Official Report: Monday 08 September 2014

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. Before we proceed to today's business, I welcome Members back after the recess.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that the Budget (No. 2) Bill (Northern Ireland) received Royal Assent on Wednesday 16 July 2014. It will be known as the Budget (No. 2) Act (Northern Ireland) 2014.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Members will have been saddened to learn of the passing of Sam Foster, a former Assembly Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and Minister of the Environment in the first mandate. Sam was one of life’s true gentlemen and had a history of public service rooted in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. He was dedicated to the community that he served and attracted a huge amount of respect as a Member of this House. The culmination of his career saw him appointed as Minister of the Environment — a position that he held with great honour and pride. I take this opportunity to extend my personal condolences to his family circle and to all his party colleagues on their sad loss.

As we have done in the past on these occasions, I will call a representative of each party to speak for up to three minutes to pay tribute to our late friend and colleague. I will allow 30 minutes for tributes, and, if there is sufficient time remaining after all parties have spoken, I may be able to call other Members who rise in their places to say a few words. The House will now pay its own respects.

Mr Nesbitt: Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. In a previous life, I sometimes offered media training, and I would show worst case/best case examples from TV. I often favoured the launch of an anti-drink-driving Christmas campaign that Sam Foster was in charge of during his time as Environment Minister because his sound bite in that report was absolutely perfect. It was perfect because it was genuine. Sam Foster spoke good sense, and he spoke it from the heart. I think that that will be many people's abiding memory of Sam Foster.

Like many Members of the House, I attended his funeral in St Macartin's Cathedral in Enniskillen, which was a huge affair befitting a man with a long lifetime of public service. Like Sir John Gorman, whom we lost earlier in the year, Sam was elected to this House in 1998, and both came to politics with experience of successful careers in other areas. At Sam's funeral, it was striking how many different interest groups were there: groups that shared nothing but mutual respect for Sam Foster.

Sam served his country as a Reserve police officer and then a major in the Ulster Defence Regiment. So he was not only a public servant, he was a brave one, unafraid to put himself in harm's way to defend his family, community and country from terrorist threat. He was present at the IRA attack on the cenotaph in Enniskillen in 1987; indeed, with his bare hands, he helped rescue people from the rubble. Sam was the embodiment of a decent human being. He was also a loyal Ulster Unionist who served his country and party faithfully for many decades. He was a huge figure in Fermanagh unionism. He may have risen to high office but he never forgot his roots and remained, at heart, a Fermanagh man.

I was not fortunate enough to sit on these Benches beside Sam, but, when I joined the Ulster Unionist Party, I was amazed and sometimes perplexed by his unwavering support. However the reason why was quite simple: if he was on board, he was on board 100%.

The House supports diversity, so it would probably be wrong to suggest that we need 108 Sam Fosters, but entirely right to say that we need 108 MLAs with Sam Foster's values. I am proud to have known such a great unionist and Ulsterman. My deepest sympathies and condolences go to his wife, Dorothy, and his family circle. He will, indeed, be sadly missed.

Lord Morrow: I, too, rise to pay my respects and to say a few words about the late Sam Foster. I do so on behalf of my party and myself. I knew Sam Foster for quite a number of years. I think that my first direct acquaintance with him was probably in the old Northern Ireland Forum, and that goes back a little. However, I always heard of Sam Foster. His name was synonymous with Fermanagh. He served on Fermanagh District Council for a long period of years. He was also a man who went, as I call it, the second mile. He was also a member of the security forces, and, living in Fermanagh, that was no mean achievement, particularly in those times.

As his party leader said, he was also caught up in that awful situation of the Enniskillen bombing on Poppy Day. Sam Foster came through all of that with great fortitude and dignity. He was highly regarded and respected, not only by his colleagues who had an affinity with him, but by those of us in other parties. We had a respect and regard for Sam Foster, because I always believed that, when Sam Foster spoke, he meant what he said and he said what he meant. He was quite determined and resolute in the things that he believed in and the direction that he was going. He was never a man who set out purposely to cause offence. He was an individual who wanted to the best for his constituents and the people he represented.

So, on behalf of my party, I extend to his wife and family our sincere and heartfelt sympathy. He will be a great loss. Ulster Unionists will miss him most, but Ulster, in general, will miss Sam Foster. To put it in a few words: he was a good man in every respect.

Mr Maskey: On behalf of Sinn Féin, I express my party's deepest regrets and condolences to Dorothy and all Sam's family. I had the pleasure of working with Sam here in the first Assembly and in the negotiations in the run-up to the Good Friday Agreement. I would hesitate to call him a political opponent because I always remember that Sam — notwithstanding the fact that he was an Ulster Unionist — worked to try to make the Good Friday Agreement and these institutions work. My recollection is that he always treated each and every one of us with the utmost respect.

A mark of his character is that, even when he was appointed Minister, I had the pleasure of being in a lift with him — I will not use his exact words — and he expressed some surprise at being appointed to the position. He was, of course, honoured to do that and he was in no doubt about the challenges that he would face in the time ahead. He certainly embraced the challenges, and I think that he embraced them in the spirit of the time in 1998, 1999 and thereafter. Therefore, in calling Sam a political opponent, I would be very generous and use the term advisedly. As I said, a tremendous mark of respect to Sam Foster is that he spent a long time in public life. He never ever, in my experience or presence, had any airs or graces about him. He was obviously a man of the people, and he was very well respected in Fermanagh and South Tyrone and in the wider community. I have no doubt that he will be missed in the Ulster Unionist family. Of course, he will be missed by his own family. On behalf of Sinn Féin, I express our condolences to the family, loved ones and colleagues of Sam Foster.

Dr McDonnell: I, like others, express my sympathy and condolences and those of my colleagues and our party, the SDLP, to the family and friends of Sam Foster. Sam was a thoroughly decent man, as others said. He was a Christian man. He was a great public representative and a good Minister. I valued Sam as a friend. Indeed, he was a good friend to all whom he came into contact with. It was unfortunate that ill health forced Sam to retire from here, but, after his retirement, I renewed my friendship with him on occasions when I visited Enniskillen. He was still the same kind, generous Sam.

Sam spent his life working for the betterment of others. When he was here with us, he gave the Assembly all his energies and attention. I hope that, today, Sam has his just reward and that he is in a happier place.

Mr Ford: I appreciate the opportunity to add a few words from my colleagues. There is absolutely no doubt that Sam Foster's life was marked by public service in a whole range of spheres: first, his main career in social work and the education welfare field, where he undoubtedly contributed to the welfare of many families in Fermanagh; his role as a special constable and as an officer in the Ulster Defence Regiment; his time on Fermanagh District Council, which others have spoken about so favourably; and then his election to the first Assembly. There is no doubt that he came here with his unionist principles. He did not come here having changed his mind but he was determined to make this place work for the good of all of us in Northern Ireland. It is no surprise that, in that context, he was given a ministerial post. Even if, supposedly, he was surprised, it was clearly a reward for the good job that he had done in bringing members of his party into this place. Where I got to know him most was in my role as a member of the Environment Committee while he was Minister. He was certainly an interesting person to deal with in the details of that, and he clearly had a commitment not just to being a Minister but to doing that job. It is rather unfortunate that the suspension of the Assembly in 2002 meant that three significant pieces of legislation were not his but merely became Orders in Council in Westminster, because we would have seen that legislation as the epitaph to his ministerial service had that Assembly survived.

There is no doubt that he was a gentlemen in all his dealings, including to those of us on the Committee who did not always make life easy for him. He was straightforward and honest. He was an example of public service that we should all seek to live up to. On behalf of my colleagues, I extend our sympathy to his wife, children, family and friends.

Mr Allister: My political career did not much coincide with that of Mr Foster, but, observing him from afar, it was very clear that — in the words of Lord Morrow — Sam Foster's interests were synonymous with those of Fermanagh. He was seen always to be a very proud son of Fermanagh and as someone who valiantly fought for its interests. I know that, in unionism in Fermanagh, he was a towering figure. I associate myself with the condolences offered to his wife and family on his passing.

Certainly, his political perspective in latter years would have been quite different from mine. He was an enthusiastic supporter of the Belfast Agreement and an implementer of it. On that, we would have disagreed, but one could not doubt the sincerity of the view that he held in that regard. There was more integrity to his view of the Belfast Agreement than there was to the views of those who initially lambasted him for having that view and then ended up implementing the same agreement. There was a certain sincerity and integrity about Sam Foster that we would do well to have more of in politics.

Mr Agnew: My political career was only in its very earliest beginnings when Sam Foster retired from politics due to illness. The thing that strikes me, looking back over his political career, was his commitment to the victims of the Enniskillen bombing and the work that he did in the aftermath of that atrocity. That gave me a sense of the nature of the man's character.

Mr Allister alluded to Sam Foster's work in implementing the Good Friday Agreement and in embedding these political structures. Perhaps the best that he could do to serve victims of the many atrocities in Northern Ireland was to help to create stable political institutions and work across communities and across the parties for peace in Northern Ireland.

He served as Environment Minister, and I can only wish that I had had the opportunity to hold him to account in the way that I have tried to hold to account our current Environment Minister and all Environment Ministers who have been in post since I was elected. I have no doubt that he would have been more than able to stand up to that scrutiny.

He showed himself to be a very able and, as we can see today, very respected politician, and I offer my condolences and those of the Green Party in Northern Ireland to his family, his party and his very wide circle of friends and respected colleagues.

Mr McNarry: Sam Foster was the master of the short, concise statement, which, if you were on the receiving end of it, either stood you up or knocked you back. You always knew, after talking to Sam, where you stood. There are many good 'uns who have come out of Fermanagh, and, in my humble opinion, Sam is right up there with the best of them.

This is a fitting tribute to Sam, a former colleague, which I am proud and pleased to be associated with. I thank the House for enabling us to say so.

Mr B McCrea: I did not know Sam personally, but my family has deep roots in Fermanagh and would know his family very well and went to school with them. On that basis, I offer my condolences to his family.

Having listened to all the kind words being passed about Sam, perhaps the only thing worth adding is that it does make a difference if you make a difference. Mr Allister mentioned his own opposition to the Belfast Agreement, but it was one of Sam's finest stands, and I thank him and his family for the line he took on that occasion.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: As we have a little time left of the allocated period, I will call Members who have indicated that they wish to speak by rising in their seats.

Mr Elliott: I, too, thank you and the House for allowing us to pay this tribute to Sam, who was, as we have heard, a great and honourable colleague to many of us, whether that was in the Assembly or as a party colleague.

Almost all of Sam's life was dedicated to the community.

He was a school attendance officer, and I know of some people — I include people as close as my wife — saying that he had methods that might now be classified as unorthodox to get people to attend school and get the best from their education. Anyway, that was the style of what Sam did.

He then went into social work, as Mr Ford said. I still meet people who Sam worked with as a social worker and who have nothing but the highest regard for him. During that time, he served in the Ulster Special Constabulary and the Ulster Defence Regiment, and he was not, as we have heard, afraid to put his life at risk to serve others.

He was prominent in the Orange Institution and Royal Black Preceptory and, of course, in the political world as a councillor, where he served for a number of years on Fermanagh District Council and, indeed, was chairman of the council. Many of us also knew him as a Member of this Assembly and Minister of the Environment.

When you look at that record, it is fair to say that all the choices that Sam made in life were not easy choices. He did not always take the easy route and sometimes felt that it was his right to take maybe a more difficult route for the best of society. The Enniskillen bomb, I think, had a profound effect on Sam Foster and, indeed, maybe changed some of his views as to how Northern Ireland should move forward.

It was quite good to have a political debate with Sam because there was one thing that I could always say, and I had as many political debates with Sam as maybe most others here: there was never any grudge held the next day, and you were friends again.

Not only would Sam have regular debates about political things but in the Foster household, I can tell you, there were huge debates around football because he was a keen football fan and his sons usually supported a different team. I had the pleasure of bringing Sam and company to many matches at Ballinamallard United Football Club, and I am pleased to say that when he told me back in April that he had never owned a club tie, we were able to present him with one.

I and this House have lost a true friend and colleague. My sympathies are with his wife Dorothy, children Mervyn, Helen and David, and the wider family circle.

Mr Dallat: As one of the original 26 remaining in this Assembly, I felt that I should say something in addition to what my party leader said.

I imagine that there will never be any pressure on me to write my memoirs but if there was, I would have to include Sam Foster in them because in those days there were people who came to this Assembly to make it work and there were those who came to make it extremely difficult. Sam was most certainly one who not only changed attitudes but did it by example. My lasting memory of Sam was as Minister of the Environment. Here was a man who was not overtaken by the graces of the ministerial car, briefcase and special advisers. He remained a humble man who you could go to in his office and talk to on matters of road safety and other things.

I imagine his family at this time will take comfort from the fact that Sam will be remembered not just as an Orangeman or whatever else he was in the unionist community but as somebody who won respect and admiration across the Floor. Perhaps there are not too many who have achieved that. That is a lasting memory for his wife Dorothy, family and friends: that Sam Foster was a changer of people's views and helped to put down enough foundations for this Assembly to survive and be here today.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Leave —

Mr Allister: On a point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, just let me finish this particular item. Leave has been given to make a statement on the death of former Taoiseach Albert Reynolds, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If Members wish to be called, they should so indicate by rising in their places and continuing to do so. All Members called will have up to three minutes to speak on the subject. I remind Members that I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished.

Mr M McGuinness: Go raibh maith agat, Principal Deputy Speaker. First, it is a great honour to stand here today to say a few words about the massive contribution that Albert Reynolds, as Taoiseach, made to peace in this country. I was on holiday with my family in Sligo when I learned of his sad passing, and I decided to break the holiday to attend his funeral in Dublin.

Albert Reynolds was one of those people who recognised that, to resolve conflict, dialogue and communication were very important. He broke with tradition in that he authorised his principal adviser on the North, Martin Mansergh, to open up discussions with Sinn Féin against the backdrop of the dialogue that was taking place at the behest of Gerry Adams, John Hume and Father Alec Reid. The meetings that Albert authorised were mainly between Martin Mansergh, his principal political adviser on the North, and myself. Martin and I were involved in many meetings in advance of the IRA ceasefire in 1994.

Albert was the person who coined the phrase, "Who is afraid of peace?", and that represented a real challenge to everyone. He was someone who I believe had a very intimate knowledge of the North of Ireland and a very intimate knowledge of every section of the community that lived in the North of Ireland. He was very proud of his contacts with many people in the business community who came from the unionist community and also was very much in contact with many people right across the political and business spectrum. So, he was someone who understood the problem and understood when he came into the role of Taoiseach that he had a huge responsibility to try to assist in bringing that conflict to an end against a backdrop of, I think, a fairly wide recognition on behalf of all of the combatants that there could be no military victory for anyone. So, there was an imperative to create the conditions that would pave the way for a peace process and for an inclusive political negotiation that would bring the end of conflict and violence in this country.

So, I believe that the people of Ireland owe a great debt of gratitude to Albert Reynolds for the courage that he showed, for his acceptance that communication and dialogue were absolutely vital in moving forward and for the work that he, at a very early stage, was involved in, as I said, with Gerry Adams, John Hume and Father Alec Reid. Then, of course, there was the involvement with Irish America, and the entering into the process of President Bill Clinton clearly provided a great opportunity for all of us to move forward in a way that has dramatically improved the lives of the people who all of us here represent.

I think that it is also fair to say that, without Albert Reynolds's visionary approach at a very early stage of this process, it is hardly likely that any one of us would be in this arena today. He was someone who really was not, during his lifetime, given the credit that he was due for the contribution that he made, and it is very interesting to see that the credit that came basically came after his passing, and that, I think, is very, very sad.

So, it was very important to go to the funeral to extend my condolences and those of everybody, I think, in the North to Kathleen, his wife, and to his children on the enormous contribution that Albert made to improving all of the lives and the lives of all of the children who have benefited from peace over the last 20 years.

It was also quite interesting that Albert died in the week that ran into the twentieth anniversary of the ceasefire, which undoubtedly set in train a process that challenges everyone who, even still, believe, in their deluded world, that violence and conflict offer the best way forward.

Albert's message is as true today as it was 20 years ago, and it is this: who is afraid of peace? Those out there who wish to plunge us back to the past need to recognise that the vision showed by Albert Reynolds and other political leaders — they were joined, it has to be said, in fairness, by many unionist leaders during the course of building the peace process — of a conflict-free Ireland is the one that all of us in this room and, I believe, in the whole of Ireland, want to live in. We owe a great debt of gratitude to the vision showed by Albert Reynolds.

Mr Bell: I rise to offer the sympathy and condolences of the Democratic Unionist Party to the family and family circle of the former Taoiseach Albert Reynolds. I extend our sympathy, care and love to them. They are in our prayers. There is no doubt that Albert Reynolds contributed to helping to find an exclusively peaceful way forward for Northern Ireland. He had numerous skills as a businessman, as a leader and, from what I read, as a loving and devoted husband, father and grandfather. It is a wonderful legacy to be known as having made an undoubted contribution to helping to find that exclusively peaceful way forward for Northern Ireland. That is significant in itself.

The Democratic Unionist Party differed with the Taoiseach on many occasions. We did not share the same political outlook. We differed on many grounds, but I can say that, as a devoted unionist, I respect the fact that Albert Reynolds was the first Irish Prime Minister who understood and supported the principle of consent in relation to Northern Ireland. He had a profound understanding of the relationship between the Republic of Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. He also, and this is what I admire him most for, was a person who eschewed all forms of violence and who would not accept any caveats to ceasefires. It had to be, in his view — the correct view — exclusively peaceful, without caveat and without question.

Today, as the House gathers to remember him, we remember him as somebody who was committed to seeking peace. While we may be critical of his political outlook — that is the nature of political discourse — we hugely admire somebody who sought peace and has left a legacy of peace in Northern Ireland. Our sympathy and love are with his family circle.

Dr McDonnell: I am glad and, indeed, privileged to be able to rise here and have an opportunity to pay tribute to Albert Reynolds, who died recently. Albert Reynolds coined the phrase, as quoted earlier, "Who is afraid of peace?" It is a very poignant question and one that we would all do well to answer for ourselves and keep answering for ourselves as we go forward.

Albert was a self-made businessman before he came into politics and perhaps that gave him the foundation for much of his political career and the wisdom that he brought to that political career. We here in the Chamber, and, indeed, in Northern Ireland, owe Albert a great debt of gratitude for his endless efforts to bring peace and stability to Northern Ireland. His contribution was enormous. We also owe him a debt of gratitude for the way he changed the relationship with the British Prime Minister. The robust working relationship that he forged with Sir John Major was the hinge on which much good came. The tribute, warmth, rapport and congratulations that John Major got at Albert's funeral were very significant.

It was a tragedy that events conspired to have Albert retire as Taoiseach before the full fruits of his dialogue with Sir John and all the other leaders came to a harvest point in the Good Friday Agreement.

I was privileged to attend Albert's state funeral, where he was paid many tributes, which were long overdue, and, as I said, Sir John was commended for the contribution that he made. I have spoken to Kathleen and the family, but I welcome the opportunity here again, on behalf of myself and the wider SDLP, to extend my sympathy and condolences to the whole Reynolds family.

Mr Kennedy: On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I rise to pay tribute to the late former Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, Mr Albert Reynolds, who died recently. It is appropriate that we acknowledge from all sides of this House the role that Albert Reynolds played as Taoiseach between February 1992 and December 1994 in developing a peace process here in Northern Ireland.

Albert Reynolds was an astute businessman, and he was a very shrewd political operator in his own political party, Fianna Fáil. He may have been a soldier of destiny, but he did not really emerge from that old hard-line republican background. As has already been indicated, he and John Major have perhaps been overlooked in acknowledgement of their contribution to the peace process, but, looking back, it is clear that their relationship was key to improving British-Irish relationships in the early 1990s.

Albert Reynolds was of course never a unionist, but he was part of the transition of attitudes in the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland. From a unionist point of view, we were political opponents, but he had a moderating approach to the more extreme elements of republicanism, and he helped to redress the traditionally anti-British and anti-unionist approach to Northern Ireland affairs from south of the border. He started to manage change in attitudes whilst keeping his traditional southern republican constituency on board. Critically, it was during his prime ministership that it dawned on those in political power in Dublin that the future had to involve the dropping of the territorial claim in the constitution of the Irish Republic and that the consent of a majority in Northern Ireland was required for any constitutional arrangement. In effect, Northern Ireland would remain part of the United Kingdom because of the wish of the majority of its people.

Albert Reynolds's legacy is that of a pragmatic leader, a dealmaker who played his part in creating the relative peace that we have enjoyed for the past 16 years. Therefore, on behalf of myself and my party, I offer sympathy to his widow Kathleen, his children and his extended family.

Mr Ford: I just wish to add a few words, on behalf of my colleagues, in tribute to Albert Reynolds and in sympathy to his wife, family and family circle.

As has been said, there is no doubt that it has only really been in recent days that people have fully acknowledged the role that Albert Reynolds played in the early days of the peace process. When people look back on those events of the 1990s, they are likely to see the photos that the BBC will pull out every now and again of the clip peeling round the conference room in Castle Buildings, with Tony Blair, Bertie Ahern and some of us, as well as some who are no longer in this Chamber, and it is unfortunate in many ways that the contribution that was played by Sir John Major and Albert Reynolds in the early days of the peace process does not get recognised because there is absolutely no doubt that the relationship that the two of them established laid the foundations on which others built to put forward the Good Friday Agreement. There is also no doubt that that kind of change in relationships and understanding between the two Governments really only began when Albert Reynolds became Taoiseach and replaced his predecessor.

Albert Reynolds was not seen as somebody who was naturally sympathetic to the viewpoint of unionists. He came from a different kind of background, but there is no doubt that his business contacts, his relationships with a wide variety of people across the border and maybe the fact that he had a base in the midlands and not just in the Dublin metropolitan area gave him a different outlook and a degree of understanding of the cross-border nature of relationships on this island, even if he was not ever likely to be seen as a unionist.

