers, thank you for those responses.

Mr Beattie: First Minister and deputy First Minister, thank you very much for your answers so far. I will start on a slightly different tack. You have been very clear in your condemnation of the violence, and I am thankful for that. I think that everybody is clear that there is no excuse for the violence. It does nothing to progress any fair political or community concerns in relation to what is going on.

I have a genuine concern that I will put to both of you. For some reason, if, as a unionist, you voice a concern, you are seen as stoking the flames, but, if anybody else voices a similar concern, it is just voicing a concern. I will give you an example. One of our Ministers Declan Kearney penned a very important article on 15 February about the make-up of the police. It was a fair opinion. I disagreed with it, but I did not see him as stoking the flames in any shape or form. However, for some reason, when a unionist raises an honest and genuine concern — I am trying to do it in a non-inflammatory manner — it is viewed as stoking the flames. Is it insidious now when a unionist raises a concern in politics?

Mrs Foster: Thank you for that important point. I think that a lot of unionists have felt that inequity has been shown towards people who have tried to raise their voice about a range of concerns from the iniquitous protocol through to policing, the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) decision and other decisions that have been made in the Assembly. The feeling that they are not being listened to is dismissed. That is wrong. Everybody should have a voice in the process. I agree with Michelle: we need to listen to all of the voices. We need to engage with those voices to try to bring some clarity to some of the misconceptions that there are. For example, our office has a range of programmes that try to deal with some of the systemic issues arising out of our past, whether that is Delivering Social Change, Urban Villages, Communities in Transition (CIT), the social investment fund or the Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) funding overall. We have been engaging with our young people to try to get them to interact with one another across communities. Some of the work that has been carried out has been really meaningful and impactful.

The question is this: what else do we, as an Executive Office, need to be engaged in to make a difference to some of those young people, who, frankly, feel left behind in a process where they see other people not being left behind? It is really about trying to say to people, "We are listening. We are very much engaging in what we need to do to help you". It is about trying to say to people, "You are not forgotten about. You are not dispossessed. We want to listen and to act". That is an important point, Doug, and I am pleased that you made it.

Mrs O'Neill: Obviously, Doug, people are entitled to feel what they feel and to express their view. We should all encourage people to engage in politics and to make that the forum in which to express their view. There is no space or room for violence on the streets and that sort of activity at all. There is no space at the table for the groups that are orchestrating that in any way, such as the criminal gangs that we know exist. Here we are today just past the anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, which was a promise of hope and of something new and better. If there are communities that have been left behind or sections of the population that do not feel that, that is something that we all have to be engaged in and must work harder on. However, we certainly should not in any way entertain the organised crime gangs that are involved, which are using and abusing young people. While those people sit in the comfort of their own home, youngsters are out on the streets getting themselves a criminal record that jeopardises their life chances. That needs to be condemned and called out at every turn.

People make their own assessment of what others say in terms of political analysis. We all come from different political standpoints and perspectives, and we will not agree on things, but is that not the nature of politics? That is how you should deal with things, as opposed to, "I didn't get my own way, so I must instigate the whipping-up of fears and tensions". That is something that I am concerned about whenever I look at some of those in political leadership and hear some of the language about the violence or unrest. Even today, I saw more commentary from an MP that would really concern me in terms of stoking more tension.

Let us use this time. I certainly wanted to be before the Committee today to say that we need to work together. Let us work together to ensure that we reach out to those perhaps harder-to-reach young people or communities that in any way feel isolated or do not feel the benefit of where we are today. That is something that we all should be concerned about.

Mr Beattie: Thanks, First Minister and deputy First Minister. Those were full and important answers. If we take away anybody's political voice, that is where we have real dangers in our society.

One of the problems that we are dealing with — we all have different points of view on it, coming from different angles, I suppose — is the protocol and the Irish Sea border. Last month, the Irish Seanad Committee on the UK leaving the EU gave evidence to the Committee. The Chair of that Committee, when questioned by me, said that the Northern Ireland protocol damaged the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. She was clear and unequivocal about that. It was logged. She said that it had damaged the agreement. Then, we have people saying that we should implement the protocol rigorously. If we apply those two comments, what we are saying is, "Let's apply rigorously a protocol that, we know, will damage the very agreement that brought us the peace that we have today". That fine balance in Northern Ireland is kept because we do not have hardened borders anywhere. I do not want to see a hardened border on the island, but I do not want to see it in the Irish Sea. How do you reconcile even the Irish Seanad saying that the protocol damages the Belfast Agreement?