Just as, a few minutes ago, we praised Sam Foster for the way in which he came into a different set of arrangements, bringing his political principles with him, there is no doubt that Albert Reynolds sought to encourage that as he brought his principles as well.

I certainly remember one meeting at which we discussed the practical arrangements for the establishment of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation during the early post-ceasefire days. There is absolutely no doubt that it was a sign of his wishes that there would be the maximum possible attendance in order to seek the best possible understanding between the parties of these islands. He did not get everybody he would have wished to be there, but he certainly ensured that the forum helped to set in train what became the Castle Buildings talks a couple of years later.

Of course, he was not Taoiseach for very long. We will never know what might have happened had he been in that post for a bit longer, but there is absolutely no doubt that the contribution that he made in the short time he had in office was very significant. We and the people of Ireland, North and South, are all beneficiaries of it.

Mr McCallister: In paying tribute to former Taoiseach Albert Reynolds, I, like many colleagues, look back and reflect, as Mr McGuinness said in opening these remarks, on 20 years and the absolute transformation in British-Irish relations in that time. The work of Albert Reynolds and Sir John Major, to which many colleagues have referred, was absolutely key to building on that success and what it eventually became. Indeed, it is an illustration that people and personalities matter so much when they get together and can make a difference. We heard from colleagues about the impact that Sam Foster made by coming here, sticking to his principles and making it work. The difference that Albert Reynolds and Sir John Major made was in starting that transformation in British-Irish relations, going from two almost hostile neighbours to being very much best friends with a strong working relationship built on interdependency. It will be the lasting achievement of Albert Reynolds along with Sir John Major that they began the work of that transformation.

Albert Reynolds's wife Kathleen, whom I had the privilege of meeting a few months ago, and the Reynolds family are in our thoughts and prayers at this time. It is a huge loss to Irish politics. That contribution should, quite rightly, be reflected on here today.

Ms Ruane: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I join every other party in the House in mourning Albert Reynolds and acknowledging his work for the peace process. He had a very long and varied career. Every time I pass Longford en route to Mayo to visit my mother, I think of Albert Reynolds. As my colleague Martin McGuinness said, he did tremendous work for peace. He asked, "Who is afraid of peace?". None of us needs to be afraid of peace. He was elected in 1997 and served until 2002. I knew him quite well during my time as director of Féile an Phobail. He officially opened and supported cultural events. He also attended and spoke at many Féile events, along with representatives of all political traditions and none. I pay tribute to him and send our deepest sympathies to his wife, Kathleen, and his family, who live throughout the island of Ireland.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr William Humphrey has been given leave to make a statement on Carl Frampton becoming the super-bantamweight world champion, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should rise in their place and continue to do so. All Members who are called will have up to three minutes to speak on the subject. I remind Members that I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished. I will, Mr Allister, return to your earlier point of order when this item is finished.

Mr Humphrey: On the back of the Commonwealth Games and Rory McIlroy's exploits over the summer, Northern Ireland has had a terrific weekend in sport: Ulster's last-minute securing of a point away to Scarlets; the Shankill's own Marc McCullough winning his fight easily on Saturday night; the green and white army having a great victory in Budapest last evening; and, of course, on Saturday night, Carl Frampton, north Belfast's own, becoming the world champion. I congratulate Carl on behalf of the people of north Belfast on a great win. He certainly caught the mood of the people of the city and the country — all the people — with over 1,000 people attending the weigh-in at the Ulster Hall.

Carl started his career as a young boy of seven. He was guided and moulded as an amateur boxer by Billy McKee MBE, as so many boxers in north Belfast have been. On Saturday evening, at the purpose-built stadium beside the Titanic Quarter, some 16,000 people went along to the bout. I suggest that Saturday evening was almost a throwback to the 1980s and McGuigan's great fights in this city. I commend Barry McGuigan and his wife Sandra for the way that they have managed Carl since he turned to professional boxing. They have managed his career and promoted him, Belfast and Northern Ireland in such a positive way. Carl was at a training camp for 16 weeks: four months of hard work and dedication. The hard work, dedication, commitment and professionalism have now paid off, with Carl becoming our latest world champion.

As I said at the start, I congratulate Carl, a young man who started his career at seven years old and progressed to be a world champion. I think that we should all, in this city and across the country, be immensely proud of his achievement. I also congratulate his family, who have been there to support him through the years: his mother and father, Flo and Craig; his wife, Christine; and, of course, his young daughter, Carla. Their love and support will have been invaluable to him throughout his career, particularly his professional career.

When you listen to Carl being interviewed on the TV or radio, you are left in no doubt that he has very much gained the love and interest of the people of our wee country. For me, he is a great athlete, a great sportsman and a great role model for any young person, particularly a young person growing up in working-class north Belfast, and he is now a great world champion. As I said, we in north Belfast are hugely proud of his achievements. His success is now there for the world to see. This young man spent his childhood in Tigers Bay, and, now, across north Belfast, this country, this kingdom and the world, we talk about Carl Frampton, the world champion. I wish him well in the future as he defends his title and, as he may well do, fights to merge other titles with it.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I join my north Belfast colleague William Humphrey in congratulating Carl Frampton and, indeed, all the boxers on the ticket on Saturday evening: Marco McCullough, Jamie, Eamonn, Conrad, Anthony and Matthew. Each one of them did us proud, but today is about Carl Frampton, the Frampton family and the McGuigans. Kiko Martinez put up 12 rounds to give us an excellent boxing match, as did the rest of the opponents. They are all very worthy. Carl Frampton, as the many of us here who have met him on occasion will know — some of you will know him better than I do — is an excellent role model for young people involved in sport, whether that is at an amateur or professional level. Carl Frampton is now the world champion bantamweight. That in itself will provide great inspiration and aspiration for young people, particularly those in north Belfast who are coming behind him.

William mentioned the role that Billy McKee, Gerry Storey and many others had in Carl's illustrious career as an amateur boxer. Certainly, the McGuigans, Cyclone Promotions and others were involved in giving us what was a boxing treat on Saturday evening. We have been told that 120 countries had television rights to the boxing matches, with an estimated 250 million people watching what we in Belfast already know was an absolutely brilliant display of boxing on Saturday evening. That was against the magnificent backdrop of the Titanic building. I had the privilege of being there, representing the Executive, and what I saw was a city in concert in support of Carl Frampton and the other boxers. For me, that is another success story.

As we all know, boxing, to use an old but well-trodden phrase, like the nine medals that we had in the Commonwealth Games, punches well above its weight in this part of the island and, indeed, in the whole of the island. Carl Frampton — for his mother Flo, father Craig, wife Christine, daughter Carla and, indeed, all the family and the entire north Belfast community — is one of our own. We are all extremely proud of him and will continue to be proud not just of his achievements as a professional boxer but, indeed, of the achievements that our boxers on the ticket on Saturday night brought to us all. We wish him all the best, and it is appropriate that he is mentioned in the House today as a Matter of the Day. On behalf of everyone — I am sure that everyone will have an opportunity to speak — we are all absolutely delighted for Carl and extremely proud of him and the rest. Well done.

Mr A Maginness: We are a very talented lot in north Belfast, and that is not just the politicians. It includes Mr Carl Frampton, and, of course, we are all delighted at his wonderful achievement. There is something in the air in north Belfast that produces very fine boxers — as well as politicians. Carl really proved himself and united the community in popular support right across the divide. He is a champion — a world champion — and that is something for all of us to be exceptionally proud of. I hope that he does well in the future. He has put Belfast on the map once again in sporting terms. We have had quite a number of boxers from north Belfast: Michael Conlon and Paddy Barnes, and, of course, we also have Michaela Walsh. That is a great tribute to those people and to those who are involved in the sport in north Belfast and throughout Belfast.

I wish Carl well. It is good to see a Tigers Bay man doing well, and it is good to see someone from a humble background doing well. He is a charismatic and modest individual, but he has shown his worth to all of us. He is a tremendous role model, I think, for many young people here in Northern Ireland. I look forward to his civic reception in Belfast, where the Lord Mayor, Nichola Mallon, will welcome him in due course. I hope that I get an invitation.

Mr Nesbitt: Excellence in boxing is in our sporting DNA, possibly in a way that does not apply in any other sport. As a young sports reporter, I was brought up on the legends of Rinty Monaghan in the 1940s, Johnny Caldwell and Freddie Gilroy in the 1950s and 1960s, Charlie Nash in the 1970s, right through to more modern world champions like Wayne McCullough and Dave "Boy" McAuley. Even in listing those names, there will be those who love boxing who will be screaming out, "You have forgotten Hugh Russell, Brian Magee, Eamonn McGee and Jim McCourt". So it goes. Excellence in boxing truly is in our DNA, and Carl Frampton is the latest example.

There is something else about boxing: it unites our society in a unique way. In the 1980s, I was lucky and privileged to follow Barry McGuigan's story. Innumerous times, I drove down to Clones to interview Barry or his father or to speak to his mum, who was working in the shop. I followed Barry all the way to Loftus Road in 1985, where he beat Pedroza and brought a world title back to Belfast.

I suggest that seldom has Northern Ireland and its people been more united than they were that night around Barry McGuigan's success. For him to recreate that, 29 years later, not in London or in Dublin but in the Titanic Quarter in Belfast, is a huge testament to himself and to Carl Frampton. It was a magnificent achievement in sporting, social and cultural terms. I congratulate him on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, without reservation.

The late Gerry Anderson used to tease Dave "Boy" McAuley, a world champion, on Radio Ulster that if he was on 'University Challenge' or 'Mastermind', his specialist subject would be the lights and the ceiling of the King's Hall because he had spent so much time on his backside on the canvas looking at them, which was not true, of course. Well, I can guarantee you, Carl Frampton will never be an expert on the lights and the ceiling of the King's Hall, but I hope that he defends his title here in Belfast. I also hope, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, that the Assembly invites Carl Frampton and his family and Barry McGuigan and his family to a reception here to celebrate his success, because we have some rather fine lights and lamps out in the Great Hall.

Mr Lyttle: I rise on behalf of the Alliance Party to extend our wholehearted congratulations to Carl Frampton, his family, his team and the McGuigans. I was not able to be at the fight, but I listened to the atmosphere on the radio, and I have seen the plethora of videos that have been posted, showcasing what was truly a spectacular event for Belfast and Northern Ireland — one that we can be proud of. Indeed, it was a spectacular achievement by Carl and his team.

As many MLAs have said here this morning, it is not just about the dedication, skill and belief that Carl has as a world champion boxer now, but the dignity with which he performs, the respect with which he treats his opponents and the love that he shows for his family, his friends and the people of Northern Ireland, regardless of their community background. He absolutely has achieved what many people have failed to do and united our city and our community. I think that he is a shining example of what can be achieved with dedication, hard work and ability.

We should also say that he is an example for the many people who are involved at grassroots level in boxing across our community. I congratulate them on the hard work that goes on at that level in our boxing community. However, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, it is not enough that we as elected representatives congratulate and respect the hard work of our world champions and grassroots volunteers: we need to show the investment and the support that they deserve in order to develop our boxers and our community so far as possible. We extend our congratulations to Carl, and we wish him well for future success.

Mr Allister: Thank you. I am delighted to join in the very well-deserved congratulations to Carl Frampton. He has brought great pride, I am sure, not only to his close family, Tigers Bay, north Belfast and the rest of Belfast but to all of Northern Ireland. I think that we all feel pride in the fact that we have another world champion from our midst, and we want to salute him and congratulate him in all of that.

It would be remiss not also to congratulate the sporting fraternity on the achievements reached during the recess: the success of Rory McIlroy, and the success of many of our sportspeople at the Commonwealth Games. Northern Ireland has done itself tremendously proud in sport over the summer months, and this has been the crowning jewel in respect of all of that.

Mr McCausland: Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. May I join with others in giving my congratulations to Carl Frampton in the wake of his success, on Saturday night, in the centre of Belfast on bringing back to Belfast, and to Northern Ireland, the IBF super-bantamweight title? We have a rich history of boxing in Northern Ireland, particularly, I have to say, in north Belfast. As has been mentioned, a long line of boxers have come from that part of the city.

In congratulating Carl, we pay tribute to the role that his family have played. He was brought up in a very good family and had a good start in life, and that is hugely important. He has also been well managed and looked after by Barry McGuigan during his career.

I am glad that my colleague William Humphrey mentioned the start that Carl had all those years ago in Midland Boxing Club in Tigers Bay in the Duncairn area of north Belfast. In that context, I pay tribute to Billy McKee, who has given, I think, 40 years of voluntary service to that little boxing club where Carl started his boxing life. It was right and proper that Billy was acknowledged with the BEM earlier this year.

Carl has shown great talent in the ring and shown by his manner outside the ring that he is a responsible and good citizen. He is a good example to others and is, in many ways, a role model for young people. We can be truly proud of him. The city can be proud of him and so can the country.

As has been said, there is a wealth of boxing talent in Northern Ireland, but it goes wider than that. As has been pointed out, we have had great success in golf and at the Commonwealth Games, and we also note the successes once again this year in the World Pipe Band Championships. So, at world level, Northern Ireland is, to borrow a phrase from boxing, certainly punching above its weight.

Mrs McKevitt: I, too, put on record my sincere congratulations to Carl Frampton and Kiko Martinez for a fantastic fight on Saturday night. Our focus is rightly on our new world champion, but it is right to recognise the achievements of both boxers during what was a gruelling and well-contested match.

Like many others, I was ecstatic to see Carl crowned world champion on Saturday night. It was a nail-biting fight at times, but, from the moment that Carl knocked Martinez down in the fifth round, I think that we were all confident that he was a hero in the making. I am only sorry that not all people from across the North were able to watch the match, because it costs so much to rent. I therefore appeal to our local broadcasters to think about how they can make all sports more accessible to everyone in the future.

I am so pleased and glad to hear that my party colleague the Mayor of Belfast, Nichola Mallon, is already planning a civic reception for Carl. That will allow the people who did not see the match to contribute, take part and congratulate him. I support the calls here this afternoon for there to be an event in Parliament Buildings, which would be a very fitting tribute to him.

Aside from his boxing, Carl has become a unifying figure in Belfast and beyond. His success has brought people from every community together to celebrate a local champion. He and other sports stars have set a positive example that continues to inspire our young people and to wear down the barriers between our communities. If that alone happens, we will be absolutely delighted.

Again, I congratulate Carl and the team. We wish them all the very best for the future.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Earlier, Mr Jim Allister indicated that he wished to raise a point of order.

Mr Allister: Obliged. When we were dealing with Speaker's Business, I wanted to enquire about whether Mr Speaker intends, on behalf of the Northern Ireland Assembly, to send his best wishes and congratulations to Baron and Lady Carrickfergus, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, on the happy announcement this morning that they are expecting a further heir to the British throne.

Will Mr Speaker, on behalf of the House, convey our best wishes and congratulations to the royal couple?

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. I will bring the matter to the Speaker's attention.

Mr Poots (The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety): I wish to make the following statement on the ninth British-Irish Council misuse of substances ministerial meeting that took place in Dublin Castle on Friday 27 June 2014.

I apologise for the delay in making the statement to the Assembly. Unfortunately, the timing of the meeting and the start of recess meant that this is the earliest opportunity to make the statement to the Assembly. Junior Minister Jennifer McCann MLA and I represented the Northern Ireland Executive at the meeting. This statement has been agreed with junior Minister McCann and I am making it on behalf of us both.

The Minister of State with responsibility for primary care, Alex White TD, represented the Irish Government and chaired the meeting. Norman Baker, Minister of State for Crime Prevention, represented the UK Government. Roseanna Cunningham, Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, represented the Scottish Government. The Welsh Government were represented by Dr Mark Drakeford, Minister for Health and Social Services. Jersey was represented by the Health and Social Services Minister, Deputy Anne Pryke. Guernsey was represented by the Minister for the Home Department, Deputy Peter Gillson, and the Isle of Man was represented by the Minister for Home Affairs, Juan Watterson.

The main thematic discussion at the meeting focused on "Changing Trends in Drug Use — Current Patterns and Responses" with a particular emphasis on cannabis, new psychoactive substances and the misuse of prescribed and illicit medicines. We noted the importance of addressing the supply of such substances and agreed on the value of national and international collaboration to intercept these and prevent the trafficking of illicit and illegal drugs, medicines, new psychoactive substances and the materials used to make these substances, which are known as drug precursors. We identified the need to respond quickly and effectively on the emergence of new psychoactive substances and the need to promptly and proactively control and ban these substances when there is evidence of harm.

The issue of cannabis farms was discussed and Ministers shared information about innovative approaches to detecting cannabis production, including cannabis factories in residential areas, such as sharing information between energy companies, landlords, fire services and awareness campaigns. We also discussed ways to tackle the misuse and diversion of prescribed medicines. This is a particular issue in Northern Ireland and it was very useful to discuss the work we are undertaking on this issue and hear the experience of other jurisdictions. In particular, we highlighted the role of good prescribing practices combined with enforcement and raising awareness of the dangers of misusing prescribed medicines.

We shared information on the trends in drug misuse in each jurisdiction, and all Ministers noted the importance of the media — and social media in particular — in engaging with people about the dangers of substance misuse and promoting harm reduction messages, as well as signposting people to prevention, early intervention, and treatment and support services. The need to reach out to and educate and inform young people was noted as being particularly important in preventing harm and stopping misuse at an early stage.

In addition to discussing drug misuse, we also shared information on alcohol misuse policies. Each jurisdiction recognised the impact alcohol misuse has and highlighted the need to raise awareness and prioritise tackling this issue. We discussed prevention, education, early intervention and treatment and support as well as the importance of using licensing laws to reduce the accessibility, availability, and affordability of alcohol. In particular, we discussed the potential public benefits of an approach such as minimum unit pricing.

At the meeting we also reviewed the good work that has been carried out by this sectoral group over the last year. This work has focused on prevention and education, tackling the impact of parental substance misuse on children, which is also known as hidden harm, and the role of online support services and telephone helplines. We agreed that this work stream provided a very useful forum for sharing the detailed expertise and knowledge of those involved in the drugs sector across the British-Irish Council area. It was also noted that, in addition to exploring specific themes in depth, each meeting has facilitated the exchange of information on wider policy developments and initiatives.

We therefore agreed the work programme for the group going forward over the next year, which will include addressing the issue of alcohol and drug misuse in an ageing cohort and the development and implementation of Naloxone programmes to reduce deaths from opioid overdoses. The next official level meeting of the group will be held in Scotland in September 2014 and the next ministerial meeting will be held in mid-2015. The group will continue to link and share information informally between meetings to the benefit of the effort against drug and alcohol misuse in all jurisdictions.

Ms Maeve McLaughlin (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety): Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement on what is a hugely important issue. Specifically, Minister, I request your thoughts on an issue around which there has been much debate, namely the recent tragedies connected with legal highs and, particularly, the drug being referred to as Speckled Red or Cherry Red, and some of the very positive work that Belfast City Council carried out in the removal of these substances from the shops. I ask the Minister specifically to intervene and use his office to ensure that local authorities pick up on the existing power to make sure that these are taken off our shelves.

I also specifically refer to the ongoing debate around detoxification and rehab. The Minister will be all too aware of some of the debates in and around the Western Trust area. Given that this is a British-Irish Council paper and that there has been recent discussion at the North/South parliamentary forum on developing all-Ireland approaches to this, I ask specifically for his intervention on the detox facility in Muff, County Donegal, which has effectively been a storeroom because there is no service-level agreement with the health authorities in the North.

Mr Poots: I will deal with detoxification first. Certainly, that is a discussion that can be had with the Department of Health and my counterpart. Indeed, I am aware that we also have an excellent facility in Newry that is being run by the voluntary sector. We can look at how best we can progress these things. We had an all-Ireland conference on alcohol and the problems arising from that, which was the first of its kind, in Armagh some time ago. That was a very successful conference. I am happy to continue to engage in the discussions on all of that.

There have been quite a number of deaths as a result of Speckled Red, Green Rolex and all of that, and that has been quite well publicised. Regrettably, many of those drugs are still out there and still on the market. It is important to get out the message of just how dangerous they are and how dangerous to a community the people who supply those drugs are. We must always drive that message home, because many of these people do not come from outside a community, they come from within a community and are supplying poison to the children of those communities. That poison has caused the death of many people, in particular young people, who have taken those drugs.

The psychoactive substances are termed by some "legal highs", We need to get away from the notion that they are in some way legal. Psychoactive substances have a danger. Calling them "legal highs" perhaps gives people a notion that they are in some way less dangerous. We need to be very clear that psychoactive substances can cause very traumatic reactions in people, including causing death. We need to discourage people from using them. I am happy to take up and carry out the suggestion that we correspond with councils to indicate to them the success of the Belfast City Council work on head shops.

Mr Wells: The Minister is acutely aware of the problems caused to our community by cheap alcohol. Many of us in the House believe that the only solution is some form of minimum pricing. Can he give us an update on the situation regarding that suggestion?

Mr Poots: Thankfully, it is not just many in this House but many in the Houses in Scotland and Wales and in Dáil Éireann who think that that is the case. Each of those areas is considering moving forward on the minimum pricing of alcohol. Unfortunately, England is somewhat falling behind, still deciding what it should do and perhaps procrastinating. We are keen to move ahead. We have had the work carried out by Sheffield. That is now with the Department, and the indications are that we should move ahead. The Scottish Government have been taken to court. They won their case in Scotland, and they are now being taken to the European courts as a means of delaying this. That should not prevent us starting work that would, in the first instance, engage in a consultation process with the public.

I recall very well having to attend the emergency department with my learning-disabled brother a number of years ago, and we sat until 3.00 am before he got his bed. I spoke to the sister later in the evening when things had quietened down, and I said, "I make the observation that there seem to be a lot of people here who have drink on them". She said, "Yes, over half of them would have drink on them". I said, "But this is the middle of the week. This is Wednesday night". She said, "It is the same every night of the week, because drink is so cheap". The message sank in with me way back then that it was something that we needed to act on. The price of drink encourages an awful lot of the social problems that we have and causes an awful lot of the problems in our health service, and people are destroying themselves with it. It is an area that we will have to act on, and I thank the Member for raising that important issue.