Mrs O'Neill: Doug, I did not see what was said to the Committee, but I would say this: people need to be honest about what this is. I have said from day one of Brexit that Brexit was not compatible with the Good Friday Agreement. We did not ask for Brexit. The majority of people here rejected Brexit. We always knew that there would be dire consequences from Brexit. What we face today is the new political and trading reality of a post-Brexit era. I welcome the protocol for the fact that it gives us mitigation and some protection against the worst excesses of Brexit, but it is far from perfect, of course. I would much prefer that we did not deal with Brexit; I would much prefer that we had the position that we had previously.

It is really important to send a clear message to those of a British identity that Brexit, the protocol and the withdrawal agreement do not interfere with anybody's identity. That issue, in terms of the Good Friday Agreement, means that the only time that we will have constitutional change on this island is if the people here decide that that is what they wish to see. The protocol or Brexit do nothing to jeopardise that.

Let me say this clearly to all those of a British identity: only the Good Friday Agreement will deliver constitutional change, nothing else. It is really important that we focus on that. This is now an international agreement. We are where we are today. The British Government negotiated the withdrawal agreement and the protocol. There are some issues that need to be resolved, and I hope that there will be a resolution of those. There are ongoing conversations. Committees and means were built into the withdrawal agreement to deal with the issues.

We also have to be forthright and say that, because the deal was not done until the last moment, there was no time for adjustment and to transition into the new arrangements. A lot of businesses, particularly in Britain, were not ready for the new trading reality. We are dealing with a combination of new trading realities because of Brexit in its entirety and because people and businesses did not have time to adjust.

We should be focused on where we can find solutions and easements. This is an international agreement. It is an international treaty, and the British Government signed up to it. We have to deal with that and work together to deal with it. We also have to find solutions to minimise any of the disruptions. I never wanted to see interruption to trade, North/South or east-west. That was always my clear message from the outset.

Mrs Foster: Thank you for that, Doug. Of course, the protocol is a political choice, and whether it is continued with is also a political choice. Article 13(8) of the protocol itself envisages the replacement of the protocol, so that can, of course, occur if politics decides that that should be the case. Of course, the Act of Union (Ireland) 1800 was principally about trade and economic movements between the different parts of the United Kingdom. There is an intrinsic internal market in the UK. The supply chains are all very interlinked. That is why you see so many difficulties with the protocol. Article Sixth of the Act of Union refers to the fact that there was to be free movement of trade between different parts of the United Kingdom. Of course, that goes right to the heart of the quality of our membership of the United Kingdom, and that is the fundamental problem with the protocol. The fact is that it demeans our full citizenship of the United Kingdom insofar as we cannot have the same economic movements as the rest of the United Kingdom. It damages the quality of our citizenship, and, of course, it damages the Belfast Agreement in terms of the east-west relationship. The protocol has to be replaced to deal with the Act of Union point, the trade point and the identity point. That is certainly my position, and I hope that we see some movement on that replacement in the near future.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Ministers. I will leave it there. I know that others need to get in.

Mr Sheehan: I want to comment on the question that Doug asked about raising concerns. I agree that everyone should be free to raise whatever concerns they have. Of course, we will not get any disagreement that it should all be done in measured terms. I want to flag up a couple of interviews that took place in the aftermath of the trouble last week. The first was with a young lad aged, I think, about 19 from around the Shankill. He was very articulate and certainly not like the stereotypical image that many people have of young loyalists. What he said was that, if people keep telling you that you are losing all the time, everything is being taken away from you, your cultural identity is being eroded and so on and then somebody puts a petrol bomb into your hand, why would you not throw it? In another interview, someone from the Shankill was complaining about the state of the Shankill in comparison with the Springfield Road and the Falls. They said that, on the nationalist side, the housing was better, the shops were better, more commercial premises were being built and so forth. The point that I am getting to is this: if people are going to voice concerns — concerns that might raise tensions — those should be supported with evidence. At times, the evidence does not support what is being said. The majority of deprivation and disadvantage is in nationalist areas, yet some have the perception that it is not, so there needs, at times, to be a bit of honesty.

I want to move on to a couple of other issues, and I have a couple of short questions. First, I am sure that everyone on the Committee is glad to see that there will be movement on the victims' payment scheme and that the Executive have committed to making payments when they are due. There was an issue about the Westminster Government contributing to that. Is there agreement across all of the Executive parties that the British Government should make some sort of contribution to that scheme? Will efforts continue to get them to do so?

Mrs O'Neill: I will come in on that, Chair, if that is OK. We all have a responsibility. What Pat highlights is really strong: sometimes, the perception can be worse than the reality for people. It is important that people get honest information and that, if they do not agree with something, they are given a democratic way in which to voice their concerns. That is really important.

Every time that we talk about the victims' payments scheme, I am conscious of the people concerned, particularly the victims who have been waiting for far too long for the scheme. I am glad that we have got to where we are today, but the Executive still have a huge amount of work to do. There is a collective will from Justice and Finance and us to work together to continue to make the case and to press the British Government for the financial contribution that is required. The quantum of the scheme is still unclear, but it is fairly substantial. The British Government made their statement of funding policy, and, when they set the policy and took decisions that we may or may not have taken, we had not had those discussions. They took decisions, and, given their statement of funding policy, they are required to fund them. We continue to make the case, and there is a joined-up approach to that. That is important. It is good that we can, I suppose, give clarity that payment will be made to the victims, but we have a job of work to do to secure additional funding. Otherwise, we will be left in a difficult position around where we will find the funding or where we will take it from. That is the stark choice that the Executive will face.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Arlene, do you want to come in on that?

Mrs Foster: It is hard to know where to start. The idea that there is no cultural war on unionism from republicanism is for the birds, frankly. Look at the evidence: the flag removed from City Hall; parades blocked; offensive language about things that are dear to unionism, such as Prince of Wales Avenue being referred to as "POW Avenue"; the blocking of a small centenary stone by the Assembly Commission — by Sinn Féin. I could go on and on about the offence caused to unionism by republicanism, but that would not help anyone. Instead, we should focus on the fact that there is investment from this office, through the programmes that I have mentioned, in working-class loyalist communities. We will continue to listen to what is needed and put more investment into those communities. I am pleased that soon there will be a new women's centre in the Shankill and that new private sector housing is being built on the Shankill, close to Lanark Way, where some of the recent violence happened. Development is going on, but the idea that there is no cultural war against unionism is not factual.

Mr Sheehan: Are all parties in agreement that the Executive should continue to pursue a contribution from the Treasury to the victims' payments scheme?

Mrs Foster: Yes, that is the position of the Executive.

Mr Sheehan: I do not want to get into a row with the First Minister, but I certainly do not agree that there is a cultural war. If we want to be factual, we must consider that nothing in the Stormont estate, for example, is representative of Irish republicanism or Irish nationalism. If we walk around our cities, towns and villages, we see hospitals named after the British royal family and, similarly, universities, bridges, streets, monuments and so on. There is a complete imbalance. We have never advocated the tearing down of any monuments or symbols that are representative of Britishness or unionism: all we seek is equality and balance. I will leave it at that.

That leads me into a question on culture. Last night, I did an interview with TG4 in which the issue of an Acht na Gaeilge, the Irish language Act, came up. I am addressing this to you, Arlene: there is a perception, to use a word that is topical, that you are dragging your heels when it comes to legislating and implementing an Irish language Act. I would like you to dispel that perception.

Mrs Foster: First, I will correct you: the last time I looked, there was a tree commemorating the establishment of the GAA in the grounds of Stormont. There is a huge portrait, rightly, of the former deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, in Stormont. As things develop in the Stormont estate, I am sure, there will be other things.