Mr McKinney: I thank the Minister. He is relaying valuable discussions to the Floor. Can I concentrate on prescription drugs? Given the wider financial and health pressures, there is a financial as well as a health imperative in terms of prescription drugs. So, in terms of best practice, can the Minister point to robust action that is being taken so that those who are meant to get the drugs get the value of them, the taxpayer gets the best value for money and the potential is at least limited for those who are getting them to abuse them?

Mr Poots: The Member mentions a very difficult problem, particularly for the GPs who are on the front line. People very often come to a primary care practice needing help, and they receive drugs, and that helps them. In some instances, they are given pain relief, and people can become addicted to painkillers. In some instances, people who have been going through mental health trauma receive benzodiazepines, and they very often become addicted to them. Doctors are trying, in many instances, to take people off drugs, and I am getting letters from some MLAs expressing concern about that because individuals have gone to them. We need to ensure that GPs are encouraged to stay the course in the work that they are engaging in, because it is not in the long-term interests of the individual to stay on a drug that they have become reliant on. It is important that we work together on those issues.

There is another problem in that many people buy drugs over the Internet. Those may be similar drugs, but we do not know the quality of them. They have not gone through all of our licensing procedures. We have a problem with people who take prescription drugs. Twenty-one per cent of people report having used sedatives and tranquilisers, and 22% have used antidepressants, with around one in 10 having used them last year. That is the scale of people's drug use. Not all of them need to be using those drugs, but not all of them understand that they do not need to use the drugs.

Mrs Dobson: I also thank the Minister for his statement. Unfortunately, Minister, as we know, despite many campaigns, there remains a damaging stigma attached to substance misuse, and no one can have failed to be moved by the recent steps taken by a brave mother to show, through the media, the last photos of her dying son. Minister, what are you doing to highlight the grave dangers of substance abuse, especially among our young people?

Mr Poots: I join Ms Dobson in paying tribute to that mother. It is absolutely harrowing to see a fine-looking young man and see what he was left with at the end of it. It was absolutely appalling and heart-wrenching that anyone should go through that.

In terms of our Department's response, we have the new strategic direction (NSD) phase 2, and that is a five-year strategic plan set out to address the harm related to alcohol and drug misuse in Northern Ireland. We have allocated approximately £8 million to its implementation for each year. That involves, in some instances, public information campaigns, and we are looking at prices and promotions and at access and availability. Indeed, I was down in Mrs Dobson's constituency last Monday at the invitation of the local Member of Parliament, David Simpson, and met REACT. Absolutely fantastic work is being carried out by that organisation, which works with young people. The organisation raised the issue of education and of getting into schools. We and the Department of Education need to do some work on that, and there needs to be a discussion on how we can ensure that we are absolutely working as closely together as we should be to fight this scourge.

There is no doubt that the messages to people on drugs are ever more important. Some people always refer to it as being about young people; we have actually a bigger problem with 25- to 34-year-olds than we have with 18- to 25-year-olds. Of course, that has happened because those people have got themselves hooked on drugs at a younger age. There is a real problem amongst that age group. These are not youngsters who are going out there and sampling for the first time; these are long-term users. We have had people in their forties who have died recently from the misuse of drugs. One of the problems with psychoactive substances is that people take them in large quantities, they do not get the kick that they expect and they find that, by the time that it does kick in, their bodies have started to overheat. They cannot stop it as they have taken the drugs at that stage and the damage has been done. It is really frightening that those people are overheating and that they are dying awful deaths from overheating. The public need to know that that is the score. Young people and those who use those drugs need to know the dangers of them.

Mr McCarthy: Like others, I welcome the statement this afternoon, particularly the commitment to prevention, early intervention and treatment, not only for drug users but for alcohol abusers. We pay tribute to all the groups in Northern Ireland that work diligently and consistently in this field. It is not an easy task, and they work day and night to overcome it. Can the Minister assure the House that, despite all the financial pressures at this time, funding will continue to all those groups engaged in trying to overcome this scourge for all our communities?

Mr Poots: The truthful answer is "No, I can't". That is one of the issues that I raised. It is certainly an area where I do not want to see cuts taking place. I do not think that it is appropriate for cuts to take place in that area, but that is one of the things that is currently being given consideration. We will look to the October monitoring round to see whether we can ensure that the cuts are less critical than they currently would be, but, at this moment, we do not have holy grails in the Department where those cuts do not extent to. We need to ensure that, as far as possible, we can mitigate the cuts. I hope that the parties in the Executive will assist me in coming to an agreement that will ensure that that will be the case.

Mrs Cameron: I welcome the Minister's statement to the House this afternoon. I also welcome the information sharing that is going on about the important subject of substance misuse. Could the Department have done more to raise awareness of substances such as Speckled Cherries?

Mr Poots: Speckled Cherries, Green Rolex and so forth have been a very significant issue. Last year in east Belfast alone, we witnessed how, over a couple of months, nine young people, I think it was, lost their life. As soon as the Department became aware of this substance being available in Northern Ireland and its potential links to the number of deaths, the Chief Medical Officer issued an alert to all key stakeholders, including alcohol and drug services, on the same day. In addition, the Public Health Agency issued a range of information to the media and the public and appeared on a number of programmes. It should be noted that it goes across a wide range of socio-economic groups. The majority of those who lost their life in that instance were over the age of 25.

Given the nature of drugs, the only safe option is not to take any substance. When you take a substance, you cannot know what its effects on you will be. So it is important that people avoid taking drugs in the first instance.

There are people out there who profit from drugs. We need to ensure that those people are exposed and that communities report them to the police so that they go through due process for engaging in that behaviour. We must always make it clear that drug use is unacceptable, damaging and harmful. Particularly when taken with alcohol, the dangers of drugs spike. We will continue to put those messages out there and to take on those who seek to profiteer through drugs.

I am often critical of the media, but they have been very helpful in getting a lot of these messages out, and I encourage them to continue to take an interest in these subjects. Getting the messages out there on key programmes and key news programme etc and having people made aware of the risks that they are putting themselves at is critical.

Mr Brady: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement and pay tribute to the Cuan Mhuire centre in my constituency, which does so much to help people deal with alcohol and drug-related issues.

Minister, you mentioned prescription drugs, which have become an increasing problem. These prescription drugs are readily available online and, without proper medical supervision, can be extremely dangerous. We have already had fatalities in the North related to these prescription drugs. Minister, do you think that enough is being done to counteract that particular avenue of access to prescription drugs?

Mr Poots: My Department does not look after the regulation of importing drugs, which is largely done through the Internet, but we work very closely with the authorities that do, and a remarkable amount of drugs are found and taken away from the end user as a result. However, one can only imagine that there is a far greater amount of drugs coming through, and that makes it quite frightening in terms of its scale and the amount of drugs that are being imported illegally. Those are prescription drugs or are similar to prescription drugs, but individuals may be taking drugs that are not properly licensed and that may contain things not in the prescription drug that they would like to use but that is not available to them. They may contain other things that can cause them harm. I encourage the public to desist from using such drugs.

If someone has the problem of being addicted to prescription drugs, I would encourage them to talk to their primary care provider, pharmacist or doctor to try to work out a programme to wean them off. The truth is that, unless you need a drug and it has been prescribed to you by a doctor, you should not take it.

Mr Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his statement to the House today, especially in relation to psychoactive substances, which are a scourge on society. Does the Minister feel that his Department is doing enough to identify new substances or trends in drug use?

Mr Poots: I think that more could be done and the Department will want to be active in that. We have been corresponding with the Home Office on various courses of work that have happened in other countries and locations and are encouraging the Home Office to take actions that will help us to clamp down on a lot of these drugs. We were to have a report in the springtime, but we were then told that it would come in September this year, and I hope that it will, because obviously we are in September now. On the back of that, the national Government will be able to take strong actions to ensure that we can move much more quickly on removing these drugs from the market and take action against the people who are supplying those drugs.

Mr Beggs: The misuse of drugs, whether prescribed, over the counter or illegal, can adversely affect the health and mental well-being of those taking them. The Minister's statement highlighted the particular problem in Northern Ireland of the "misuse and diversion of prescribed" drugs. As well as looking at the drugs available over the Internet, will the Minister highlight what action his Department, GPs and pharmacists are taking to try to identify where prescribed drugs are being diverted to others at a cost to individuals' health and to our limited budget?

Mr Poots: Many legal and prescription drugs contain opiates, for example. Individuals buy prescription drugs from people who indicated that they were unwell and had their doctor prescribe those drugs, which are broken up and used to supply the market. Indeed, when there was a problem with drug dealers getting heroin, they were quick to do that. We need to be aware that drug dealers are very sharp and are right up there when it comes to innovative ways to get their hands on product to sell. We also need to be very innovative in how we challenge them. Our primary care providers — GPs — have to be conscious of all that goes on when they prescribe some of these drugs. They must seek to ensure that such drugs will be properly utilised and will not be used by individuals who will cause harm to others. We are aware of these problems, and people are seeking to address them. Those courses of work will continue.

Mr G Robinson: I thank the Minister for his statement. How can parents become more informed and aware of the illegal drugs that young people and others can avail themselves of?

Mr Poots: It is absolutely critical that parents keep themselves informed of drugs, alcohol misuse or the misuse of the Internet and that they provide support to their children. Despite repeated warnings from the Public Health Agency (PHA), the PSNI and the Chief Medical Officer, it is clear that people continue to take these substances, risking their health and well-being. Information on alcohol and drug misuse is included in the school curriculum as part of a broader life skills approach, and evidence shows that this is the best way to address the issue in schools.

I appreciate that some believe that we should have a hard-hitting media campaign to highlight the dangers of drug misuse, similar to those undertaken on road safety. However, evidence shows that, at best, campaigns on substance misuse are ineffective. Often, those who take drugs feel that such campaigns do not match their experience, and they therefore disregard them. At worst, there is some evidence that such campaigns can increase awareness of available substances and lead to increased risk-taking and drug-seeking behaviours. Therefore, we need to be very careful. Our mantra must be: do no harm.

I will ask the Public Health Agency to revisit the evidence base and look at how best it can continue to get the messages out there, particularly to young people, to ensure that they never start to take drugs and, therefore, do not become hooked on this scourge.

Mr Allister: I return to the scourge of legal highs; I appreciate the misnomer that the Minister made a point about. He may have answered my question because, in responding to Mr Buchanan, he turned his back on the House, and it was difficult to hear what he said. Will he update the House on whether there has been any specific indication from the Westminster Government as to how and when they propose to update the Misuse of Drugs Act so that it might deal with today's situation as it pertains to legal highs?

I cannot resist asking, since I notice that the next meeting is in mid-2015: does the Minister expect to be in office at that date?

Mr Poots: I do not know. That is something for others to decide and I am happy to do the job when I am asked to do it. In any event, the job in hand indicates that we have an issue and a problem now that we need to address. We had corresponded with Westminster, which indicated that it was carrying out an investigation into all of this, with the intention of looking at whether legislation is appropriate. That was to be concluded in the spring of this year; it is now to be concluded in September, so it should be weeks away at the latest. Hopefully, we will get information very soon from Westminster on what the next steps are. We have looked at actions that have taken place in New Zealand, the United States of America and the Republic of Ireland, where there has been greater success. We encourage our Government to ensure that they are well placed to combat the supply of drugs and the individuals doing that so that we can act against them.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his statement on what is a very important issue. I also take the opportunity to commend the work of the Forum for Action on Substance Abuse (FASA), which does an excellent job in north Down and the Ards area. Will the Minister elaborate on what approaches have been taken elsewhere in the UK and in the Republic of Ireland to address the real scourge of legal highs?

Mr Poots: Many head-shop products became illegal in the Republic of Ireland when its Criminal Justice (Psychoactive Substances) Act 2010 was introduced. That empowered gardaí to seek court orders to close shops suspected of selling drug-like products, with the onus on owners to prove that they are not doing so. The United States of America has what is known as analogue legislation, which means that any new drug that acts in the same way as an already banned substance is automatically considered to be banned under the existing legislation.

New Zealand's plans were to regulate and license the new psychoactive substances (NPS) market. However, it is reported that some of the first legal highs to be sold under licence in New Zealand were urgently pulled off the shelves after users reported adverse health effects. Previously, they had been assessed by the Ministry of Health and, in August 2013, were judged to be of low enough risk to be sold to the public. There are now 42 legal high products being sold in New Zealand under interim licences. Suppliers paid £10,000 to register each product with the authorities, which evaluated calls to the National Poisons Centre and other reports of harm before granting approval.

All these options are being considered by the Home Office's expert panel, although it is clear from discussions at the meeting that none of these approaches is a complete solution on its own. Belfast City Council has led the way in being innovative in the United Kingdom by using existing legislation to remove materials from shops' premises. I very much welcome the fact that the courts supported the council when that was challenged by the shops.

Mr McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. What direct or specific advice would the Minister or his Department give an MLA to pass on to a very distressed mother who contacted me on Friday evening to say that she had just found evidence of the wrongly named legal highs in her 17-year-old son's bedroom? She has since found out that it was Magic Dragon, three grams of which cost £24.

Mr Poots: I encourage her to speak to the legitimate authorities to pass on the name of whoever is supplying the drugs in the first instance. If there is any concern that some of the drugs have been ingested, I encourage a health check. I encourage her to engage with organisations that provide support and help to people who are using drugs or considering using drugs.

In all of this, we need to approach our young people, and others who are considering or are taking drugs, in a very sensitive way that sets out to try to help them. It is not always about badgering and barking at people; it is about outlining to them what the risks and dangers are and perhaps other ways that they can enjoy themselves without taking drugs. Quite a number of organisations available across Northern Ireland can provide support. Mr Dunne commended one of them. I commend that organisation and the others working very closely with communities to get positive messages out there and encourage people not to take drugs in the first instance.

Mr Durkan (The Minister of the Environment): As the House is aware, I have authorised my Department to adopt the Belfast metropolitan area plan (BMAP) which will become operative on 9 September 2014. The adoption order was signed and sealed on 3 September 2014.

Since I took over as Minister of the Environment, with responsibility for planning, one of my key priorities has been to ensure that my Department concludes work on BMAP and other development plans. BMAP is necessary to provide the essential planning framework to guide development decisions in the Belfast metropolitan area and to provide certainty and confidence for those wishing to invest in the development of the area. Finalising BMAP is crucial not only for the six district council areas concerned but for the economy of the North.

I authorised the adoption last September of the Banbridge/Newry and Mourne area plan, and work is continuing on the northern area plan. The completion of the three area plans will provide an up-to-date, fit-for-purpose planning regime and the stability required before next April, when councils will become responsible for the future preparation of their own local development plans.

Adoption of this plan represents a sound foundation for decision-making affecting a significant percentage of the population and land area of the North. BMAP covers the council areas of Belfast, Lisburn, Carrickfergus, Castlereagh, Newtownabbey and North Down. The plan area, which is approximately 960 square kilometres, has a population of 671,559 — approximately 37% of the total population of the North — and is key to securing the economic growth of the region. It also covers areas of social deprivation with vulnerable communities, some of whom feel that they have been left behind.

A development plan drawn up for a designated geographical area provides a framework for the determination of planning applications by the designated statutory planning authority. Currently, that is the DOE, and, in future, it will also be the new councils. The planning authority must have regard for the development plan when determining a planning application insofar as it is material to the application, as well as all other material considerations.

The Belfast metropolitan area plan is a development plan prepared under the provisions of Part III of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 by the Department of the Environment. The process that must be followed by the DOE in preparing a development plan is specified in statute.

The preparation of, and consultation on, BMAP has followed a protracted process over the past decade, spanning periods of devolution and direct rule. Preparation of the plan was formally initiated in January 2001. During the initial preparation period for the plan, the DOE engaged in the most extensive consultation exercise ever undertaken for a development plan in Northern Ireland. That recognised the extent of the geographical area covered by the plan and its inherent significance to the economic and social development of the region as a whole.

Throughout that initial preparation process, councils informed and helped shape the draft plan through a plan political group, which was chaired by the then Environment Minister and comprised representatives of the six councils that made up the plan area. There was ongoing consultation with individual councils at all stages of the plan preparation process.

In December 2001, the Belfast metropolitan area plan issues paper was published. That sought to stimulate a wide-ranging debate on issues likely to influence the shape of future development in the plan area and to encourage feedback from a wide range of interests.

During that initial consultation period, a series of 10 information meetings and 27 consultation meetings were held throughout the plan area. Voluntary and community groups were engaged, and over 1,500 people attended the public meetings and focus groups. Overall, that consultation process reflected a broad cross section of the people living in the plan area. A report presenting a collation of the views expressed during the consultation process was published in April 2003. The Department published the draft Belfast metropolitan area plan on 30 November 2004, and the statutory period for objections to the draft plan expired on 25 January 2005. In order to reflect changes in the planning context and to address a number of issues that were identified in the draft plan, the Department published a plan amendment in February 2006. The statutory period for objections to the plan amendment expired on 11 April 2006.

Following receipt of a substantial number of representations, the Department requested the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) to hold a public inquiry into the objections received and to report to the Department on the inquiry. The inquiry opened on 16 April 2007 and was formally closed by the PAC on 1 May 2008. The PAC submitted its report to the Department in stages between January 2009 and January 2012. Its recommendations have been fully considered by the Department. In order to ensure full transparency of process, the Department published all the Planning Appeals Commission reports on the draft plan in June 2012. Full details of my Department's response to the commission's recommendations are set out in the Belfast metropolitan area plan adoption statement and its appendices.

Article 28(6) of the Planning (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 requires the Department to send a copy of the draft plan to the Department for Regional Development to consider whether it is in conformity with the regional development strategy (RDS) — the spatial strategy of the Executive. DRD completed its assessment of the draft plan in October last year and issued a certificate confirming that the plan is, in general, in conformity with the regional development strategy 2035. That, alongside completion of a habitats regulations assessment and equality impact assessment, marked the completion of all necessary legislative and procedural requirements in advance of adoption.

The plan is a substantial publication comprising seven volumes of material and runs to 900 A4 pages, plus 30 larger maps. It comprises a written statement and accompanying maps as well as detailed site designations. The written statement is divided into four parts. Part 1 sets out the background to the preparation of the plan; part 2 sets out its guiding principles and strategy; part 3 sets out the plan framework, comprising allocations, designations, policies and proposals relating to the plan area as a whole; and part 4 translates the broad policies and proposals of part 3 for each of the council areas specifically addressed in volumes 2 to 7. In assessing the totality of the plan for each council area, it is therefore necessary to refer to volume 1 and the relevant district proposals — volumes 2 to 7 — for the particular council area.

The key components of the plan include supporting economic development; protecting the natural environment; promoting urban renewal; promoting equality of opportunity; enhancing quality of life; sustaining a living, working countryside; and developing an integrated, inclusive transport system

The plan's central aim is to strengthen the regional role of the metropolitan area so that it can compete successfully at European and international level. Securing the prosperity of this area is vital to the economic, environmental and social well-being of the region. In line with the regional development strategy, the plan seeks to promote the city of Belfast as the regional capital and the major focus for regional administration, commerce and employment. It also provides a framework to strengthen the complementary roles of Lisburn city and the adjoining boroughs of Castlereagh, Carrickfergus, Newtownabbey and North Down.

In line with its key theme, the plan promotes Belfast city centre as the leading shopping centre and Lisburn city centre and the town centres of Bangor, Carrickfergus, Ballyclare, Carryduff and Holywood as the focus for additional retail capacity. That is consistent with the regional development strategy approach, which urges precaution in relation to major retailing proposals due to the adverse impact of out-of-town retailing on existing centres.

The plan retains the draft plan policy to restrict the future expansion of retailing at Sprucefield to the sale of bulky goods. I acknowledge that certain concerns exist about that issue, but my predecessor and I have previously explained in considerable detail the rationale for our approach on the matter, which again is consistent with the regional policy context to strengthen Belfast as the key economic driver for Northern Ireland, with Sprucefield playing a complementary role rather than competing with Belfast city centre. It also seeks to avoid the impact on other town and city centres in the BMAP area and beyond. In the absence of any evidence to sway me from that precautionary approach, which aligns with the Executive's endorsed approach in the RDS and the more recently published draft strategic planning policy statement (SPPS), I considered it appropriate to retain the policy.

The plan also secures an adequate supply of housing lands, with provision for an estimated 92,000 dwellings. That exceeds a six-year supply post-adoption. Of the 1,950 hectares of land zoned for housing, 103 hectares are specifically zoned for social housing. DOE has worked very closely with colleagues in DSD and the Housing Executive to address social housing needs in BMAP and also to develop regional policy for the delivery of social housing with the joint draft policy PPS 22 on affordable housing and the associated DSD housing policy.

The employment strategy seeks to sustain balanced economic growth and job creation by promoting city and town centres as the main focus for retail and office functions, along with providing a generous and continuous supply of land with a balanced portfolio of sites throughout the plan area. Over 2,000 hectares of land are allocated for employment use, with four major employment locations, at Global Point, Newtownabbey; Titanic Quarter, Belfast; Purdysburn, Castlereagh; and Blaris, west Lisburn.

The plan provides proposals to safeguard those areas that may be vulnerable to development pressure or that are visually or environmentally sensitive. The plan's environmental designations acknowledge and protect the rich natural and built heritage of the area. The urban environment strategy promotes new development of the highest quality, protects areas of architectural and townscape importance, and promotes healthier living environments. The plan identifies 21 conservation areas and designates 99 townscape- or village-character areas, along with a number of historic parks, gardens and demesnes.

For the natural environment, the plan includes additional designations to afford special protection to Belfast metropolitan area landscapes that are particularly sensitive because of their quality or that need particular protection because of their location and development pressure. Those areas include the Belfast metropolitan coastal areas, the Lagan Valley Regional Park, the Belfast hills and areas of high scenic value (AOHSVs). The plan area contains 33 national or international nature conservation designations, 240 sites of local nature conservation importance and 288 local landscape policy areas.