I think that you are talking about the cultural package. Of course, we did not agree to a free-standing Irish language Act, as well you know. Sinn Féin members continue to talk about Sinn Féin Acts, or Irish language Acts — that was a Freudian slip — but it is a cultural package. It is a balanced package that is to come forward so that everybody in Northern Ireland is respected. I remind you that the Belfast Agreement says that the consent of the people of Northern Ireland is needed to change the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, so it should not surprise Members of the Assembly or members of the Committee that the United Kingdom flag will fly in Northern Ireland because we are part of the United Kingdom. That is absolutely the case.

We have been focused on economic and, principally, health matters over the past year, but we will have to focus more on economic recovery and rebuilding. I imagine that that is where everybody wants the Executive's focus to be: on rebuilding Northern Ireland in a way that is meaningful and good for all our citizens. That is where our focus should be.

Mr Sheehan: I am not sure that I got a real answer about the "cultural package", Arlene, as you put it. Where is it in the list of priorities for the Executive?

Mrs Foster: I have just indicated that our primary focus is on health and economic recovery. Of course, we all signed up to 'New Decade, New Approach' (NDNA), and I sometimes think that we should all reread 'New Decade, New Approach', because it talks about respect for everybody, not just one community.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): OK, Pat. I do not think that you are getting an answer.

Mr Sheehan: I am sorry, Chair. May I quickly raise one other issue? I do not think that it will be too contentious.

I want to ask about tackling paramilitarism task force, especially in the context of the recent orchestrated street violence. Where do we stand with that?

Mrs O'Neill: In relation to the previous conversation, it is really important that, in our politics, we see delivery on the commitments that have been made. The 'New Decade, New Approach' document caters for social, economic and cultural provisions, and we must deliver on all of its commitments. I am focused on that. We need to see delivery across the board, and the public need to see that political leaders stand by what was signed up to. We all need to be focused on that. The Irish language Act is not up for negotiation or renegotiation: it was agreed as part of a package, and I want to see the whole package delivered as speedily as we can. Obviously, we were disrupted somewhat because of COVID, but it is important that we get back to dealing with all of the commitments that were made. They are things that brought us back together politically — the things that rescued the situation when the Assembly and the Executive were down for three years. We need to focus on those matters again.

The last question was about where the work of the tackling paramilitarism task force stands. A lot of work is going on, particularly around one part of the programme, which is the Communities in Transition element. Without going into detail, members will know

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): We have temporarily lost the deputy First Minister's internet connection.

Mrs Foster: I will make it clear that the broader tackling paramilitarism programme and achieving lasting change in the communities in which it is active will work only when all parts of the programme are implemented. That, of course, includes the paramilitary crime task force, the youth work, the Communities in Transition piece and all the other parts that were identified when we did that work a number of years ago. It is important that all those programmes continue.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Martina, do you want to ask your question? It might not be to the deputy First Minister at this stage. She may be in the process of logging out and back in again. Do you want to go ahead with your question?

Ms Anderson: I want to pick up on what the joint First Minister said: perceptions matter. It is in the context of what you asked, Chair, about the anti-poverty strategy. It is important that anyone listening to the Committee today realises that a lot of work is going on. As the Ministers know, I, as Sinn Féin anti-poverty spokesperson, welcome the fact that Minister Hargey established a panel, which has completed its work. It produced recommendations to inform the anti-poverty strategy. Co-design groups were brought together, and they are working with people who, unfortunately, have had lived experience of poverty. That is important. I say "unfortunately" only because no one wants people to experience poverty. They are involved in the design of the anti-poverty strategy. Chair, I say that because Michelle said that perceptions mattered to people. Honesty and factual information are crucial when we are dealing with issues. I do not want to give people the impression that nothing is happening. A lot of work is being done on the anti-poverty strategy.

My response to some of the comments that have been made is that there is no protocol in the English Channel. We look at the difficulties that Brexit is, unfortunately, causing businesses in Britain. Exports of food and drink are down by 75%. We are all mindful of the implications of Brexit in Britain as well as here.

I ask our two Ministers, who have availed themselves of access to the Executive office in Brussels, whether they see the value of continuing that office? Now, more than ever, we need a base there. We need a place where we can exchange views with people in Brussels. May I have some information on your intentions for the Brussels office?

Mrs Foster: The Brussels office, as you rightly say, is an important vehicle to represent the views of Northern Ireland. That work continues, and the role of the office will change, of course, because it will reflect our changing relationship with the European Union and our international interests in it. It is still co-located, as you know, Martina, with Invest Northern Ireland. That will continue, and it will help us to coordinate

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Martina, I go back to you because the deputy First Minister is still not online.

Ms Anderson: I will leave it at that. A lot of questions have already been asked and answered, and I think that, given the time that is in it, we need to lower the temperature.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Thank you for that, Martina.

Mr Lunn: I go back reluctantly to the question of the cultural package, including the Irish language Act. I ask this of the First Minister. There was a meeting in January when questions were asked about this. You gave us a firm commitment that the package would be completed and become law during this mandate. The last time that you were here, which was about six weeks ago, I thought that you had backtracked slightly on that: you said that it was your intention to do that. Today, it seems as though there is a bit of equivocation on the prospects for bringing this thing through in time for the end of the mandate. What is the First Minister's view at the moment?

Mrs Foster: There is no change in my view. I almost feel like saying, "Events, dear boy, events". None of us knew that COVID-19 would come after we signed off on 'New Decade, New Approach' on 11 January and that, on 26 February, we would have our first case. This Committee knows better than any other Committee that we have been absolutely engulfed by trying to deal with that situation over this past year, and it has affected all of the other things that we had committed to doing. That is why I say that people should revisit 'New Decade, New Approach'. I absolutely understand why some people would rather point to the bits that they want to see delivered as opposed to the bits that they do not want to see delivered, but there is a whole package in 'New Decade, New Approach' of what needs to be delivered, so there has to be a realistic conversation about what we can deliver before the end of this mandate and what we will need to carry over into the next mandate. Make no mistake about it: I am not resiling from 'New Decade, New Approach'. I am not. I simply say to you, as I said, "Events".

Mr Lunn: OK. Thanks for that.

I go back to the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme. I very much welcome the statement from the Executive Office giving reassurance that the money will be available to make payments as they fall due. However, there is a bit of a contradiction in that, is there not? All three Departments involved in this have said that they do not have any budget to put against the payments. As things stand, the British Government have said that they will not contribute. It seems to me that what has happened is that the courts' approach and their involvement have forced the Government to make this confirmation without any real recognition of where the money is to come from, should payments become due in the next short time.

Mrs Foster: Go ahead, Michelle.

Mrs O'Neill: Apologies. My connection cut out. I do not know what happened, but I was thrown out of the meeting and had bother getting back in.

On that point, Trevor, in a way, you are right. On one hand, we were desperately trying to get to the point where we could confirm for victims who had been waiting for far too long that the payment would be made. I am glad that we can say that now and that we can nearly set that to one side. On the other hand, the Executive are left in the very difficult position of having hard choices to make about how we fund the scheme. Given that the scheme is so wide and we cannot put a value to the costs at this stage, I am concerned, as, I think, we all are, about how and where this will end up. That is why we have to continue putting pressure on and drawing attention to the fact that the British Government designed it. Their policy decisions have us in the space where we are today. Their statement of funding policy states that, because they made the policy decision, they must fund it.

We continue to work collectively. We hope to bring some pressure to bear, and we hope that we will be successful. However, as things stand today, if that money is not forthcoming, an already challenging financial position for the Executive will be made even more difficult. The Finance Minister has been clear in saying that there will be hard choices for the Executive to make on where we take the money from. The health service is stretched to the limit and will need huge investment to recover. It was already stretched before the pandemic and is stretched even more now. There is the state of our waiting lists and all of those things. So many issues will need additional resource. We will be stretched to the limit, and this will be challenging for us.

Mr Lunn: I have one more question. This will lower the temperature a wee bit; it is quite an easy one. It is good to see the schools back. That is the big story of the easements that were made last week. However, I am getting a fair bit of contact from, of all people, music teachers — I see the First Minister smiling — who are complaining that, although primary schools, in particular, are back, the children are not allowed to sing in class.

As far as I know, pupils are not allowed to play wind instruments. The singing thing may be slightly ridiculous, but the wind instruments thing is beyond belief. The Executive are to meet tomorrow to consider further easements: I ask you to think seriously about allowing children, who are delighted to be back in school, to sing and to play the flute, if they have one.