Very briefly, I wish to take the opportunity to highlight a number of key proposals for each of the council areas covered by the plan.

The aim for Belfast, as previously referred to, is to strengthen its role as the regional capital and economic driver for the North. However, it is not only about Belfast city centre. The plan provides for a major redevelopment zoning in Titanic Quarter of circa 87 hectares, providing a unique opportunity to create a new quarter for the city on a scale unequalled in the past and unlikely to be repeated in the foreseeable future. A major site at the north foreshore is zoned for mixed use, comprising employment and open space of around 127 hectares. Other key employment sites include Monagh Bypass and a mixed-use site on the Crumlin Road. In the outer Belfast area, approximately 610 hectares of land are zoned for housing, including social housing. An office area is designated at Queen's University to facilitate university-related office use, and a further office node is designated at Stormont to facilitate public sector administration.

The plan facilitates the integration between transportation and land use and identifies the elements of the Belfast metropolitan transport plan that require protection through the planning process; for example, park-and-ride schemes, new railway stations or the widening of the A55 outer ring road.

The plan recognises the development potential of the Lisburn City Council area and aims to facilitate expansion and economic growth, with a focus on locus and Lisburn’s favourable location along key transport routes. Key designations include the primary retail core, promoting city centre living and creating 24-hour vitality through protected city centre housing areas. As previously referred to, the plan sets out the complementary role of Sprucefield shopping centre and designates a district centre at Dairy Farm and a local centre at Dunmurry.

The plan proposals for Carrickfergus aim to improve the general environment in order to strengthen the town centre and to promote the marine complex and urban waterfront. Key designations include 181 hectares of land zoned for housing, including land for the provision of social housing, and 151 hectares of additional land zoned for employment or industry.

The plan proposals for Castlereagh include the promotion of major recreational facilities. Key designations include 254 hectares of land zoned for housing and 93 hectares of additional land zoned for employment or industry, with a major employment location at Purdysburn/Newtownbreda. Carryduff town is also promoted as a focus for retailing and offices through the identification of a town centre boundary. A district centre is identified at Forestside and a local centre at Dundonald to complement the existing retail facilities.

The plan proposals for Newtownabbey enhance recreation and maritime pursuits and promote the major employment, retail, education and residential centres within the borough. Ballyclare town centre is promoted as a focus for retailing and offices, and district centres are identified at Northcott and the Abbey Centre. Major transport proposals include the Ballyclare relief road.

The plan proposals for North Down aim to enhance the status of North Down as an important tourism destination and facilitate the rapid economic and suburban growth that the area has been experiencing whilst protecting and enhancing the natural heritage aspects. The coastline is protected through the designation of a coastal policy area and is complemented by the designation of an urban waterfront in Bangor to promote the marina complex and its surroundings, encouraging a vibrant and attractive waterfront.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am conscious that we are fast approaching Question Time. I have another couple of pages to go, but, with your permission, I will wait until after Question Time to continue.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Order. As Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, as the Minister quite rightly pointed out, I suggest that the House take its ease until then. Questions on the statement will be taken following Question Time.

Mr M McGuinness (The deputy First Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission I will ask junior Minister Jennifer McCann to answer this question.

Ms J McCann (Junior Minister, Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister): The Bright Start school-age childcare grant scheme aims to create or sustain up to 7,000 school-age childcare places in low-cost social economy settings. Those will begin to address current unmet need for school-age childcare services. Some 77 applications were received under the first round of applications for the scheme, which closed in May. A second call for applications for the scheme projects will end on 30 September 2014.

The childcare partnership strategic funding panels have assessed the 77 applications and agreed that 50 met the selection criteria. The settings that will be funded will sustain 1,165 school-age childcare places and create 326 new school-age childcare places. The 50 successful applications represent funding of some £1·9 million, to be paid over a three-year period. All 77 applicants to the grant scheme have now been advised of the outcome of the assessment process. No new or existing setting was required to deliver its places by 1 September this year, but we expect most of the settings funded under the first call to be operating by the autumn. All the 40 childcare settings that are currently financially assisted by OFMDFM have applied for funding under the grant scheme, and those that were successful will continue to operate when their current funding ends on 30 September.

Mr Rogers: I thank the junior Minister for the response. Can OFMDFM confirm the number of new places that are available at the start of the school year? How many are rural based? How many are school based? How many are based in social enterprises?

Ms J McCann: I do not have the exact figures for the different sectors that you mentioned, but I can say that they are all from the social enterprise sector. The reason for that is that we are very clear that any surplus moneys are reinvested for more service provision to create more places and not for the distribution for owners. I do not have the exact figures here, but I can assure the Member that a number of those childcare places are in a rural setting.

Mr Lyttle: What public consultation has the junior Minister's Department undertaken with regard to the Westminster proposals to replace the childcare voucher scheme with tax-free childcare payments? Why does her Department believe that the new scheme will be better for families in Northern Ireland?

Ms J McCann: As you said, the coalition Government propose to introduce a new scheme to provide financial support to help working families with the cost of childcare. The purpose of the new scheme is to enable those with responsibility for children to take up paid work or to work for longer. We are in the process of looking at the scheme, but no definitive consultation has happened yet. Part of our proposals for Bright Start are to ensure that all parents and carers are informed of all the schemes in respect of the childcare element of working families' tax credit and the vouchers. Part of Bright Start is to do that, so we will be looking to roll that out.

Mr Kinahan: How much of the £12 million budget for childcare is currently unallocated?

Ms J McCann: I have details of the £12 million. In 2011-12, £3,222 was allocated to the fund. In 2012-13, £1·482 million was allocated from the fund. Again, in 2013-14, £692,000 was allocated from the fund. I can give the Member details of where those specific allocations are, but I do not have time to go into them here. If the Member wants, I can write to him with those details. For example, in the last year, PlayBoard got £652,000 and £40,000 went to the Department of Health. All of that went towards delivering childcare services for people in local communities. As I say, there are quite detailed amounts. I will write to the Member with those details.

Mr M McGuinness: The Phoenix project was originally set up as an umbrella group with a number of outlying offices which, while retaining their individual identities, worked together. The original Phoenix project had seven local offices which were spread throughout the North. However, some of the local groups have now applied for funding under their own corporate governance arrangements. Not all of the individual groups received funding from the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS). Some received only Peace funding. The total VSS funding for groups that were originally within or came under the umbrella of the Phoenix project in the 2013-15 period is £420,198. Those groups are located in Armagh, east Tyrone and west Tyrone, as well as the overall Phoenix Group, which operates throughout the North. All victims' groups, the Victims and Survivors Service and the Commission for Victims and Survivors have been asked to find efficiency savings of 4·4% in administration. That is also being applied to our Department and all of its arm's-length bodies.

Mr Irwin: I thank the deputy First Minister for his response. As I am aware, the Phoenix Group is in need of gap funding from September to April 2015. A significant number of offices would close in the absence of that. Given the importance of the Phoenix Group's support to victims, will the deputy First Minister give an assurance that every effort will be made to find the gap funding that is needed so that it may continue to do its work?

Mr M McGuinness: To date, the Victims and Survivors Service has been given a budget of £10 million for 2014-15. A bid for additional resources was not met in June monitoring. That has created pressures. However, I am optimistic that the VSS budget will be restored to its 2013-14 baseline position of £11·3 million following October monitoring. As I have said, the Victims and Survivors Service has been asked to seek to apply efficiencies of 4·4% from the running costs of the service itself and from the groups that are funded under the victim support programme. That is in line with the level of efficiency savings that has been sought by our Department from all of our arm's-length bodies and the Department itself.

Mr Nesbitt: I seek clarification. The deputy First Minister talks of a 4·4% reduction across arm's-length bodies including the Victims and Survivors Service. He talks about its current budget being £10 million. I understand from a briefing from the VSS that its budget this time last year was in excess of £12 million, which means that the current reduction is in excess of 15%, not 4·4%. Would he confirm whether those figures are correct?

Mr M McGuinness: I can go only on the figures with which I have been supplied. Given the Member's contribution to the discussion, I will certainly check the figures that he has provided to the Assembly today.

Mr D Bradley: Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Tá ceist agam ar an LeasChéad-Aire i dtaca le grúpaí íospartach a bhris téarmaí a gcuid litreacha tairisceana. What action has been taken with regard to victims groups that have been found to be in breach of the terms of their letters of offer from the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB)?

Mr M McGuinness: Those are matters that are obviously under constant review. Over recent years, there has been a number of cases where investigations have been conducted to ensure that funds that are being provided out of the public purse are being properly given to those who are most in need. So, I think that the responsibility of all groups is to work in a good spirit of cooperation with officials and the Victims and Survivors Service to ensure that there is no misappropriation of funds. Where there is any allegation of misappropriation, it will, as always, be investigated.

Mr M McGuinness: Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I will answer questions 3 and 13 together.

Funding for victims services has increased over recent years, with £50 million being allocated for victims during this budgetary round. We fully acknowledge that the needs of victims and survivors are an important legacy of the conflict, and establishing the Victims and Survivors Service was an important aspect of focusing on need. As demand increases, we need to consider the supply of services and the funding available to deliver them.

Due to the restricted financial climate, we allocated the Victims and Survivors Service £10 million at the start of the year. Of course, we always want to meet demand, which is why we have made a bid for additional funding in the October monitoring round. As I said earlier, I am optimistic that the VSS budget will be restored to its 2013-14 baseline position of £11·3 million. I accept that another Member has introduced a caveat that challenges those figures, but it is important to say that we are still pleased that the importance of finding the additional funding was acknowledged by the Finance Minister in the Budget paper and agreed by the Executive.

Mrs Overend: It is 40 years since the beginning of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, and only last year did we have the establishment of the Mid-Ulster Victim Empowerment group, which aims to support the victims of terrorism across the constituency. However, in what is only its first full year of running, it is dealing with a severe cut to its budget. What can the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister do to reassure the victims of terrorism in Mid Ulster that their needs will not be forgotten but instead be supported for quite some time to come?

Mr M McGuinness: The responsibility to deal with the situation in relation to all victims falls upon the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the arm's-length bodies. As I said earlier, we recognise that this is a time of economic hardship and cutbacks. People have to remember that the cutbacks are a direct result of the strategy being adopted by the present coalition Government in London, where, in fact, the First Minister and myself met our own finance people, just last week. They clearly indicated to us that, since 2009 — this is now 2014 — there has been no appreciable increase whatsoever in our block grant.

Given inflationary pressures and the need to meet the financial considerations of workers and so forth, that inevitably places a huge burden on the distribution of funds and is a direct cause of the challenges that we, as an Executive, and the Finance Minister face as we deal with the economic situation across all Departments. As I said in this contribution, the victims sector is a very important and special sector. We have a duty and responsibility, even in the face of a very difficult economic climate, to ensure that those who have suffered as a result of conflict will be supported. That is why, in the October monitoring round, we have pledged to try to ease the difficulties that many of those groups, including the group in Mid Ulster, are facing.

Mr I McCrea: Can the deputy First Minister confirm whether or not Kathryn Stone, who previously was the Victims' Commissioner, is playing a role in appointing a new Victims' Commissioner? Will he assure the victims sector — certainly the innocent victims sector — that she is fit to take that job, given the fact that she referred to the current victims service as not fit for purpose?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Member has clearly gone beyond the funding issue, but the deputy First Minister may wish to reply.

Mr M McGuinness: The Member is correct. The Commissioner for Victims and Survivors, Kathryn Stone, left her post on 12 June 2014. Our officials are working through the processes to appoint a new commissioner. The appointment will be regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments and will follow the code of practice for ministerial appointments. The process will be taken forward by HR Connect, and advertisements have recently appeared in newspapers. The closing date for applications is midday on 12 September 2014. The Victims and Survivors Forum was consulted on the skills and qualities needed for the role, and its views were taken into consideration in finalising the necessary skill sets for the incoming commissioner.

Given the highly respected person that Kathryn Stone was as Victims' Commissioner and the huge amount of support that there was for her within the victims sector, the First Minister and I took the view that the experience that she gained while she was here would be invaluable in ensuring a successful process of appointing a new Victims' Commissioner. I think that everybody who worked with Kathryn — we received regular reports — had nothing but the fullest admiration for the way that she conducted herself while she was Victims' Commissioner. I do not think that there is any unease in the victims sector about the role that she is playing in the appointment of the new Victims' Commissioner.

Mr McAleer: Go raibh maith agat. In the Minister's response, he indicated that funding for victims services had increased over recent years. Will the Minister give an indication of that increase?

Mr M McGuinness: As I said, the First Minister and I have allocated £50 million for victims during this budgetary period from 2011 to 2015. In the previous Budget period, 2007 to 2011, £33 million was allocated for victims. The current victims budget is therefore £17 million higher than in the previous Budget. That represents more than a 50% increase. Our current annual budget for victims sits at around £11·3 million; under direct rule, in the three years between 2004 and 2007, the victims budget totalled £11·8 million. Our annual budget for victims is close to what victims received for three years under direct rule. Those figures speak for themselves. The support of victims is a huge priority for the Executive and for the First Minister and me. Against the backdrop of a very harsh economic climate, we will constantly ensure that we support victims as well as we can. I think that those figures clearly show the commitment from the Executive and from the First Minister and me.

Mr Attwood: It might be useful, deputy First Minister, if you could confirm what you have just said, that, given the unfortunate comment that was made by the Member opposite in respect of Kathryn Stone, it was a decision taken by both you and the First Minister that she should play a role in the appointment process. At the same time, will you confirm, given that, this time last year, Kathryn Stone formally alerted you and the First Minister in respect of concerns by the VSS, that both you and the First Minister are personally monitoring the implementation of the very wide-ranging recommendations that arose from the report that was commissioned after she formally alerted you and the First Minister about her concerns?

Mr M McGuinness: Anybody who worked with Kathryn Stone had nothing but the highest regard for her capabilities and compassion for victims. She was also very much an advocate for victims, and she was always prepared to discuss with the First Minister and me the challenges that the victims sector was clearly facing. Advice from her was always taken very seriously indeed. As a result of some of the things that have happened in the VSS in recent times, in terms of resignations and so forth, there is obviously a huge challenge to ensure that the needs of victims are properly catered for. Some outlandish allegations have been made over the past while that the First Minister and I have totally and absolutely refuted as being without foundation, but I think that we will continue to face into those challenges, as will the Victims and Survivors Service and the new Victims' Commissioner, to ensure that we are delivering for all victims of the conflict.

Mr M McGuinness: Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I will ask junior Minister McCann to answer the question.

Ms J McCann: The Executive's child poverty strategy, 'Improving Children's Life Chances', was published in March 2011. In 2012, the Executive launched the Delivering Social Change framework to tackle poverty and social exclusion. That framework established a mechanism for cross-departmental action in Delivering Social Change signature projects that have been launched to target action where it is most needed. In October 2013, we published the child poverty outcomes framework, which was the result of several years' work to develop a model in which every Department could understand its role in tackling child poverty.

A review of the current child poverty strategy was carried out from October 2013 to January 2014. We subsequently published a consultation document, 'Delivering Social Change for Children and Young People', in January 2014. It aimed to integrate the child poverty strategy into a wider strategy to improve outcomes for all children and young people. The majority of consultees welcomed the proposals. However, some of our stakeholders wanted more time and engagement to develop an integrated strategy. We have taken the views of our stakeholders fully on board and have decided to lay a separate child poverty strategy and to engage further with stakeholders on the development of a new strategy to replace the 10-year strategy for children and young people post 2016. We plan to lay a child poverty strategy for 2014-17, following Committee referral and Executive consideration, this autumn. That strategy will be informed by the consultation and the child poverty outcomes framework.

Ms McCorley: Go raibh agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagraí go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for the answers to this point. Will she outline any concerns that she has about austerity measures and the predicted rise in levels of child poverty?

Ms J McCann: I am very concerned about the predicted rise in child poverty levels as outlined in a recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report carried out for OFMDFM and a similar report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The Institute for Fiscal Studies report shows that, across Britain, families with children are hardest hit by welfare cuts. The report also states that child poverty levels here will rise to 30·9% and 38·5% respectively for relative and absolute child poverty. We have seen how welfare cuts are affecting families in Britain, particularly families with children. We have even more families with children here, and we have families with larger numbers of children. Reports commissioned by the Children's Commissioner's office indicate that, because the North has a relatively large proportion of households with children and higher numbers of children with a disability, the North will lose more income than any other region outside London. We are, therefore, very concerned about the coalition Government's austerity measures and the proposed welfare cuts.

Mrs D Kelly: I am pleased to hear that the junior Minister with responsibility for children and young people is very concerned at the findings of the reports, but is that concern not a withering indictment of your childcare anti-poverty strategy? Minister, what exactly are you and OFMDFM going to do about it?

Ms J McCann: As I said, we are very concerned. I understand that, even now, we are seeing an increase in the number of families using food banks and in the number of crimes in supermarkets, where people are stealing food. Some work has been brought forward in Departments. OFMDFM, for instance, has made funding of £13·56 million available over the three financial years from 2013 to employ an additional 230 recently graduated teachers through our Delivering Social Change framework.

We developed the Delivering Social Change framework to ensure that poverty is tackled in a holistic way, but all Departments have responsibility for poverty. Indeed, every Member in the House has a responsibility for tackling child poverty.

In one of my earlier answers, I mentioned the launch of the first phase of the Bright Start childcare strategy. The grant scheme is already creating and sustaining childcare places and working towards tackling poverty. DARD also does work through its poverty framework. So, a lot is being done by Departments. Are you asking me whether it is enough? I think that we all need to do more. As we go forward, everybody — all Departments — working together under the Delivering Social Change framework needs to do more.

Mr B McCrea: Will the Minister explain the difference between relative and absolute child poverty? Will she comment on whether absolute child poverty has been improving in recent years?

Ms J McCann: Relative poverty is when your income is 60% below the average household income. Absolute or persistent poverty is when you are in that type of poverty totally. You can measure levels of poverty, and that is what we are trying to do with this new poverty strategy. Rather than getting figures that have been massaged, we are trying to ensure that the indicators are outcomes-based. The slight decrease in child poverty over recent times is the result of the average household income coming down, as opposed to any impact being made on child poverty. That is why we wanted to look at child poverty outcomes. Measuring child poverty is about looking not just at household income but at educational underachievement, educational attainment, health inequalities, access to play and access to services for children. You also need to look at the whole family when you are looking at child poverty, because we cannot see it in isolation. That is what we are trying to do with this new anti-poverty, or child poverty, strategy.

Mr M McGuinness: With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will ask junior Minister McCann also to answer this question.

Ms J McCann: The 'Delivering Social Change for Children and Young People' consultation document was published in January 2014. It sets out proposals to integrate the child poverty strategy with the 10-year strategy for children and young people and to work to deliver our commitments under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The consultation closed on 31 March, and an analysis report was compiled.
Most respondents welcomed the proposals, but some stakeholders wanted more time and more engagement with them to develop an integrated strategy. We have listened to our stakeholders and taken their views on board. As I said earlier, following Committee referral and Executive consideration, we propose to lay a separate child poverty strategy for 2014-17 in the autumn and to allow the 10-year strategy for children and young people to continue until 2016. We propose to work with stakeholders, using a co-designed process to develop a new strategy for children and young people post-2016, and this work will begin shortly.

Mr D McIlveen: I thank the junior Minister for her answer. If my memory serves me correctly, one of the key objectives of 'Delivering Social Change for Children and Young People' was improving literacy targets for our children. Given the scenario that you painted of further consultations, where do we see improvements, even in the last six months since the scheme was launched, in literacy targets for our children and young people?

Ms J McCann: I can tell the Member that junior Minister Bell and I visited a number of schools where the newly graduated teachers have been employed through the Delivering Social Change signature programme. From talking to those teachers, I know that they have seen improvements in the classroom, in the children themselves and in the school environment. There has been a lot of positive feedback from that. The strategy is still out for consultation, but I believe that we have seen achievements in educational attainment, which is what the Member asked about.

Two hundred and sixty teachers are employed for this, and there is a focused, targeted approach towards those children who need support in the classroom. So we are seeing that, and we are seeing it right across the board in some of the signature programmes. But I think we need to go out and see it and to talk to the teachers and to the children and, indeed, to their parents, which we have done.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): That ends the period for listed questions. We will now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Mr M McGuinness: I think that OFMDFM undoubtedly shares the Member's concerns about what is happening in other parts of the world, particularly in relation to the activities of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) group, which is wreaking havoc in Syria and Iraq. We have seen, sadly, on the social networks and in the media the outworking of its strategy over recent times, although I think that many people in this part of the world have become familiar with the Islamic State organisation only in recent months. I am told that it has been in existence for much longer than that and has been particularly active in Syria.

I do not think that we have any illusions about our ability to affect the activities of a group so many thousand miles away. I think that the powers that be in the world are, obviously, contemplating how it should be dealt with, but I have a very strong view that the invasion of Iraq provided the opportunity for many groups in Iraq and the surrounding region to plunge that country into even worse turmoil than it was under Saddam Hussein. I recently attended a Chamber of Commerce lunch in Derry, where General Stanley McChrystal, who led the US participation in Iraq, made what I thought was a very compelling contribution to the debate. He sat down beside me at the lunch table, and I asked him whether, if he had been President of the United States, he would have authorised the invasion of Iraq —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Minister's two minutes have been completed.

Mr M McGuinness: — I will just finish — and he said, "Not in a million years". He said that Iraq is worse now than it was then. So, we have only a limited ability to deal with these situations.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I call Seán Rogers for a supplementary question.

Mr Rogers: I thank the deputy First Minister for his answer. I know that we have only a limited ability, but what discussions have taken place at governmental level with the British or the Irish to ensure that maximum pressure is applied at an international level to stop those who are financing these organisations and to ensure that the people are looked after?