Mrs Foster: I, like you, Trevor, have received messages from a number of very vociferous music teachers, who do a wonderful job. The difficulty is the aerosols created when you sing. I am on record as saying that the one thing I miss is congregational singing in church. You are not supposed to sing loudly in church, even behind a mask, because the aerosol from singing and from wind instruments may cause COVID-19 to transmit. We are looking at the issue because, as you rightly point out, there has been a lot of traffic about it. We should not forget the joy that music at school can give. We all remember being in school choirs and orchestras, and it is important that we are able to give a positive message about that as soon as we can.

Mr Lunn: Thank you for that. First Minister, I play the organ in a church of the same denomination as yours, and people have been singing merrily for the past couple of weeks.

Mrs Foster: I will not tell the bishop if you do not.

Mr Lunn: They have to wear a mask and sing softly [Laughter.]

Mrs Foster: Yes, behind a mask.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): OK. I like the remark about the orchestras and choirs that we were all part of. Alas, I was given the triangle and told to stand in the corner, and that was my musical contribution.

Mr Stalford: As a good Presbyterian, I do not have a bishop to be frightened of. When I was at school, my favourite instrument was the dinner bell.

I want to raise a few issues. First, I appreciate the comments that have been made about the anti-poverty strategy. In my maiden speech, when I was elected here, I pointed out that someone born in Sandy Row or Donegall Pass could, on average, expect to live 10 years less than someone born at Finaghy crossroads, and that has been the case in my constituency for 30-plus years. Will you talk to the type of interventions that you envisage the Government undertaking to tackle the long-standing and deep-rooted issues of deprivation, particularly in the context of inner-city Belfast?

Mrs O'Neill: I am sure that Christopher knows that the anti-poverty strategy is out for co-design, and that is where it sits. The co-design is trying to bring in all the partners and those who have a role. As I said and as you know, we need a holistic approach to tackling poverty. We need to get to the root causes of why poverty occurs in the first place: everything from being able to have a job, access to employment, the employment prospects in your area and having a decent home.

You spoke about lifespan. When I was doing the health transformation plan, one of the examples that I used was that the life expectancy of a person living on the Lisburn Road was 10 years longer than that of someone living in west Belfast. That shows the scale of the challenge that needs to be tackled. If we do not have a holistic approach, we will never be successful. Education has a role to play, and the early intervention starts with Sure Start. The co-design group has clear terms of reference, and, when the anti-poverty work is done, every scrutiny Committee should be involved — "What is our Department's role?" — and we should work together. The group has been given priorities to work through and will come back to us with recommendations. The work will be cross-departmental, and that is the only way in which we will be successful.

Mr Stalford: There are other schemes. Last Sunday, there was a front-page story in a newspaper about one of the schemes that the Executive Office oversees. Can either of you confirm that the design for that scheme was put in place long before the trouble that we have seen in recent days? It is important that there is absolutely no doubt in the public mind that the Government of Northern Ireland are not in the business of buying off people who break the law. It is important that that message be sent loudly and clearly.

Mrs Foster: Christopher, thank you for asking that question. I hoped that somebody would ask about our Communities in Transition programme because the story on the front page of 'Sunday Life' was hugely misleading about the work that has been going on. The Communities in Transition programme comes from action B4 of the tackling paramilitary activity, criminality and organised crime programme. That was that we should:

The project is being delivered in eight areas of focus at present. The focus of the article was the fact that the budget had been secured for next year. Actually, I think that the bid for the budget was £12 million. We were able to secure £10 million, so the budget for CIT was reduced. The project is delivering in Carrickfergus and Larne, Kilcooley and Rathgill in north Down, Kilwilke and Drumgask in Lurgan and Craigavon, the Brandywell and Creggan in Derry/Londonderry, the Shankill, the New Lodge and Ardoyne in north Belfast, west Belfast and the Mount and Ballymacarrett in east Belfast.

We are already doing work through the Communities in Transition programme, and you will know that very well. I have seen some brilliant engagement through it, whether through anti-drug and health and well-being programmes or community safety programmes. Recently, I saw an absolutely wonderful new mural unveiled on the Shankill by a chap from, I think, Essex, who had come over to do it. It was about trying to inspire young people from that area that they could do anything and go anywhere in the world. That is the sort of thing that the Communities in Transition programme has already been engaged in.

What was talked about in the press was the programme for next year. It is not about handing out money to rioters, certainly not. It is about taking people away from the influence of paramilitarism and transitioning them to a better place.

To your point about anti-poverty strategies and engagement, it is about having a multilayered approach to raising up those communities. You will know better than anybody that Belfast South Community Resources (BSCR) in Sandy Row, for example, does great work to help those in its community to improve their lives and do something different.

Christopher, on a very personal level, as you know, my mother is from a family of eight. One of her younger siblings died in her 60s, whereas all the rest of her siblings lived until their 70s and 80s. Why? She lived on the Donegall Road. I feel passionately about intervening in a meaningful way in those communities and not just taking a single-strand approach and saying, "Oh, that is Deirdre's Hargey's issue. Let her deal with it". There should be a whole-of-government approach to dealing with some of those working-class communities so that we can intervene in a real and meaningful way.

Mr Stalford: Thank you. I have one final question. As you can see, I am declaring an interest, and Pat Sheehan declared the same interest to me yesterday. Yesterday, the Economy Minister called for dates to be included in the road map for opening up the economy. Hairdressers are obviously one of the things that people want to see opening up. As a general principle, do the Executive at some point intend to insert dates into the road map in order to give people a sense of hope?

I have to tread carefully with how I say this, but, every time that your branch of government — either the First Minister or the deputy First Minister — steps up to announce easements or the lifting of restrictions at a press conference, it can be disheartening for people when another branch of government — I am not referring to the Health Minister — pops up to insist that, "We have to go extra slowly, or the restrictions may have to be reimposed". That knocks the heart and the hope out of people. It would really help people and give the community hope if there was a sense that there were dates and a time frame,

Mrs O'Neill: Christopher, we have been asking for some time to start putting dates to it. It was right that we took the approach that we did at the time, given the severity of the situation. We said that we would be led by the data, given that there was significant uncertainty. We have a bit more headroom now, because the position is becoming clearer. The numbers in hospitals are falling, the numbers in ICUs are falling, and the vaccine roll-out has reached the one million mark. All that gives us space. Arlene and I have been speaking with officials for some time, saying that we want to see dates assigned. I am hopeful that, tomorrow, the Executive will be able to sign off on dates and on what things will look like over the next number of months.

People want hope. Everybody desperately wants something. Our society needs this, particularly given the events of recent weeks. It is important that we give people something to look forward to in the weeks and months ahead, but we have to caveat everything with the need to be careful. We can open things up, but we do not want to go into reverse, so let us keep going forward. The public have been patient, particularly through the latest wave. They have worked with us and, I think, have understood the point that we are at.

We are all desperate to get our hair done, and I declare that interest too [Laughter.]

We think that we will have a hopeful and positive announcement to make tomorrow.

Mr Stalford: That is great. Thank you very much.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Thanks to the long-haired Christopher Stalford for that question.

Mr Robinson: I have one or two questions. The first is in relation to the victims' payments. That scheme is welcome. It is great to see that those people will finally be compensated. However, it will cost an awful lot of money, and the Treasury does not seem to want to cough up very much. Have contributions been asked for from other funding streams, such as Churches, for example?

Earlier, Pat Sheehan mentioned monuments and so forth. I am not trying to prolong that debate, but I was on Limavady Borough Council for quite a few years, and, at one stage, a monument to the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr Massey, was erected outside the council buildings. Sinn Féin was the largest party in the council then and did everything in its power to get it removed, along with Princess Diana mugs. They wanted to clear anything British out of the council chamber. I will not prolong the situation, but I just want to make sure that that is aired.

Mrs Foster: In terms of the victims' pension payment, it was important that the undertaking was given to the court so that people were not concerned about whether they would get their money. It is now clear that the money will be paid when it is due. From speaking to the Justice Minister, I understand that applications will open in June, so people will be able to apply then. We will have to find the money to pay those people their rightful pension. It is right that we do that, and we will continue to have discussions with our Government about the funding. It is right that the funding comes from government. I understand what you say about other sources of funding, but I do not think that that will happen because we continue to have conversations with the Churches about historical institutional abuse, on which, we hope, they will come forward to support us.