Mr M McGuinness: I have to be very honest: I do not think that the powers that be that are dealing with these situations give one hoot for what our Executive or this Assembly feels about how that matter will be dealt with. They are, obviously, dealing with the situation from their perspective, and, as an observer, I, along with many other people, wonder whether they have even the foggiest notion about how to deal with the situation.

The reality is that, whether these groups are funded or not, it is quite clear that they are well organised, that they have been in existence for some time and that they are totally ruthless in the process that they have been involved in, particularly in recent times, which has been well articulated, where they go to people and tell them that they have to change their religion. Of course we are all, I think, really annoyed and angry that people, not just Christians but those of other religions, are being threatened, intimidated and murdered in this way by ISIS. But this is something way beyond us, and we should not have any illusions about our ability to have an impact on a situation that world leaders appear to be struggling with at this time.

Mr M McGuinness: I think that the Member, and I suppose the media as well, should know better. They must know that the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister is a joint Department that requires agreement. It is no secret to anybody in the House that the First Minister and I have a different view of the remarks made by Minister Poots, and not just by Minister Poots but by others even in the last couple of days. My sympathy is totally and absolutely with Sir Declan Morgan. The sooner the matter is resolved, the better. We are involved in discussions at the moment in an effort to get an agreed response to what Sir Declan said.

Mrs McKevitt: Has the deputy First Minister any plans to lodge the Lord Chief Justice's letter in the Assembly Library?

Mr M McGuinness: I have not even considered that, but we will give it consideration as a result of your question.

Mr M McGuinness: The social investment fund process is up and running; projects are in motion. From our perspective, we are satisfied that the money that we provided for that was ring-fenced. We are confident, at this stage, that the process will continue to a successful conclusion.

Lord Morrow: I thank the deputy First Minister for his answer, but could I ask him a further question in relation to the distribution of the funding? I understand that that fund was approximately £80 million. Is he telling the House today that he is quite confident that there will be a full distribution of that? Has there been a full application for that amount of money?

Mr M McGuinness: When we made provision for the funds for these vital community-led projects, we did so on the basis that the full funding of £80 million would be provided. We are attempting to stick to that in the face of great challenges. It is clear from the proposals that have come forward from the different sectors of the North that there are many projects out there. In fact, you could spend another £80 million and another £80 million 10 times over fulfilling the requests that have been made from what are community-led projects. So, we are satisfied at this stage that suitable progress has been made and that we will very soon begin to see the construction of some very important projects that will aid the community in different parts of the North.

Mr M McGuinness: Junior Minister McCann will deal with this question.

Ms J McCann: Yes, we are very aware that there are a number of people who fall outside the remit of the inquiry. Obviously, we are keen to make sure that the inquiry continues. We actually had consultation with a number of people. For instance, women who were over 18 when they entered an institution are not covered by the inquiry. Indeed, anybody affected by wider clerical abuse who was not in an institution is not covered. However, we are certainly very keen. We have asked our officials to bring forward recommendations and to look at them. Judge Hart, who is the head of the inquiry, is adamant that he does not want to widen the terms of reference of the current inquiry. However, I have written to him to see whether there is some way that we can look after those women, particularly those who were over 18 at the time. I think that they deserve justice and truth as well. We are trying our best to look at that.

Ms McCorley: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagraí go dtí seo. Is the Minister aware of comments made by Naomi Long in the media this morning? What are her views on those?

Ms J McCann: Yes, I can tell the Member that I am very aware of the statement by Naomi Long over the weekend. She put out a statement and has said that more people have contacted her in recent days about being abused by members of the British state forces here in the 1970s. I can tell the Member that we have asked for a meeting with Mrs Long to discuss that, but we also want to ensure that any of those women who have come forward are covered and will be able, in some way, to avail themselves of the services of the historical institutional abuse inquiry. I do not want to go into it in great detail, but we have seen the way in which the British state has spent decades covering up the activities of its intelligence service here in Ireland, and we have seen it more recently with the cover-up around the Kincora institution. So, we are very keen to talk to Mrs Long first to see whether there is any way in which we can help those women who have come forward.

Mr M McGuinness: Obviously, there will be a lot of focus over the next 10 days on what is happening in Scotland, and, in the aftermath of that vote, depending on which way it goes, we will all have to deal with all the implications. The implications, no matter what way you look at it, could be quite profound, as many of us will know from listening to the debate in recent times. We have not been involved in any discussions, because to do so would be to pre-empt the outcome of the decision of the people of Scotland. I personally have very consciously stayed out of the debate, because I think that what is happening in Scotland is a matter for the people of Scotland to decide, without outside interference. So, I have no intention whatsoever of contributing to a view that would in any way undermine the rights of people there to make their own decision. We will wait for the vote, and when the people of Scotland decide, whatever way they decide, we will have to deal with the fallout. We will not be the only people dealing with the fallout. It is quite obvious that the British and Irish Governments are very focused on what is happening there and are conscious of their responsibilities in the aftermath of whatever decision is made.

Mr A Maginness: I thank the deputy First Minister for his answer. I understand the position that there have not been any discussions to date, but, in the event of a result one way or t'other, is it not incumbent on the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to enter into discussions with the Edinburgh Government on the outcome, because there will be implications no matter what way the vote goes?

Mr M McGuinness: I am very encouraged by the comments made by First Minister Alex Salmond in the past few days when he said that, whatever way it goes, he will remain a true friend of us here in the North. In all our dealings — those of the First Minister and me — with him, he has always been very positive and constructive, at British-Irish Council meetings, ministerial council meetings and the joint ministerial council meetings that we engage in in Westminster. So, I think that the sensible thing for all of us to do is to wait for the outcome of what will undoubtedly be a very important decision. In the aftermath of all of that, whatever the outcome is, we will engage in whatever dialogue and conversations that need to be had, particularly with the British Government, on how we go forward.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Question 9 has been withdrawn.

Mr Kennedy (The Minister for Regional Development): There are proposals to dual two sections of the A6, those being Randalstown to Castledawson and Londonderry to Dungiven. Funding has been provided to advance the A6 Randalstown to Castledawson dual carriageway project to be shovel-ready in 2015 and, when funding becomes available in the future, to allow construction to commence at short notice.

Development of the A6 Londonderry to Dungiven dualling scheme, which includes a bypass of Dungiven, is well advanced. It has been through a public inquiry and the inspector has produced a report embracing various recommendations. I am considering a response to those recommendations and will issue the departmental statement in due course when I am satisfied that all issues, a number of which are complex, have been appropriately reviewed.

Mr Eastwood: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given the fact that your predecessor refused to consider decoupling the bypass at Dungiven from the larger project, have you any views on that? I think that the people in Dungiven are living in the most polluted town in Ireland and they are desperately seeking for that bypass to go ahead as soon as possible.

Mr Kennedy: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I am happy to confirm that I have taken the decision that the various components of the entire scheme can be decoupled. Subject to the finance being made available and the other issues being resolved, we can proceed. I note the comment made about the air quality in Dungiven. I recently met officials from Limavady Borough Council on that issue, and they see that the solution to the air quality issue is achieving the bypass at Dungiven at the earliest possible time. I understand that and, of course, I have been carrying forward the scheme as quickly as possible.

Mr Campbell: I welcome the Minister's assurance on that issue. Setting aside the funding, which I know that he will probably allude to and the support for the money that he needs to proceed with the scheme, which he will get, can he give an assurance that every step and measure that needs to be taken in advance of proceeding with the A6 scheme will be put in place as urgently as possible, because he knows that some businesses have already closed in anticipation of a road scheme, and they are now wondering whether it will ever be completed?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question and, indeed, the indication of clear support for the financial position that I find myself in. I hope that that carries through on all issues relating to my Department. Certainly, great is the zeal of the convert. Thank you very much indeed for that.

With regard to bringing forward elements of the overall project, as you know, I have indicated that we have put some money into the Randalstown to Castledawson section to make it shovel-ready in 2015. With regard to the issues around the Dungiven bypass, I hope to make progress on the statement arising out of the public inquiry as quickly as possible. It will then be down to the availability of finance and working through the statutory processes that have to be undertaken.

Mr Kennedy: A public information event for the proposed A28 Armagh east link was held on 11 June 2014 in the Armagh City Hotel. The local community's concerns about the impact of the east link were again highlighted at that event. Therefore, I consider it appropriate now to carry out a review of the preferred option to ensure that local concerns are fully considered and that the proposed Armagh east link will offer the best possible solution for Armagh city. I draw Members' attention to the press release detailing this approach that was issued last week.

The next significant step in the scheme development process will be to undertake the detailed design for the proposal. However, I am very mindful of the concerns of the local community and of the need to ensure that the proposed Armagh east link will offer the best solution. The review will include consideration of the preferred corridor emerging further out the Markethill Road at the Edenaveys industrial estate area.

Consideration of options for a preferred line and junction strategy for the Armagh north and west link roads, based on the out-of-town corridor, is continuing. That has included discussions with Deloitte, which has been appointed by Armagh City and District Council to develop a master plan for the Mullinure area. It would not be appropriate to make a decision on the preferred route pending development of the master plan.

Mr Boylan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answer. I welcome the review, because there were complaints about the east link from residents of the Newry Road. Can the Minister give us a definitive timeline? He is well aware of the traffic problems around Armagh city. What is the timeline for the east link? Also, can he —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Member has asked his question.

Mr Kennedy: I believe that the Armagh east link and the north and west link proposals will provide benefits, including improved journey times, reliability and safety on the strategic road network. Obviously, it is important that we continue to work through the various stages of the schemes, not least on the issue of available finance. It is not possible at this point to earmark specific dates as to when the east link scheme will take place, but I am hopeful that moneys will be made available for it in the new budgetary period. I take the point that the issues of traffic congestion in Armagh need to be dealt with as quickly as possible. That is my objective as Minister.

Mr Irwin: I welcome the review of the east link road. The Minister will be aware of the level of concern about the proposed link road going through a largely residential area of Armagh city. Does the Minister support DRD's current preferred route?

Mr Kennedy: The Member makes a good point about the importance of the Armagh east link and the historic need for it. It has been talked about in Armagh for a generation now. However, if I were completely satisfied with the current proposal, I would not be initiating the review that will look again and make sure, not only that we get it right, but that we take on board the concerns that may be out there. That is important.

I regard myself as a listening Minister. I have been listening to the representations that I have received from people in the immediate area, and we will review the current situation to satisfy ourselves that the route that will ultimately be chosen will offer the best, most sensible solution for easing some of the congestion in that part of Armagh city.

Mr D Bradley: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas fosta leis an Aire. The Minister referred to finance and to a new budgetary period. Can he indicate what priority this project has in capital spending?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member. I certainly regard both the east link scheme and the north and west scheme as important for the city of Armagh. I have something of an interest, given that I happen to represent the constituency. It is understood that Armagh has congestion issues that can be dealt with through the outworking of schemes, and I intend to pursue those with as much intensity as possible to make progress on them and see them brought to successful fruition.

Mr Kennedy: As you will be aware, following the recent announcement on June monitoring, my Department’s resource budget, which is used for the day-to-day maintenance of the road network, has been cut. This cut applies equally across the whole of Northern Ireland, including the Lisburn area. As a result, I had no option other than to take some tough decisions and stop issuing new work instructions to external contractors, who currently undertake around one quarter of our routine maintenance work and three quarters of the work required to repair street lighting faults.

My Department’s operations and maintenance staff will endeavour to keep the road network in as safe a condition as possible. However, as they have resources to complete only around three quarters of the total workload, they will not be able to provide the service that the public would expect in normal circumstances. My Department’s operations and maintenance staff have limited street lighting resources. They will endeavour to deal with group faults and single outages on a priority basis. Regrettably, this has the potential to result in many street lights being out across Northern Ireland over the winter.

These have been difficult decisions to take, but they are necessary in order to try to protect areas, such as winter service, where withdrawal of our work would have an even greater impact on the Northern Ireland economy and the public. I realise that these measures will impact on our contractors, road users and the public, but I have been forced to set priorities so that we operate within reduced budgets.

Mr Craig: That sounded like a statement from the Minister that the lights are going out all over Northern Ireland. That said, Minister, there are ongoing contracts that impact on the road infrastructure in Northern Ireland. They are carried out, mainly, by other parts of Departments. I am thinking of the Blaris Road, which has recently been dug up by other companies. Are you going to tighten up on how they resurface such roads? Recently, resurfacing roads destroyed by others has been picked up by your Department.

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question. I do not take any pleasure in saying that the lights or some of the lights may be going out across Northern Ireland. I view it as a serious departure. I regret it very much. I will continue to press for moneys in October monitoring and later monitoring rounds to ensure that the resource budget is properly funded. I want to do that.

In relation to his point about other agencies, the Member will know that we have a memorandum of understanding with such agencies. We seek to coordinate their work in a proper and responsible way. It is equally important that work carried out by them or on their behalf by contractors is done in a satisfactory and proper way. That is something that I am continually interested in and continue to pursue to ensure that standards all over are consistent and at an appropriate level.

Mr Swann: The Minister has indicated that the recent budget cuts have left him with only a 75% capacity for grass cutting, patching and gully emptying. Will the Minister tell me how many gullies across Northern Ireland his Department is responsible for? Will he ensure that the flooding hotspots will continue to get priority attention?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question. It is an important subject. My Department is responsible for the cleaning and maintenance of over half a million gullies across Northern Ireland. Of those, we aim to inspect and clean, where necessary, all gullies in urban areas twice each year and gullies in rural areas once each year. As a result of the recent budget cuts, I no longer have sufficient funding to pay contractors for gully emptying. That will be a challenge. My Department's operations and maintenance staff will endeavour to prioritise gully cleaning and dealing with known flooding area problems, including some of the very prominent cases that we have heard about over recent times. We seek to prioritise those areas to ensure that they are protected as far as we can.

Mr Byrne: I thank the Minister for his answers thus far. Given that the Minister has talked about the road maintenance cuts given the budgetary position, can he give an assurance that the two counties that have no railways — Tyrone and Fermanagh — will not be more adversely affected by the cutbacks in the current road maintenance budget?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for his question. I am not quite sure about the reference to railways in terms of the emptying of gullies etc, but, nonetheless, he makes a point. The Member will know that, to be fair and equitable about it, I will have to share the challenge of the decisions equally and fairly throughout Northern Ireland. As I said earlier, it gives me no pleasure to stand at this Dispatch Box and say that the pressures are here, but that has been forced upon me. My Department has effected savings over the last three years to the tune of £106 million; I have not shirked my responsibility. However, further pressure is being applied, and there are consequences for decisions made and supported by the Member's party at Executive level that will put pressure on the work of my Department, even in the counties that he refers to.

Mr Kennedy: Translink is finalising a feasibility study to examine the options for a replacement ticketing system. Among the options being considered are the enhancement of the current system; the use of ITSO ticketing, which is an open standards system supported by the Department for Transport in GB; and the use of contactless bank debit or credit cards, similar to that which has been piloted and is about to go live in London. When that study is finalised, Translink will complete an economic appraisal, which will examine the costs and benefits of the various options. That will be subject to approval by my Department and the Department of Finance and Personnel. The Department will want to ensure that any new ticketing system offers the best possible value for money to passengers.

Ms McGahan: Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for his response. Minister, have you given any consideration to coordinating integrated ticketing with other transport providers on an all-Ireland basis?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for the supplementary question. I think that she is referring to the Leap card system used in the Republic of Ireland. That system was developed specifically for the Republic of Ireland. Its use was considered, but it was concluded that it could not easily be converted to the open standards required for wider use. Other technological developments, such as mobile phones and contactless bank cards, are considered to offer a more up-to-date solution. It is, of course, recognised that Translink works closely with Irish Rail and Bus Éireann on cross-border services, and it is expected that any new system will be sufficiently flexible to handle the tickets involved in this.

Mr Dallat: The Minister will be well aware that there is a pilot scheme — probably completed now — involving integrated transport in the Dungannon area. Will any new system take account of the possibility of public transport in Northern Ireland being shared with the community sector and the private sector?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary question. It is not directly linked to ticketing procedures involved north, south, east or west. Nonetheless, I understand the question that he raises in terms of the pilot scheme that we have been undertaking in the Dungannon area on transportation issues.

We are still working through and reviewing the processes there, working with agencies in health and education. I am sure that useful work and useful outcomes will be provided there. I am not at the stage where I can indicate that we are ready to make wider announcements and extend proposals for Northern Ireland or anywhere else.

Mr Elliott: The Minister mentioned in answer to the substantive question that he had to bring forward an economic appraisal or business plan. Has he any idea of the costings associated with the proposal, and has he had any discussion with the Minister of Finance and Personnel?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for his supplementary. No, the work has not yet been completed. On its completion, we will put forward the business case. Obviously, that will have to be looked at within the Department and with DFP. We will seek to make progress at the earliest point on those matters.

Mr Kennedy: As I advised in my response to question 3, following the recent announcement on June monitoring, my Department's resource budget, which is used for the day-to-day maintenance of the road network, has been cut. In order to protect areas such as winter maintenance, which costs, on average, approximately £7 million each year and is vital to the economy of Northern Ireland, traffic light maintenance, which costs, on average, approximately £4 million each year, and contractual commitments for energy, I had no option other than to take some tough decisions and stop issuing new work instructions to external contractors. Those contractors undertake, as I said, around one quarter of our routine maintenance work and three quarters of the work associated with the repair of street lighting faults. I restate that my Department's operations and maintenance staff will endeavour to keep the road network in as safe a condition as possible, but they only have the resources to complete around three quarters of the total workload. Therefore, they will not be able to provide the service that the public would expect in normal circumstances.

They are difficult decisions, but they are necessary to try to protect areas such as winter service, where withdrawal of our work could have an even greater impact on the Northern Ireland economy and public. I realise that these measures will impact on contractors, road users and the public, but I have, as I said, been forced to set priorities so that we can operate within the reduced budget.

Mr Lynch: Go raibh maith agat. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. The Minister has, to some extent, outlined some of the amounts involved. Can he provide a timeline for when the cuts will be implemented?

Mr Kennedy: Let me be clear: these cutbacks are immediate. Since early August until last Friday, 4,938 street lights have been reported out, of which 1,134 have been fixed, so we are already in a situation where the front-line services that we would normally be expected to provide are suffering as a result of June monitoring and the financial position. Of course, when faults present electrical or other hazards, they will be dealt with urgently. That important work is not affected by budgetary constraints. We will then prioritise faults in groups of street lights and deal with as many single outages as we can.

This is now a real situation. I also find myself in a difficult and almost invidious position about gullies being emptied and grass being cut back. I hope that the Member, as Deputy Chair of the Committee for Regional Development, will support my efforts to have my budget restored to its full capacity as we move into October and other monitoring rounds.

Mr Spratt: In the press coverage of cutbacks over the summer, mention was made of the winter programme for road gritting etc. Will the Minister give the House an assurance today that the winter gritting programme will remain intact, given the high number of fatal accidents in the Province already this year?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for his question. I am slightly surprised at the tone of it because I would have thought that he, as Chair of the Committee for Regional Development, would be on the same side of the argument as me and would be expressing concern at any impact that my resource budget would face. I hope that that is the case because I do not want an impact on winter services and winter maintenance. I understand the importance of that service, which, as I said, costs approximately £7 million. I look to other political parties at the very top of the Executive, which seem to be expressing concern in the House. Both the Member and Mr Lynch have expressed concern about the impact of cuts, but their parties brought forward the proposals that have put me in this position.

Dr McDonnell: Has the Minister been able to give any assurances about the future to the external contractors who employ thousands of people in road maintenance? In other words, have you just drawn a blank with them? Have you been able to give them any promises of what it might look like in the future?

Mr Kennedy: I regularly meet and speak to representatives of the road building contractors' organisations. I have an open door policy and have accepted requests to meet a number of their key individuals. I have tried to be open and honest with them about the situation that I find myself in. I have welcomed the support, not least the lobbying, that they have provided to other political parties and Members around the Executive table as to the position that they find themselves in as a consequence of these financial measures.

This is not done by choice or on a whim. It is certainly not done with malice aforethought, but it is the real situation that I find myself in. I must balance my books and therefore have to take these tough decisions. I understand the consequences on the services that I provide and the impact that external contractors will face, with possible lay-offs among staff and everything that goes with that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): That is the end of listed questions, and we now move on to topical questions.

Mr Kennedy: I thank the Member for his question on the A5. He will know that a public consultation on three of the four reports to inform appropriate assessments of the potential impacts on the various designated sites arising from the A5 project scheme concluded on 13 June. Consultation on the fourth report is expected to begin in October 2014. Letters informing landowners of the way forward were issued on 30 April, and landowner meetings are ongoing.

Mr Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his response. Where does the scheme now sit in your list of priorities, and what impact might the Sinn Féin/ SDLP refusal to sign up to welfare reform have on this and other large projects?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful for the Member's supplementary. Clearly, there are ongoing issues that we have to deal with on environmental statements and the appropriate assessments, and I outlined those in some detail. In a letter to ministerial colleagues in February, I provided an outline programme whereby the environmental statement and the draft orders would be published for consultation in November 2014, with the possibility of a public inquiry in spring/summer 2015.

Of course, the Member refers in part to the uncertainty in the overall financial position of whether there will be sufficient capital money going forward. I am not in a position to confirm that situation, and, therefore, I am processing the work that is necessary at this time. Clearly, however, the financial scenario here could well impact on this scheme and, indeed, other capital schemes.

Mr Kennedy: I thank the Member for his question. He should be aware of the process involved when someone makes a claim and that claim is investigated etc. It seems to me slightly rich that a question of this nature should come from a member of a party whose actions have forced me to take decisions on cutbacks in my resource budget. Nevertheless, I will try to overlook that. Of course, we will continue to investigate claims made against us and respond accordingly.

Mr McMullan: I thank the Minister for that enlightening response. Have the Minister's divisional managers been instructed to draw up a list of how much they can save through making cutbacks in each divisional area? How much has he saved to date?

Mr Kennedy: The Member starts with the wrong premise. These are cutbacks forced on my Department. I do not go to senior officials and ask them whether it is possible to trim back and save some money on either resource or maintenance issues. These are real decisions that are impacting on street lights. As I said, there are nearly 5,000 street lights out in a month, and, at this stage, we have the ability to repair only 1,100. Those repairs will be effected as quickly as possible. We are not abandoning those lights; we are simply saying that it will take longer to fix them. However, there is a suggestion that somehow this is a cunning plan to save money on behalf of my Department. It is not. It is the consequence of the voodoo economics of the Member and his party.

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for the question. My officials have been engaged with their counterparts in local government to ensure the smooth transition of the transfer of those facilities. I am not aware of serious issues arising out of that, and I very much hope that we will be able to agree the necessary changes in time for the take-up of the new councils in April 2015.

Ms P Bradley: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will the Minister also indicate whether there will be a requirement for uniformity on policies and procedures for all councils?

Mr Kennedy: I thank the Member again. We are seeking to provide as much uniformity as possible. Obviously, we are dealing with the 11 new councils, but a consistent approach would certainly be a desirable outcome to all those discussions, and that is what we hope to have.

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for his question. I am happy to say that significant progress is being made on that scheme. We do not yet have a definitive timescale for the opening, but we are very hopeful that we can meet in advance the target that we set ourselves. I think that it will be of huge benefit to that area, not least the Port of Larne. I am very grateful that my Department and my staff, and, indeed, the contractor and their staff, have been working steadily to the benefit of everyone. I very much hope that we will be in a position to cut the tape at the earliest possible point.

Mr Girvan: I thank the Minister for his answer. In the light of the response, I do not know whether the Minister has been made totally aware, but we are aware that a large area of that road, which had been surfaced, is now being lifted at additional cost — we are hearing a figure of £1 million — because the compound or the surface was not of the right standard. Who set the standard? Will the Department be made to foot that bill or will the contractor?

Mr Kennedy: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. Obviously, it is a more detailed question that deserves a fuller answer, and I will undertake to write to him on the issue.

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for the question. I am aware of issues surrounding Seagahan dam and the contention that there has been over the rights of those who want to use it as a major leisure facility for angling. I am also cautious in my approach to the issue and am mindful that there have been letters of a legal nature floating about — not in Seagahan dam but into my office — so I want to be cautious in any response. I hope that agreement can be found by all appropriate and valid users and that they can set aside some of the issues that are there today and that, at this point, are unresolved. I hope that we can resolve those and move forward into calmer waters.

Ms Fearon: I thank the Minister for his answer. Keeping in mind the legal issues, can the Minister at least concede that such poaching could lead to long-term damage in the fishing reserves in the dam?

Mr Kennedy: I am not in favour of poaching. Let me be absolutely clear about that. I am not giving anybody the green light to say that it is right to poach or anything like that. Where individuals have evidence or information, they should bring those allegations for full investigation to the proper authorities. If the Member is in receipt of such information, I hope that she will do likewise.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Jonathan Craig is not in his place.

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for his question. I take it that he means the Greencastle ferry in County Down.

Mr Brady: The Magilligan to Greencastle ferry.

Mr Kennedy: There is at least one Magilligan and at least two Greencastles. If it is Magilligan, it is the project that, in the past, Limavady council has been associated with. My Department has no direct role in that. If it is the County Down one, that project is being managed by a private operator. We have no direct link into that except as a consultee in the planning process. If the Member wants to clarify that, I will be happy to consider it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I call Mickey to clarify in his supplementary question.

Mr Brady: I thank the Minister for his answer. The question was about your possible input into that particular Magilligan to Greencastle ferry, but I will clarify that for the Minister in writing. This is the supplementary question: has the Minister had any input into the idea of an extension of the Wild Atlantic Way trail to the north coast and its tourism potential?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): That may be another Minister's responsibility, but I will allow the Minister to respond if he wishes.

Mr Kennedy: That sounds rather like the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment's responsibility, although Roads Service may have been asked for an opinion through various consultations. I am happy to check that and confirm in writing to the Member whether there has been input from my Department.

Mr Kennedy: I thank the Member for her question. Generally, as the Member will know, Roads Service, which is now Transport NI, has regularly maintained all those facilities over the years. My knowledge of them suggests that most are in reasonably good condition and would still be considered an asset in their transfer. If she is aware of particular cases, perhaps she will write to me on them.

Miss M McIlveen: I thank the Minister for his answer. The supplementary question might contradict what he has actually said. There are a number in my constituency that are in extremely poor condition and which require significant investment. Does the Minister intend to invest in those prior to the transfer or leave it to local ratepayers to foot the bill?

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for her supplementary question and ask her to provide me with a list of those that she considers to be defective. We may not agree on that assessment; we will have to leave that to professional judgement, but we can look at your list and see where we go from there.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): That is the end of Question Time. Our time is up. I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments.

Mr McElduff: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was listening carefully to Minister Kennedy, and he referred to a number of Greencastles.

He left out Greencastle in County Tyrone. It is between Creggan and Gortin in the Omagh district in mid-Tyrone.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Member has made his point.

I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments while we change staff at the top Table.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): We will now return to the Environment Minister's statement on the adoption of the Belfast metropolitan area plan (BMAP).

Mr Durkan (The Minister of the Environment): Since taking up office, I have received many letters from various organisations expressing concern over the continued delay in the adoption of BMAP. Many in the construction sector see the adoption of BMAP as critical to the recovery of their sector and believe that their workforce can be sustained only by a continuous supply of planning approvals.

Landowners have been frustrated by the uncertainty that has been experienced in the absence of an adopted plan. Many housebuilders who have been supported by their banks through the most severe recession are now under considerable pressure to deliver on sites and to recover significant sums invested in the BMAP process. Local communities are also frustrated by the lack of certainty regarding development proposals in their area.

Since October 2013, when the Department received from DRD the certificate of general conformity with the regional development strategy (RDS), all statutory and procedural requirements necessary to allow for the adoption of the plan were complete. Since then, I have engaged fully with the Executive on the matter. I circulated Executive papers and associated comprehensive documentation on 13 December 2013, 17 December 2013 and 6 March 2014. I had requested that successive versions of the Executive paper be tabled at meetings on 16 January, 13 February and 27 February 2014. I then invoked the three-meeting protocol so that the paper would be tabled for decision at the Executive meeting on 6 March 2014.

At that Executive meeting, it was agreed that I would chair a subgroup to examine the BMAP issues. That subgroup met on 6 May. Following that, I circulated a further version of the Executive paper, dated 1 July, requesting that it be tabled on 8 July.

It was clear that the only issue that was raised about a plan that covers a very substantial part of the area and population of Northern Ireland related to the bulky goods restriction on the further expansion of the Sprucefield site near Lisburn. I have repeatedly explained my rationale on the matter and given it the fullest consideration. I remain of the view that the approach is the right one for the plan area as a whole, which is the perspective that I must adopt in making judgements on such matters. I do not believe that it is reasonable that differing views on that one issue should continue to delay the adoption of a plan that is necessary to attract investment, create jobs, secure economic growth and support local communities in this significant part of the North.

I have a clear ministerial responsibility to provide the certainty for communities and businesses that can be achieved only through the final adoption of the plan. The plan is the primary mechanism to reconcile any potential conflict between the need for development and the need to protect local communities and our environment. In advance of the transfer of planning powers to local government, it would be remiss of me not to provide to local government that level of certainty for everyone who will be involved in and affected by the future economic and social development of this significant part of the region. I have therefore authorised and directed my Department to adopt the plan, which will become operative tomorrow morning. The plan and adoption statement will be available for viewing on the Department's website, and copies will be available for inspection in local council offices within the plan area.

Ms Lo (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment): I thank the Minister for his statement. I understand his frustration with the long and protracted process for producing BMAP. However, without Executive agreement, the Minister could face a legal challenge and have this dragged out through the courts. What assurances can he give that his decision will stand up to any judicial review and not cause more uncertainty for investors?

Given that he has approved out-of-town developments in Newry and Strabane, but seemingly not with his activation of BMAP, will he outline how current planners and potential new planners can act with any degree of certainty and consistency?

Mr Durkan: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank Ms Lo, the Chairperson of the Environment Committee, for her questions, and, indeed, her recognition of my frustration. However, I must say that the frustration faced by me, and other Ministers before me, is nothing compared to the frustration that has been experienced by potential developers, communities and social housing providers over the past years at the fact that the plan had not reached this stage.

The current position is that the plan has lawfully been adopted by my Department, acting under my direction and control. Any decision made by my Department, or any other Department for that matter, may be subject to review by the courts. However, unless and until the courts rule on the merits of any potential challenge to the adoption of the plan, the plan remains valid.

The adoption of BMAP is about creating certainty for a significant portion of the area and population of the North. I believe that it would be perverse to seek to reintroduce uncertainty for such a significant proportion of our community by attempting to challenge adoption of the entire plan on the basis of concerns about the future potential development of a single shopping centre in the area. However, if any such challenge were to emerge, the Department would defend its position and decision robustly in the courts. I am sure that no Executive Minister would condone the waste of public money on a protracted legal battle at any time, let alone at this time of huge budgetary pressures.

On the issue of Newry and Strabane; when I approved planning applications for mixed-use developments, other considerations were taken into account. Those were mixed-use developments, albeit with major retail elements. The fact is that, when I am looking at an area plan, I cannot adopt it or not adopt it on the basis of an application that does not exist. Therefore, I have proceeded with the adoption of the plan.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his statement. Given the importance of BMAP to effective planning decisions in the greater Belfast area, including Newtownabbey, and the controversial nature of some of its proposals, why is the Minister refusing to take it to the Executive and, in doing so, risking judicial review of his decision, which would cause further delay in the adoption of this important policy?

Mr Durkan: I thank Mrs Cameron for her question. As I have stated, the plan has now been adopted. There is no further delay.

Any legal challenge may cause delay, if a judge or our courts decide that I have been wrong in the adoption of this. As I have said, the Department and I will defend any such case robustly.

As I outlined in my statement, I have not refused to bring this to the Executive; I have brought it to the Executive repeatedly. However, the authority to adopt BMAP is vested by statute, under article 8 of the Planning (NI) Order 1991, in the Department of the Environment acting under my direction and control. Nothing in the ministerial code alters that position. As Minister of the Environment, authority to take the decision on whether to adopt BMAP rests with me. The decision to adopt the plan was one that I did not take lightly, and it was reached only after very careful consideration.

Mr F McCann: I thank the Minister for his statement. Earlier, he spoke about the levels of housing that would be required over the next number of years. Usually, that means that more land is provided for private housing, but in areas like west Belfast, where there is a waiting list of 3,500, availability of land never keeps pace with the number of houses built, which is low. Will the Minister tell us whether he is considering the release of more land and looking at the Matthew stop line to ensure that land is available for building social houses for that community?

Mr Durkan: I thank Mr McCann for his question. He is well aware of my commitment to the provision of social housing. The providers of social housing, be it the Housing Executive or the housing associations, have all been keen to see this plan adopted for the sake of the certainty that it will provide for them. Personally, I would like to see more land dedicated to the provision of social housing within the plan. The fact that there is more land designated for general housing, however, does not mean that it cannot accommodate social housing; often, it will become available for social housing. The land that I spoke about as designated for social housing is specifically and solely for the development of social housing in the future. I have spoken with the housing associations and the Housing Executive. I will work with them and the Department for Social Development on how we can supply more land for much-needed social housing, not only in west Belfast but right across the plan area.

Mr A Maginness: I thank the Minister for his statement, and for his courage in making this decision in relation to BMAP, which is long overdue. There seems to be much in the plan for investors, but what is in it for those who are suffering from social deprivation? That is a question that many people will be asking.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his question. It is important to outline that this plan is not solely for investors. It does, however, provide certainty for investors, which, in turn, will provide opportunity for all people within the plan area. The plan proposals seek to promote equality of opportunity and to tackle disadvantage for all sections of the population in the metropolitan area. Lands for housing and employment are zoned throughout the plan area to provide a wide range of opportunities for housebuilding, including much-needed social housing, which we have touched on, and job creation.

The plan resists the spread of commercial uses into areas of city and town centres, which have a useful longer-term residential life. Such areas provide a valuable housing stock and are homes for established communities that contribute to the variety and vitality of our town and city centres. Protected town centre housing areas are designated, and that will prevent any change of use from residential. The plan has made specific provision for social housing and accommodation for the Traveller community.

Whilst it is not the role of the plan to create jobs, the plan's proposals seek to promote and facilitate job creation by establishing a framework that is supportive of employment and business need and responsive to the needs of the community. The promotion of Belfast city centre and the development of opportunities within Belfast harbour will support the provision of new job opportunities in central locations accessible to all sections of the community. This major priority to facilitate job creation within and accessible to disadvantaged areas is in line with the Executive's anti-poverty and social inclusion strategy. Opportunities for job creation through the zoning of new sites and the protection of existing employment land will help promote regeneration.

Transportation proposals seek to improve and develop public transport to assist in providing safe and equitable access to services, facilities and employment opportunities for all the community. The plan contains policies for arterial routes that service the main transport corridors into and out of the city centre. They have an important part to play, not only in upgrading the physical appearance of the city but in providing regeneration opportunities close to and accessible by inner city communities and areas of high multiple deprivation.

Mrs Overend: Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, it is my understanding that this plan has been on the cards for some 10 to 14 years and, therefore, has largely lost some of its relevance, especially considering the reform of local government and the change in boundaries. Can the Minister explain his rationale as to why the BMAP was not updated to reflect the new area plan boundaries?

Mr Durkan: I thank Mrs Overend for her question. She is right: this has been in and around here since 2001. BMAP was actually unveiled by her party colleague the late Sam Foster. It is a matter of deep regret to all of us in the House, I am sure, that he is not here to see or hear of its adoption at long last. The end date, 2015, is notional, and, as previously stated, the plan will provide the necessary policy framework, certainty and stability until such times as the relevant local authorities in the new local area plan areas prepare their own development plans, and it remains a material consideration until it is replaced. I prefer to see 2015 as very much a best-before date; it is not necessarily a use-by date. In any event, I think that it was vital that we got it off the shelf before it reached that best-before date.

Mr Weir: I thank the Minister for his statement. BMAP is very cross-cutting; indeed the Minister, in his statement and answers to questions, has made reference to transport, employment, economic development and housing issues, all of which touch upon a range of Departments. What legal advice did the Minister seek before going ahead with this without the approval of the Executive? Will he make that legal advice available to the House?

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his question. He rightly identifies the fact that this is cross-cutting. By bringing it to the Minister for Regional Development and seeking the certificate of conformity with the Executive-approved regional development strategy 2035, it certainly ticked the box of cross-cutting. However, I have gone beyond that, as I have said. I have repeatedly attempted to bring this paper to the Executive, and I have chaired a subgroup at which one element of it, largely, has been the subject of debate. Therefore, I did not think that we could justify delaying its adoption any further.

In response to the question on legal advice, I have previously given undertakings to fully adhere to the convention concerning legal advice. Therefore, I am not in a position to reference any legal advice that may or may not have been taken on the matter.

Lord Morrow: Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. It has been a very long and wordy statement from the Minister here today. When some of us see that, we think, "What's going on here?" Minister, you acknowledge the impact that this will have on Belfast and the greater Belfast area. I suspect that you have gone to great lengths to obtain the necessary legal advice. Did you go to the same lengths to get the assistance of your ministerial colleagues? I cannot get to the bottom of what you are saying. You keep referring to the fact that you have attempted to bring this to the Executive. Who is prohibiting you from bringing it to the Executive? What did your Executive colleagues say to you when you brought it to them? Thank you.

Mr Durkan: I thank Lord Morrow for that question. As I said, I have attempted repeatedly to get Executive agreement on the adoption of BMAP. That is probably how I should have framed that earlier answer.

When I chaired the Executive subgroup on BMAP, Ministers were generally receptive to the idea that it should be adopted and that it should be adopted soon. There was, however, a concern raised in relation to one item in the plan, and that was the restriction on a condition on one area of the plan. As I said, I had to weigh that up against all the advantages of adopting the plan and all the reasons why not just my ministerial colleagues but many MLAs have continually asked me and pressed me about when the plan will be adopted, and the balance came down in favour of adoption.

Mr McKinney: I agree with my colleague Mr Alban Maginness in praising the Minister for making this long-overdue decision, and I thank the Minister for his statement. Specifically, how will BMAP help to deal with dereliction in Belfast city centre?

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his question. As outlined in earlier answers where I referred to specific elements in the plan that will deal with inner-city areas, this will be part of a collective and holistic approach to tackling dereliction not solely in Belfast city centre but in town and city centres right across the plan area.

Under my predecessor, the Department initiated a dereliction fund, which has been a huge success. However, we have been unlucky in the past couple of monitoring rounds, and with huge competing demands, we have not been able to secure more funding. I believe that this plan will give certainty to the new councils, and they will use that to form their own local area plans and community plans. The responsibility for tackling dereliction will lie primarily and chiefly with them.

Mr I McCrea: A number of Members asked questions about whether this is contentious or not, and I think that it is important that we get to the nub of that. I heard the Minister say that he tried to get Executive approval, but he was not able to get it. So, is the Minister telling us that, because he did not get that approval, he decided to go it alone, regardless of whether this is contentious or not. Is it the case that, because the SDLP is against this development at Sprucefield, it is not going to approve it?

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his question. As outlined in earlier answers and, indeed, in my statement, I have made every effort to fully comply with all requests from the Executive in relation to BMAP, and all my Executive colleagues have had the fullest opportunity to consider the content of the plan. However, the Executive have not brought and were not bringing the matter to a conclusion, and I had no reasonable expectation that they would do so. Therefore, I reached a point where I had to balance my responsibilities as a member of the Executive with my duty to exercise my ministerial authority in respect of the powers and functions of the Department on a matter of significance for the future economic and social development of a considerable portion of the North. I concluded that, in the run-up to the transfer of planning powers to local government next April, it would be unreasonable and, indeed, a dereliction of my ministerial duties to allow the lack of certainty that was there to go ahead and to continue to seep into the planning framework.

Mr Craig: To use the words of a permanent secretary from 'Yes Minister', this is a very, very brave decision that you have taken, Minister. That always strikes with a follow-up, and the follow-up is very simple. You admitted to the House today that this is a cross-cutting and contentious issue and that you did not get Executive approval for it. You also admitted that you chaired a subgroup, which studied this issue and made very clear recommendations to you, including the removal of bulky goods at Sprucefield. You ignored all that and went ahead on your own. Minister, you know full well that this will end up in a judicial review, so why did you do it?

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his question and for his recognition of my courage. I have outlined quite well and quite clearly why I made this decision. I balanced my duties as a member of the Executive with those as Minister of the Environment. I had, in my opinion, no option but to proceed with the adoption of this statement rather than wait for an Executive approval that would not come.

Mr Lunn: Sometimes the only way to move things forward in this place is to take a bold decision, so I will compliment the Minister with faint praise for bringing this forward in the way he has done. If it was not for the decision that he keeps referring to as being a contentious one, which is obviously about Sprucefield, I would be reasonably content with the whole thing. However, Sprucefield has gone from being designated a regional shopping centre to having some sort of complementary status and the emphasis is now on Lisburn town centre, where his Department has just turned down an application to extend Bow Street Mall.

I really wonder where Sprucefield is going with this. It has been relegated in status, and it has a bulky goods restriction. It is a pity somebody had not told John Lewis about 10 years ago that it never had any chance of getting its development through, because that seems to be the way of it. How do you see the future of Sprucefield in these circumstances?

Mr Durkan: Sprucefield retains an important role in the plan area and in the whole region. The Member referred to John Lewis and regretted the fact that no one informed it of this restriction around 10 years ago. The fact is that the restriction was imposed 10 years ago in 2004. The Department has never received a planning application from John Lewis; there is certainly no current application from or in any way related to John Lewis. I would very much welcome, as would many if not everyone in this House, a store of the calibre of John Lewis coming to the North, and it is important that we send out the message that we are open for business and good for business. However, if John Lewis wants to come, its application is somewhere only it knows.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his statement. Does he agree that although BMAP originated in 2001, it is now 2014 and its shelf life was to finish in 2015? Does he intend to review the plan next year and would he agree that the whole exercise was cumbersome and has proved to be ineffective and inefficient?

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his question. I do not think that anyone could argue that the whole process has been cumbersome. It has been the most extensive and, I would say, the most expensive piece of work carried out by the Department of the Environment. The end date, as I mentioned earlier, is notional. However, with the transfer of planning powers to councils next April, work will start on new local area plans in the new council areas. The adoption of this plan will give them a framework in which to proceed with that work.

Mr Attwood: I welcome the statement and acknowledge the exhaustive efforts made by the Minister and his ministerial colleagues in relation to this matter. He indicated that there was one big bone of contention. Could I tempt him to agree with me that, whatever about the concerns of people in Lisburn, including representatives and including the DUP, about the decision that has been made in respect of Sprucefield and the fight that they have made of that issue, a sham fight is being fought? The sham fight is that while some in the DUP in Lisburn fight to get John Lewis to Sprucefield, there are others in the DUP in Belfast who fight to get John Lewis to the Titanic Quarter. Does the Minister agree that the DUP should be honest with its own members and acknowledge that there is a sham fight and that, for many of them, the real game is John Lewis in Titanic and not in Sprucefield, which would also be bad for Belfast city centre?

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his question. What I agree with the Member on is his assertion that all politicians should be honest, not solely with their own parties but particularly with the voting public.

Mr Allister: May I ask the Minister to clarify one matter? Is the adoption statement on foot of a ministerial direction? Does it come in the normal process whereby officials recommended that it could be done, or did you, as Minister, intervene and directly decide to do it? Secondly, can you tell us whether you had you the advantage of any advice from the Attorney General — I am not asking what the advice was — about your capacity to make this decision?