I completely understand your final point.

similar experience in Fermanagh District Council when all the British military issues were taken out of the council offices at the behest of Sinn Féin, despite the fact that Enniskillen is the only garrison town that has raised two regiments of the British Army. It is disgraceful that that happened. People forget that these things happen, but I have certainly not forgotten that it happened in Enniskillen.

Mr Robinson: Chair, I have just one supplementary question.

Mrs O'Neill: Chair, could I just —?

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Go ahead, Michelle, if you are answering that question. Then, we will go back to George for another question.

Mrs O'Neill: OK. I was just going to make a point about the stone monument to mark the centenary of the Northern state. For me, that highlights the need for the continued transformation of this society. Importantly, it underlines the need for an inclusive discussion of all these things. All public spaces need to reflect all identities. Unfortunately, that is not the case. If we focus on what is required of us by the Good Friday Agreement and building a better society, it has to be about genuine mutual respect, generosity of spirit, grace and a real desire to appreciate one another's lived experience. That is what should be required from everyone, including state and non-state bodies. We all need to focus on that.

I am about looking to the future. The future is not set in stone. It should not be feared. It is there to be shaped. It is for us all to embrace and make better. My message is this: let us be visionary and ambitious for future generations, as opposed to always looking behind us. It is important that we look towards the future.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): George, were you wanting back in?

Mr Robinson: Yes, Chair. Thanks very much. I will be very brief. At the beginning, Arlene mentioned the protocol. I fully support Arlene in what she said.

My last point is about the R rate. We have not heard much in the past few days and weeks about where the R rate is at present. Can someone elaborate on that?

Mrs Foster: George, once the number of cases becomes quite low and falls below a certain level — I am pleased to say that the number of positive cases reported today is below 100: we have 70 people with COVID in our hospitals and only eight in ICU — the R number is not as accurate as it would have been when we had a lot of cases. That is why we do not talk about the R number as much now. The R number has quite a wide margin of error — it could be in between this and that — but we know that it is still below 1. That is the important point.

Mr Robinson: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): Thank you for that, George. Next, I will ask Trevor Clarke for a question, if he is there.

Mr Clarke: Yes. Sorry, I was not here for the first part of the meeting because I had something else, Chair. I apologise for that. I missed a portion at the start.

Just to cover some of the old ground, I want to pull up language. We are always talking about language. The deputy First Minister talked about an Irish language Act. Nowhere in the deal is there an Irish language Act. There is a cultural piece that may include Irish.

That aside, given all the conversations that we have had about finances and the long list of things in the NDNA agreement, it would be useful for the Committee to get that list to remind everybody what is on it and the costings to deliver each one of those items. Each of us will have our own ideas about what we would like to see first. Sometimes, it would be useful to have a value beside those items so that we can see what their realistic cost outcomes would be. Is it possible to get that?

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): We had a list circulated to us, I think, last autumn, with the list of all the commitments in NDNA, although I do not know whether there were monetary values beside them. I will accede to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister on whether that is entirely possible, given that there are wide-ranging commitments in it. Is it possible to put financial commitments alongside them?

Mr Clarke: Thank you for that, Chairman. We may have got something in the autumn of last year, but, thankfully, as has been pointed out today, the victims' pension has now come along. It is welcome, but, as we all appreciate, it comes with a cost. If we could get a refreshed list of all the outstanding items in NDNA and if the Executive Office gave us some indicative costs, that would be useful in discussions.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): OK. I am sure that the Clerk has written that down. Is there anything else on that, Trevor, or are we happy to leave it there?

Mr Clarke: I am happy to leave it there.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): There is nobody else indicating to speak unless Emma wants to come in. I cannot see her, and sometimes the hand function does not work. Emma, do you want to ask a question?

Ms Sheerin: No. I am OK, Chair, but thank you, everybody.

The Chairperson (Mr McGrath): OK. First Minister and deputy First Minister, all the questions are concluded. That was about an hour and a half, and we had a wide range of questions. I appreciate your open and honest answers to them. Thank you for coming along. I look forward to seeing you at the next session, whenever that is.

Mrs Foster: Thank you, Chair.