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his question. As regards legal advice received from the Attorney General, I have already outlined to the House the convention that I cannot state where I got legal advice from. However, I can assure the Member and, indeed, the House that I have every confidence that my decision is legally sound.

As regards a ministerial direction, certainly I sought and got advice from my officials as to the state of readiness of this plan for adoption. It had hurdled every statutory obligation in its path since the signing of the certificate of conformity with the regional development strategy last October. Therefore, it was ready to be adopted. I, as Minister of the Environment, was able to adopt it then. However, I did bring it to the Executive in recognition that it was cross-cutting. I might say that it is the first and only area plan that has ever been brought to the Executive. The Banbridge/Newry and Mourne area plan was adopted last October with no hullabaloo whatsoever.

Mr Allister: Has it been adopted on foot of a ministerial direction?

Mr Durkan: I, as Minister of the Environment, have the final say as to whether or not it is adopted, and I have directed that it be adopted.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: We cannot get into cross-questioning. It is one question and one answer.

Mr B McCrea: Would the Minister care to expand on his earlier statement to Ms Lo that nobody would look forward to a "protracted legal battle"? Surely it is the entitlement of every citizen or organisation to take whatever legal steps they think are appropriate to look after their interests. Will he clarify whether he has received legal advice from the Attorney General? Finally, does he agree with the statement that he will go down in history as the man who stopped John Lewis once and for all?

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his three questions, two of which —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: You should answer only one.

Mr Durkan: — I answered in the not so distant past, chiefly that around legal advice. Obviously and of course, any decision made by my Department or any Department may be subject to review by the courts. Anyone or any organisation that disagrees with a decision is welcome to appeal or to take legal action against it, and that is all well and good. All that I said about the cost is that, at this time of great austerity — we hear enough about it and see enough of it — I am not sure that any Minister around the Executive would condone the waste of public money on a lengthy protracted legal battle.

There was another one:

As I stated quite clearly earlier, we would very much welcome John Lewis to the North and any application from John Lewis to come to the North. There has never been an application, and there certainly is no application currently. That shows its level of interest in coming here.

Mr Givan: The statement is from a maverick Minister who has taken a cavalier approach to an issue that, because it is controversial, requires cross-community support at the Executive, and he shows contempt for private investors in the way in which he has treated the designation of Sprucefield. I read in the statement that Lisburn will be promoted because of its key transport routes, yet Sprucefield is on an arterial route that connects not just Northern Ireland in a way that no other part of the Province does but the island of Ireland, and the Minister has now sought to thwart the efforts of John Lewis. I think that the Minister should hang his head in shame for the way that he has conducted himself, particularly when a subcommittee of the Executive was dealing with the matter and he did not take it to the Executive. My question to the Minister is this: will the new councils, including Lisburn, have the power, through their new area plans, to deal with the cavalier approach taken by the Minister, or will it have to be left to the courts to put right the breach of the ministerial code that Minister Durkan has embarked on?

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his statement and question. As I outlined in earlier answers, I clearly believe that there has been no breach of the ministerial code on the matter. Should there be a legal challenge, I firmly believe that the Department will be able to robustly defend my decision to adopt BMAP.

What was the other one?

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I call —

Mr Durkan: Oh, yes.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry. I call Mr Steven Agnew.

Mr Durkan: Gabh mo leithscéal. Sorry.

Mr Agnew: I, for one, welcome the move, finally, towards plan-led development in the Belfast metropolitan area and find it bizarre that Members who say they put the economy first are willing to hold back the whole economy of the area on the basis of one proposed application that has never come forward.

Minister, there is much in your statement on economic and social development, but the third key pillar is, of course, the environment. What measures are in BMAP to prevent urban sprawl, specifically into former green belt areas opened up under PPS 21?

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his question and for welcoming the adoption of the plan. Indeed, the environment and the protection of our valuable resource of open space and the natural resource in the area are central to the plan as well. It is important that that is recognised. I knew that I could trust Mr Agnew to recognise that element of it. Following the publication of PPS 21, 'Sustainable Development in the Countryside', the Department withdrew the proposed green belt designation in the draft BMAP. The policies and provisions in PPS 21 take precedence over the policy provisions for all green belts in existing statutory and published draft plans, with a limited number of exceptions. The plan protects the countryside through a number of designations such as rural landscape wedges, coastal policy areas, areas of high scenic value and the Lagan Valley Regional Park.

Mr Wilson: The Minister has admitted during these questions that this is controversial, cross-cutting and cross-departmental, that he has not sought the advice of the Executive's law officer and that he has overridden the advice of his officials in the Department. Will he not agree that this plan is now a shambles because of the way that he has mishandled it and that it will not promote development but will finish up in the court, resulting in a plan that will be delayed for years? Does he agree that it will be detrimental to the economic development of the greater Belfast region because he chose to pursue SDLP planning policy rather than what was good for the whole of Northern Ireland?

Mr Durkan: I again thank the Member for that question. However, of the things that he said that I had admitted — I think that there were four — I may have admitted to one of them; I certainly did not admit to the other three. This plan is not a shambles. This plan will not be delayed. This plan becomes operational tomorrow.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Mr Joe Byrne, if he still wishes to ask a question. His name was listed earlier.

Mr Byrne: I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he state whether there will be any resource implications for the Department in implementing the plan?

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his question. In fact, there have been huge resource implications for the Department as we have drawn up the plan, consulted on it and gone through all the processes necessary to get it to this stage. To date, the plan has cost in excess of £10 million. Therefore, it is my opinion that not only would it be a dereliction of my ministerial duty not to ensure that it was adopted but it would be a dereliction of my moral duty.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to two hours for the debate. The proposer will have 15 minutes to propose the motion and 15 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. As a valid petition of concern relating to the motion was presented on Friday 5 September, the vote will be on a cross-community basis.

Mr Maskey (The Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development): I beg to move

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. First, I commend the report to the House this afternoon. I thank all the Committee officials, the members and all the witnesses who have participated so far in the inquiry over a lengthy period. Obviously, this will continue for the next number of weeks and perhaps months.

Members will recall that the inquiry was initiated following a 'Spotlight' investigation in July 2013 that made allegations about the actions of the Minister for Social Development. The House was recalled from summer recess last year to debate it, and the Committee subsequently agreed to hold an inquiry to establish the facts of the matter.

The first evidence session was held on 14 November 2013. The process was that the Committee adopted a phased approach and broke it into three separate phases. Phase 1 concerned the allegation that the Committee was misled by the Minister for Social Development over his decision to seek a review of the specification for the supply and fitting of double glazing. The Committee opted to deal with that matter first, as it was viewed by the members at the time as a relatively straightforward allegation that could perhaps be clarified in a short time. That, of course, did not prove to be the case. For Members’ information, the Committee intends to conclude the inquiry by the Christmas recess.

Allegations that a Minister has misled a Committee of the House are extremely serious. For that reason, the Committee was committed to gathering all the relevant evidence to ensure that this was very much an evidence-based inquiry. That resulted in hundreds of pages of documentation, with the large majority of it coming from the Department itself. It included internal briefing papers, emails, letters, diary entries, copies of minutes etc. The Committee also received written evidence from witnesses and took oral evidence on six separate occasions, including taking evidence under oath or affirmation — a serious step, given the potential and legal implications of giving false evidence under either.

The Committee initially had significant problems in getting information from the Department, which contributed to a delay in progress. There was little, if any, proactivity, which resulted in repeated requests by the Committee for information. Indeed, the Committee wrote to the head of the Civil Service on these matters and brought the permanent secretary to the Committee to explain what appeared to be the almost obstructionist approach adopted by the Department in respect of papers and so on. Members should also note that, before papers were provided to the Committee, they were passed to the Minister. That again appeared to many members to be unusual, given that the Minister was the focus of this phase of the inquiry. However, that crucially resulted in further significant delays.

The Committee also encountered problems in getting information from the BBC. We eventually received the information requested, but not before a long engagement with the BBC's litigation department. It is also worth noting that the BBC chose not to appear before the Committee to give evidence. The Committee was very disappointed that, having raised the allegations in a very public way, the BBC chose not to assist the Committee by appearing before it to give evidence. The Committee also reviewed the evidence on four separate occasions before drawing its conclusions, all of which were based on evidence.

Because of the seriousness of the allegations, the Committee established guidelines on procedural fairness, underpinned by legal advice, to ensure that witnesses had an opportunity to state their case. In accordance with these guidelines, the Committee agreed to forward the draft report to those who were adversely referred to in order to allow them to provide comment to the Committee prior to publication. The Department and the Minister did not provide comment within the time frame that the Committee deemed reasonable to ensure consideration prior to publication. Notwithstanding that, the Committee agreed to publish comments from the Minister and the Department as an addendum to the report.

As Chairperson, for the benefit of the DUP members who were opposed to the key conclusions, I offered the opportunity to have a minority report produced. Support in its production was given by the Committee Clerk. A number of members liaised with the Clerk to produce a minority report, which is included in an appendix to the report.

Over recess, I noted that some members, including the Minister, referred to the inquiry as a "witch-hunt". Such comments are not only unfounded, as they fly in the face of all the evidence, but they are, in my opinion, contemptuous of the Committee's process and these institutions overall. I am confident that any objective, reasonable person would agree that the process that I have just outlined reflects the Committee’s aim to be fair and accommodating to witnesses and that, far from being a "witch-hunt", there has been a painstaking and detailed process of evidence-gathering, prolonged discussion on the evidence, and careful consideration of different views around the Committee table.

There has been no rush to judgement; there has been no political motivation in reaching the conclusions; there has been no "witch-hunt"; just a plain, old-fashioned, objective, rational consideration of evidence. It is my view, and the view of the Committee, that, for five of the six parties represented there, the evidence speaks for itself. It is our view that the weight of the evidence is such that coming to any conclusion other than that the Minister deliberately misled the Committee would have held the process and the Committee up to ridicule.

I now turn to the events that ultimately led to the position that the Minister now finds himself in. On the 8 May 2012, in a written response to an Assembly question, the Minister stated his concerns about the value for money of the Housing Executive’s specification to contractors for window installation and noted that a substantial amount of money could be saved in relation to this programme. He also informed the Assembly of his decision to request that the Housing Executive rigorously review the specification. As Chair of the Committee, I wrote to the Minister asking him about this decision and specifically who had advised him of the potential savings to be made. The Minister replied, in a letter of 24 May 2012, that his decision to review the specifications came about as a result of meeting representatives of the Glass and Glazing Federation (GGF), a trades body that represents the industry. In parallel, my colleague Daithí McKay tabled a question on the 10 May 2012 asking the Minister to detail the meetings that he had had in relation to the double-glazing scheme. Again the Minister replied that he had met representatives of the GGF.

The 'Spotlight' programme alleged that the Minister had not met representatives of the GGF, but had, in fact, met representatives of Turkington Holdings Ltd — a company that it said had links to the DUP — and referred to a draft letter addressed to me as Chairperson of the Committee, which it said had originally stated that the Minister had met Turkington Holdings Ltd. The implication was clear: the Minister had met a company known to support the DUP and, as a result of that meeting, had initiated action to change the specification of the double-glazing programme.

I point out that no one on the Committee disputes that it is perfectly reasonable for a Minister to meet organisations in relation to programmes for which he or she is ultimately responsible, whether they are known supporters of that Minister’s party or not. However, it is absolutely the responsibility of the Minister in question to be open, transparent and honest about such meetings. In the face of the evidence, the Committee had difficulty in accepting the Minister’s explanation as to why he stated repeatedly that he had met representatives of the GGF when in fact he had met representatives of Turkington Holdings. The Committee ultimately rejected his explanation.

After all the evidence sessions and in-depth questioning and discussions, it boiled down simply to this: on the one hand, the Minister stated to the Committee that, at the time of the meeting on 16 April 2012, it was his genuine belief that he was meeting representatives of the GGF, and that was why he reported it as such, while, on the other hand, the Committee unearthed a considerable volume of evidence that indicated that the Minister, his special adviser, Mr Brimstone, and senior departmental officials knew that the meeting on 16 April was with Turkington Holdings Ltd.

However, according to the Minister, he maintained that genuine belief from April 2012 up until the point that he read the transcript of the oral evidence that was taken from the two Turkington employees on 14 November 2013. It was only at that point, the Minister claimed, that he realised that he was wrong in his understanding that he had met representatives of the GGF. Consequently, during his evidence on 12 December 2013, the Minister advised the Committee that he had:

One might accept the Minister’s word that he had genuinely laboured under that erroneous belief for a year and a half, but only if one is prepared to set aside all the evidence that the Minister had at his disposal, which clearly stated that the meeting was with Turkington's.

I will deal with some of the written evidence. On page 347 of the report, Members will see that the letter requesting a meeting with the Minister clearly came from Turkington Holdings Ltd. The internal DSD emails on pages 348 to 353 refer quite clearly to an invitation to meet Turkington Holdings. Members will note that those emails were cc'd to a wide range of DSD officials and the SpAd. A briefing paper was also prepared for the meeting for the Minister and his special adviser, and that also clearly stated in bold that the meeting was with Turkington Holdings. It is only mentioned that Turkington's were "active members" of the GGF. Nowhere in any of this material does it say that the meeting is with representatives of the GGF. Importantly, it is evident that DSD officials treated it as a meeting with Turkington's.

The Committee was told that neither the Minister nor Mr Brimstone had read the letter from Turkington's requesting a meeting; nor did they read the briefing paper prepared for the meeting; nor, indeed, did Mr Brimstone read the emails that he was cc'd into regarding the meeting. Frankly, the Committee found that evidence hard to accept.

Mr Brimstone did say that he first saw the letter from Turkington's in July 2013 and was "shocked" that it was not from the GGF, yet that evidently did not prompt him to seek further clarification from officials, even though the Minister had just threatened the BBC with legal action over the matter.

The Committee considered whether something was said at the meeting of 16 April that may have convinced the Minister and his SpAd that they were hearing from the GGF rather than Turkington's, but, in oral evidence to the Committee, the Turkington representatives were adamant that, although they referred to being active members of the GGF and to discussing GGF guidelines at the meeting, they never suggested that they were representing the GGF. That is supported by evidence from former Housing Executive chief executive Dr John McPeake, who stated:

He said that it was also the understanding of his colleague that they were there purely as representatives of Turkington Holdings.

Mr McPeake also noted that the invitation to attend came from the Minister's private office and that it was entered into his diary by his PA precisely as she was told on the phone:

So, the Minister's private office was also issuing invitations, on the Minister’s behalf, for a meeting with Turkington's. Given the written material that he was privy to at the time and the attendees’ evidence regarding how Turkington's introduced and represented themselves during the meeting, it was hard for the Committee to accept the Minister’s evidence that he had a genuine belief at the time of the meeting that he had met representatives of the GGF.

The Committee therefore considered from where the Minister’s stated genuine belief that he had met the GGF could have arisen. That matter was addressed by the Minister's SpAd in his evidence to the Committee on 9 January. Mr Brimstone stated that he met Trevor Turkington and Ian Young on 25 January 2012 to discuss possible cost savings to the double-glazing programme. Mr Brimstone stated that it was his recollection that, as a result of the meeting, a letter would be forthcoming:

Mr Brimstone also stated that he had told the Minister to expect a letter from the GGF requesting a meeting. However, when it was put to Mr Brimstone that his belief that a letter would be forthcoming from the GGF was:

Mr Brimstone replied: "I accept that."

Therefore, the Minister's stated genuine belief that he met the GGF was seemingly based on Mr Brimstone’s impression of the meeting, which he admitted was "not rooted in anything".

The Minister said that a letter from Trevor Turkington was not considered properly by the Committee. However, Mr Young, who also attended that meeting and gave oral evidence and wrote the letter to the Minister, was clear that it was never suggested that they were representing anyone other than Turkington. Furthermore, when asked during their evidence session whether, at the meeting of 16 April, they held themselves as representing, being there on behalf of or speaking on behalf of the GGF, the managing director of Turkington Holdings replied "Absolutely not". Given the written evidence and hard facts — not impressions or beliefs — that I have outlined and which were provided to the Minister and the SpAd at the time of the 16 April meeting, I hope that Members can see the difficulty the Committee had in accepting —

Mr Campbell: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is an important subject. I do not know whether others had speed-reading courses in the Assembly, but it is exceptionally difficult to follow what is being said at the rate at which it is being said by the Chairman of the Committee. I do not know whether he is trying to cram 35 minutes into 15 minutes —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr Campbell: — but it is very difficult to follow the extent and speed of the contribution.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: That is clearly not a point of order.

Mr Maskey: I apologise to all Members, but, as the Member will be aware, quite a lot of evidence was gathered. It is very difficult to try to cram it in, but I urge Members and the general public to read the reports. The reports and the evidence will speak for themselves; I am very satisfied about that.

As I said, the evidence provided by staff of Turkington Holdings stated that they had absolutely not referred to themselves as anything other than representing Turkington Holdings. Given the written evidence and hard facts — not impressions or beliefs — that I have outlined and which were provided to the Minister and the SpAd at the time of the 16 April meeting, I hope that Members can see the difficulty the Committee had in accepting the Minister's explanation that it was his genuine belief that he met the GGF.

I do not want to deal with the role of the Department, given the time constraints that we have. The Deputy Chair will refer to it in the winding-up speech later. Suffice it to say that the Committee was very concerned about the role of the Department in the duration of phase 1 of the inquiry in relation to the provision of materials and how it described things. The Department's permanent secretary and Mr Michael Sands appeared before the Committee. Michael Sands said that, even though he had given a factual record to the Minister as to who the meeting was with in April, when the Minister requested changes to the drafts:

Further, the evidence from Mr Will Haire, the permanent secretary, referred to the Minister being the head of the Department. He said that, when the Minister wishes something to be done, the Department will facilitate that.

It is very important to state that the Committee took a substantive body of evidence. It was delayed in presenting and dealing with that evidence by a long-term project of trying to get relevant material from the Department. We eventually got most of that material. I thank the officials for their diligence in collating, analysing and presenting the evidence to members in a very cogent fashion. As far as the Committee was concerned — five out of the six parties on the Committee —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member should bring his remarks to a close.

Mr Maskey: — the members were absolutely sure that they could not accept the explanations of the Minister or the SpAd that they had inadvertently misled the Committee. In fact, the Committee very assuredly came down on the view that the Minister deliberately misled the Committee.

Mr Wilson: First of all, I will make something very clear: despite what the Chairman said, this was not a public inquiry. It was a public witch-hunt. It was not a gathering of evidence; it was an opportunity to express already declared public and political prejudices. It did not seek to highlight an injustice or throw light on some shady dealing; it was a political show trial that would have made Pol Pot proud of the way in which it was conducted and the way in which the conclusions were reached.

Let us just look at the people involved. Were they approaching it with an open mind? They certainly were not. On 8 July, the main players in this had already expressed their views. Mr Allister was so convinced that the Minister had misled the House that he wanted him to resign immediately. Mr Dickson said that the House would be done a service if the Minister stood aside.

Mr Maskey said it was the biggest scandal to affect the Assembly, and Mr Copeland said that the Minister had misled the House. Is that really a picture of people who were going to approach the inquiry with an open mind, look to where the evidence led them and come to an objective conclusion? I suspect that most objective observers would come to the conclusion that I have come to, which I will give evidence for in a moment or two: people entered the inquiry with their mind made up. They had to justify the outrageous allegations that they had made on 8 July 2013.

Let us look at what the inquiry found. First, it found that the meetings that the Minister had had resulted in savings to the public purse of £15 million. When I moved in the Committee that we should at least acknowledge that in the report, the answer was, "No we can't, because we don't know for certain that the savings have been made because the contract is not over". Is that a picture of somebody with an open mind? I doubt it very much.

When it came to the evidence, the officials indicated that it really would not have mattered who the meeting was with, because they would still have recommended that it go ahead. Is that contained in the conclusions of the report? No, it is not.

If you were going to mislead the House and mislead the Committee, you would at least expect there to be no trail left. Yet, what did we find? It came out in the inquiry that, first of all, the Minister had left in the records a letter from Turkington's. There was a minute in which it was recorded who the meeting was with: Turkington's. There was an answer given in the Assembly — a public answer — and what did it say? The meeting was with Turkington's. Yet we are expected to believe that, somehow or other, the Minister had misled the Committee and misled the House. We had a letter, a minute and an answer, all of them public documents and all of them quite rightly recording who the meeting was with.

When it comes to the inquiry itself, we even had a situation where the Chairman was so desperate to get a name that he pleaded with one of the people giving evidence, "Just give us a name". He was prepared to badger him.

We have, quite rightly, put down a petition of concern, because this is not a proper inquiry; it is a witch-hunt. We are not prepared to allow a Minister who is guilty of nothing and is innocent to be publicly pilloried by a bunch of poisoned, prejudiced and point-scoring political predators.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Wilson: That is what this is all about. As far as we are concerned, the report does not justify the conclusion that has been reached.

Mrs D Kelly: I begin by placing on record my thanks to the Clerk and the Committee staff for their diligence and hard work in helping the Committee through this report. I also put on record my thanks to the Committee Chairperson for the way in which he applied the principles of procedural fairness and the impartial manner in which he conducted himself as Chairperson. That is something that the Members opposite have already tried to dispute, but any impartial observer and anyone who attempts to read and digest over 500 pages of evidence that was presented to the Committee and the Committee's deliberations could only come to one conclusion. The simple question posed was this: "Did we believe the Minister or not?". The answer is that I did not, and neither did the majority of members of the Committee.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mrs D Kelly: I will not at this stage because there are a couple of things that I want to put on record and my time is short.

There is, of course, the circling of the wagons. We have seen the robust, outrageous and, one might say, unprincipled defence of the Minister by his colleague Mr Sammy Wilson. Other conclusions are being drawn, given the weight of the evidence against the Minister and the lengths to which the Minister and, indeed, his special adviser went in order to change minutes and letters. If it was a simple error from the outset, why did they not put their hands up at that stage? Even when the BBC was asking, why not just say, "Oh my goodness. Yes, you are quite right: we have made a mistake"? But no, that is not the case. We have gone through this charade and have had to come to the conclusion. It is also worthy of note that the Minister threatened legal action against the BBC, and it is my understanding that, until this day, that action has not been tabled.

There are other conclusions, and one is that the Minister is doing the bidding of his party. There were concerns raised that Turkington's was a funder of the party. Let us be quite honest and explicit: in no other jurisdiction in a western democracy would a Minister found by the majority of his Committee to be guilty of misleading that Committee be in position today. Further, the use today of a petition of concern by the DUP further sullies the Assembly and the principles of the Executive in the eyes of the public and all other jurisdictions.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mrs D Kelly: Nowhere else on these islands would a Minister get away with so much failure and still be in position — not only that but have the robust support he currently enjoys from his party colleagues. There are questions around all that.

It is unfortunate that we have come to this conclusion today. I have to say that there are two further strands to the report and the whole inquiry that the Committee will be engaging in over the next number of weeks. I, for one, am quite confident of the impartiality of the Chairperson and, indeed, of my other colleagues — the majority of them — and their integrity and objective examination of the facts that stand before them.

Turkington's and others who presented to the Committee were clear that in no way could anyone have misinterpreted who they were or whom they represented at the meetings. The Chair, in his opening remarks, drew Members' attention to the initial letter from Turkington's requesting a meeting. That stands as a public record and a public indictment of the Minister. How on earth he ever got to where he ended up is beyond me and beyond many in the House. The DUP has done further damage to the integrity of democracy here in the North of Ireland.

Mr Copeland: I rise with little joy. It is probably obvious to most in this Chamber that I did not benefit from a university education, and I would not describe myself as the sharpest tool in the box, but I can read, I can write, I can understand and I can form judgements. Contrary to what anyone else in the Chamber thinks or thought, I listened to the evidence as presented, and I was — regretfully, perhaps, by some — driven to the inescapable conclusion that the Minister was guilty as charged.

Every Committee of the Assembly that I have served on has, in its membership, particularly the Public Accounts Committee, set aside party allegiances and done what was right by the people who sent us there. This affair, for want of a better word, has descended into a ping-pong match of petition of concern and petition of concern across the Chamber.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr Copeland: No. It is a useful warning to us to understand the mechanism that the petition of concern was originally designed to be. The petition of concern itself could, if used by the two greater parties, put any brake on any progress that we could ever make on behalf of the people in this Chamber. The relationship between the Executive and this legislative House is worthy of examination. The power may reside somewhere else, but the authority — the moral authority and the democratic authority — resides in this Chamber. When a Committee comes up with a finding that other Members may disagree with, it is a dangerous notion to put out that some Ministers — particularly those of both of the larger parties, given their numbers — could be, essentially, untouchable.

We are teetering on the edge of turning the principles of democracy on their head in this place, and the people outside do not get the opportunity to rig a jury. They do not get the opportunity to ignore the findings of a judge, except in some cases. I really believe that the issues and the ramifications of this affair will spread far and wide.

Mr Dickson: Very briefly, I add my thanks not only to the Chairperson but particularly to the Committee staff, who worked so hard and so diligently and so impartially on our behalf in delivering the report.

During the first phase of the inquiry, the Social Development Committee was asked to accept the Minister's account of whom he met on 16 April 2012, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. We essentially had two options: either we accepted that the Minister had deliberately misled us or we had uncovered a staggering level of incompetence. On the weight of evidence considered and because the Committee could simply not believe that the Minister could display this level of incompetence, we found that the statement on whom he thought he had met was deliberately misleading. I go further in saying that, given the overwhelming evidence that the meeting was with Turkington's, asking the Committee to accept that the Minister believed otherwise is insulting to Members' intelligence, to the House and, most importantly, to the public.

Records were also changed to reflect the Minister's position, seemingly with no challenge from departmental officials. Yet, the Civil Service competency framework lists "allowing inaccurate records" as an example of ineffectual behaviour, even at the most junior levels. It is therefore difficult to understand why senior officials allowed the Minister's position to be sustained. There was no ambiguity about the facts and no options. I find it extremely alarming that the Department would adopt a position based on the Minister's beliefs, especially when they fly in the face of clear, factual evidence.

Following the events of the last several months, this looks like the final brush strokes in the picture of an utterly dysfunctional Government on top of the failure to manage budgets and effectively agree on ways forward for the most challenging issues in our society. We can now add "Minister found to have deliberately misled Committee". Such behaviour would trigger serious repercussions for Ministers in other parts of these islands. Sadly for Northern Ireland, the public and many of us in the House have come to expect petitions of concern rather than proper accountability, and, once again, the DUP has used the former to protect one of its own.

Today's motion simply calls on the Assembly to note the contents of a first phase report, which includes an unfettered minority report. The use of a petition of concern raises more questions about DUP Members and what they are trying to hide and suppress. If you have a valid and reasoned case to make, why not come to the House and do so without resorting to an unnecessary veto? I suspect that Members to my left have nothing more to add to the Minister's account of events, which the Committee found unbelievable.

The report's findings and the DUP's concerted effort to suppress them demonstrate the need for an urgent reboot of these institutions. The petition of concern mechanism, which now frequently makes a mockery of Assembly oversight, should be abolished and replaced by a majority-weighted voting system as part of a process towards achieving the level of accountability expected in a normally functioning democracy.

A single party should not be able to override the wishes of the Assembly as a whole.

Finally, behaviour of that kind by a Minister should be neither condoned nor tolerated. Ultimately, it is for the public to judge the content of the report, regardless of any petition of concern. The Assembly should strive for a higher standard, because the people of Northern Ireland deserve better. I will support the noting of the report today.

Ms P Bradley: I rise as a member of the Committee, and I am pleased to be given the opportunity to speak on this important matter for which I also have great concern. Following the many hours of evidence that we received as a Committee, I am not convinced that the Minister in question deliberately misled the Committee. It is the word "deliberate" that I have great issue with. There is no question that there was a miscommunication between the Minister and the Committee. That is not in doubt, but did the Minister really do that in a conscious and deliberate manner?

In order to have that fully answered, it is important to seek out any gain that the Minister would have had by miscommunicating to the Committee. In examination of the evidence, I can see no benefit that the Minister would gain, either politically or materially, by not fully disclosing the facts. It is clear that the Minister believed that he was meeting representatives from Turkington's in their capacity as representatives of the Glass and Glazing Federation. Members of federations often wear numerous hats. They have the hat in which they represent their own company and the hat in which they represent the industry. It is clear from the evidence that that was indeed an easy mistake to have made.

So, who did benefit from that misunderstanding? It is clear that the Minister was at all times driven by desire to save the public purse money. In these times of economic challenges, I believe that that action shows appropriate leadership. It is clear that the review of the scheme was needed, as significant savings occurred as a result of the review. That can only benefit people in social housing within our communities, as the savings can be used elsewhere. The Minister also had no role in the review, nor did the Department reap any monetary benefit from the review. Furthermore, Turkington's did not financially benefit from its attendance at the meeting. It appears, therefore, that the only people to benefit from the findings of the meeting were the Housing Executive tenants, who we represent in order to get better value and less disruption.

I also note that the Minister sought to correct the Committee as soon as he was aware that the mistake had been made in the attendees of the meeting. It was certainly not a back-door meeting. It was also attended by members of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, including the head of procurement. I believe that the issue is not, as other Members have stated, about the integrity of the Minister but rather is a cheap political game by other parties that, for reasons best known to themselves, want to see a political hunt occur. I do not agree that any impropriety occurred, nor was there a deliberate attempt to mislead the Committee. The Minister told the facts as he understood them at the time and, when he realised his mistake, he sought to rectify it as soon as possible.

As I previously stated, I do not agree with the report that claims that the Minister deliberately misled the Committee. No man or woman is infallible. We all make mistakes, and the Minister has shown us real leadership by admitting when he was mistaken.

Mr F McCann: Go raibh míle maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I have to say, I must have been at a different meeting from Paula and Sammy. Amnesia seems to have settled in.

I rise in support of the Committee motion before the Assembly. Obviously, a lot has been said in the debate up to now. For me, the first stage of the inquiry was an eye-opener. Sitting through weeks of evidence left me particularly concerned that the Department for Social Development could hold the Committee in such low regard. That was clearly evidenced in the supply of documents and other materials to the inquiry. I would have thought that it would be in the Department's interest to ensure the smooth running of any Committee inquiry. I also believe that the Committee inquiry was significantly delayed by the actions of the Department.

I was also surprised that the BBC, which brought the subject to light through its 'Spotlight' programme, would then treat the Committee inquiry with such disregard.

The Minister, commenting in annex A of the addendum to the report, attempts to play down the significance of the meeting with Turkington's. He states that the Committee:

This was a company that was known to the DUP. In fact, it was said at the inquiry that it provided material for one of its election campaigns. It was also a company that was airbrushed out of the official documentation, and an attempt was made to give the impression that it was somebody else. In its evidence to the Committee, Turkington's was very clear and precise on whom it was representing.

The Minister also made a big play about the savings made due to his actions. At the Committee, we have always said that any savings to the public purse must be welcomed, but let us look at those savings. The savings that the Minister spoke of were not due to any technological breakthrough in window technology; they were purely down to the withdrawal of redecoration grants from people who depended on them to deal with the aftermath of window installation, many of whom live in the most socially deprived communities across this state.

I also understand that, in the aftermath of the Minister's meeting with Turkington's on 16 April 2012, the Minister announced a review and a suspension of the installation of double glazing. It is also my understanding that several other glazing companies that had a different perspective on the issue had requested a meeting with the Minister, and those requests were refused. That was made all the more alarming when it was established that Turkington's had provided resources to the Minister's party, although the Minister was at pains to point out that Turkington's did not get any of the new contracts as a result of their meeting. That is irrelevant. The fact that the meeting took place, and an attempt was made to cover up the fact that a meeting took place with Turkington's, is the pressing matter.

In the Minister's evidence to the Committee, he invited us to believe that misleading the Committee was unintentional. Let us look at the facts. First, the Minister received briefings from officials prior to the meeting on 16 April, which made it clear whom he would be meeting. Did the Minister not understand or read the briefings provided? Secondly, the Minister informed us that another group was in attendance at the meeting: Fusion21. In fact, that was a red herring, no doubt in the hope that people would be thrown off the trail of the fact that the meeting was with Turkington's and Turkington's alone. In fact, many people whom we spoke to outside the Assembly were completely baffled. In all the proceedings, the Committee's only interest was to get to the truth. The tactics used by the Minister's party at the Committee were at times shameful and at times disruptive, and they made accusations that the Chair and the Committee had a bias against the Minister. At one stage, the Chair, Alex Maskey, had to halt proceedings.

Mr Humphrey: Will the Member give way?

Mr F McCann: No.

The Chair had to suspend the meeting because order could not be obtained from the DUP. Members on the Committee have drawn their own conclusions about why they behaved in such a manner. I thought that the Chair was not only fair in his running of the inquiry but at pains to ensure that everyone, including members of the DUP on the Committee, were given a fair hearing during the proceedings. It was quite clear that they have a different agenda. The Committee wants nothing but the truth and wishes for transparency, something that I thought all Members of the Assembly would want.

Mr Clarke: Unlike those from the other side of the House, I welcome today's debate. In the last 12 months, tens of thousands of pounds have been spent, and time, money and energy have been wasted when there are much more valuable things that we could be doing in the Assembly. Some of the people opposite should focus their minds on some of those tasks as opposed to wasting valuable time today on whether it was the GGF or Turkington's. It is interesting that a representative from the Craigavon area can sully the good name of that company, which is a large employer in that part of the Province. She and others in the Chamber are quite willing to damage the reputation of the company. The company came forward and made a suggestion, and Fra McCann, in his recent comments —

Mr Wilson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Clarke: Yes, I will.

Mr Wilson: Will the Member accept that this kind of sectarian behaviour from the Member is not unusual and that she is well known for it?

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Clarke: That intervention is very useful. The behaviour is sectarian in its nature. I am sure that the cameras will not focus on it because the BBC has been interested in only one aspect of the issue and has not been particularly interested in the inquiry.

Maybe, if the cameras had focused on the representative from that area, they would have seen that she laughed when I commented on the reputation of that large employer in the Craigavon area.

Mrs D Kelly: Will the Member give way and I will deal with it?

Mr Clarke: No. I asked for an intervention when the individual was on her feet —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Clarke: She failed to give way when I asked.

It is also interesting to note that the previous Member to speak said that it was irrelevant. So, to Sinn Féin, a £15 million saving is irrelevant. I hope that the general public who take time to listen or, as others have encouraged, to read the report, note Sinn Féin's comments today. When Departments are struggling because of that party's inaction on welfare reform and a company such as Turkington's has the foresight to come forward with a suggestion that would save Northern Ireland £15 million, its suggestion is abysmal.

It is also interesting to note that Mr McCann talked about those deprived areas and said that there seemed to be just decoration grants for repairs. That was not the case. It is obvious that the outcome was predetermined by some of the Members opposite. The suggestions put forward by those individuals related to the method of fitting the windows. The suggestion for the glazing and not fitting the units in their entirety came afterwards.

Mr F McCann: On a point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. At no time did I say that the saving of £15 million was irrelevant.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr F McCann: I have been misquoted.

Mr Clarke: The Member referred to the redecoration grants in those areas. What he did not say was that the individuals came forward with a suggestion for how that could be done, a suggestion that also protected the workforce fitting the windows. Therefore, not only are those Members not interested in saving £15 million, they are not concerned about the individuals who carried out the contracts or how they fitted the windows in the first place.

Turkington's came forward with a suggestion and the contract was suspended, but none of the Members opposite noted that the company did not benefit by one shilling. The contract was re-advertised and re-awarded, and the company that put forward a suggestion to save Northern Ireland £15 million got nothing. What that says to me and, I am sure, to many other contractors out there today, is that, if they have a suggestion for how to bring about savings for Northern Ireland, they should just keep it to themselves. What this company has done is talked itself out of work. It has given the representative of the Craigavon area time to sully a very large employer in Northern Ireland. I think that it is disgraceful.

It is also interesting to note comments by those who said that they did not come with a predetermined outcome. I think that Mrs Kelly was one of them. She talked about the second stage and the third stage. If she had given me the intervention, maybe she would have answered my question, which would have been this: can you tell us now your predetermined outcome for stages two and three? We already know what the outcome will be. I could put that question to Sinn Féin, Michael Copeland and, I am sure, Jim Allister. I am sure that it is worth noting that Jim will back Sinn Féin today in the lobbies on this motion.

I make no apologies for standing beside the Minister, who was prepared to come forward with the suggestion to halt a contract. It is interesting to note that, in the past —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member must bring his remarks to a close.

Mr Clarke: In the past, contracts were under the Ministry of the SDLP. I have no problem standing beside the Minister when he comes forward with a suggestion, whether it be from the GGF or Turkington's, and advances an idea that can save £15 million.

Mr Hussey: I would like your permission to remain seated, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Absolutely.

Mr Hussey: Thank you.

I took part in the BBC 'Spotlight' programme broadcast in 2013. It was clear to me, based on the information that was provided, that the serious allegations being made about the Minister, his special adviser and their party needed to be investigated. After the furore of the broadcast, the only decision that the Committee for Social Development could take was to commence the inquiry. Others have called the process a witch-hunt. To me, that sounded like a guilty man's cries to deflect from the inevitable verdict. The background has already been well talked through, so —

Mr Weir: Will the Member give way?

Mr Hussey: No, I will not. Thank you all the same.

Instead, I will look at the broad observations from reading through the Committee report. Essentially, the entire issue has come down to two widely conflicting accounts: that of a Minister, his foolhardy special adviser and a Department; and the opinion of the company involved.

The Minister's supposed evidence in his defence to the Committee was implausible. For instance, are we really to believe that he became aware that the attendees at the meeting on 16 April 2012 were Turkington employees only when he read the evidence that they gave to the Committee in November the following year? That would mean that the Minister sat with his eyes closed and his ears covered during the ensuing alarm when the BBC sent a freedom of information request to the Housing Executive about the meeting and continually sent letters to the Department between November 2012 and June 2013. The Minister's claim is most unlikely, however, given that, if we are to believe him, he did not watch the BBC 'Spotlight' programme.

Mr Humphrey: Will the Member give way?

Mr Hussey: No, I will not.

That is just one of the claims that I simply do not believe. There is a raft of other areas of concern. Paragraph 82, on page 10 of the report, raises a very serious issue. In it, the Minister states that his adviser had no role in rewriting the note of the meeting on 16 April 2012. Throughout the rest of the paper it is clear that the only two people who could have made that change were either the Minister or his adviser.

The entire exercise has raised very serious issues about the actions of the Minister's special adviser. Having read through the evidence sessions, I find it impossible that Mr Brimstone could have thought that Turkington's would be writing to the Minister as anything other than Turkington's. Indeed, Mr Young from the company is emphatic that that was the case.

I am concerned that the Minister's former private secretary Ms McConaghie could not recall who instructed her to make fundamental changes to the minute of the meeting, as well as retrospectively to the Minister's diary. Finally, I am concerned that a number of officials in the Department failed to speak out against what they clearly knew to be factually incorrect records. I did not take much reassurance from reading Will Haire's response to that when challenged.

Every Minister and his adviser is allowed to meet whoever they want. What they are not allowed to do is mislead the Assembly or one of its Committees and members of the public. That is a red line that should not be crossed. A clear majority of the Committee found that the Minister deliberately misled it. What are other words for "mislead"? The dictionary states: "misinform", "deceive" or "lie". If I were to stand up in the Chamber and accuse a Member of lying, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, you would immediately rule me out of order and ask for the remark to be withdrawn, as it was unparliamentary. So, logic dictates that, if a Minister has been found to have misled or deceived the House, they have acted in a clear unparliamentary fashion. Instead of an apology, however, the Minister and his party have shamefully cloaked themselves by once again misusing their tool of choice — the petition of concern.

The arrogance and sheer political manipulation displayed by the DUP this afternoon is enough to make a dictator blush. Whilst the Minister's party leader clearly has no intention of sacking him, and it is clear that he does not want to see another split in his party, a politician of conviction would have done the honourable thing by now and resigned. Every day that you remain in office, you bring your office and the Assembly into disrepute.

Mr Dallat: Many months have been spent going into the details of this, and I do not intend to regurgitate them. In fact, I am not a member of the Committee. My only concern is that it is not just the Minister for Social Development who is on trial. This Assembly is on trial. The public's confidence in this Assembly is at an all-time low. It could not be worse. We will face terrible times in the future if this Assembly does not mature, wise up and stop the nonsense that is going on.

We are being asked to accept that a Minister, flanked by top civil servants and well-paid advisers, attended a meeting of one group, as he thought, but that it was, in fact, a different group. I ask myself this with all sincerity and sadness: where in the civilised world would you find a Minister making a claim like that? That he and his entourage — backed by the ministerial car and the big briefcase and the phones and all the rest of it — thought they were speaking to one group when, in fact, it was a different group. That is laughable. Sorry, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, it is not laughable; it is sad. It undermines overall the respect that the public might have for this Assembly.

Even at this late stage, there is an opportunity to be sensible and to start taking seriously the needs of the wider community and, dare I say, the 50% who do not even bother to vote any more because they have lost confidence in the shenanigans that go on here week after week. All you have to do is look at the Order Papers for today and tomorrow. At a time when hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people involved in the construction of roads and so on are about to lose their jobs, here we have a Minister —

Mr Wilson: Thanks to you lot.

Mr Dallat: I would have thought that the former Minister would have known the protocol of this place: you do not make statements from a sedentary position. He had his chance and he blew it big time.

The pantomime season is long over, but here we have a Minister — I would not describe him as Cinderella by any means — who still wants us to live in a world of make-believe: that he was doing one thing when in fact he was doing another. I have thought of many honourable people, much more powerful and important than our Minister for Social Development, who made mistakes and who had the decency, let us say, to resign when they made the mistakes rather than drag down a whole government in the process.

The Minister can do the Assembly a great favour and give us the oxygen and breathing space to start anew and move on. He has outrun any usefulness that he ever had in the Assembly, and, with hand on heart, I make my plea to him: for God's sake, go.

Mr Weir: It is difficult to follow such ringing sincerity from across the Chamber.

If we are concerned about the people who do not vote, certainly on the basis of the last European elections, it is the party of the Member opposite in particular that they were not voting for. That party got its lowest ever vote on that basis.

Like the Member who spoke last, I am not a member of the Social Development Committee, so I just want to make a few general comments. I agree with the Member on one thing. He is right when he says that this goes beyond the issue of the Minister and towards the credibility of the Assembly. However, the credibility of the Assembly is ill served when, to use his image, we have a pantomime of a report brought by a Committee that operated with a predetermined outcome. I use the phrase of Mr Hussey, the last member of the Ulster Unionist Party to speak, who said that the Minister should have faced up to "the inevitable verdict".

That is a very interesting phrase: an inevitable verdict is one that is predetermined, and that goes to the heart of this report. My colleague Mr Wilson, in opening for my party, indicated a string of quotations from various members of the Committee, who seem to have passed sentence beforehand. Indeed, you might as well have walked into a courtroom, in days gone by, to see a row of judges, each wearing the black cap, before the trial had even started. If not a judicial execution, we are certainly seeing an attempt at political execution before we even reach day one of this report.

Various parties have indicated that the Minister should resign. Indeed, it seems to me that Mr Allister is relishing that; he, at least, is not backing off from that earlier assumption. One wonders, therefore, what level of open mind was brought to this report. Indeed, it is clear that there was no open mind whatsoever. There was a predetermined outcome that the Minister, because politically he does not suit other parties in the Chamber, was to be strung up and foisted on the scrapheap of political life.

Mr Wilson: Kneecapped.

Mr Weir: Kneecapped, indeed. One would have been almost happy at the level of kneecapping, but that would not have satisfied the blood thirst that there is in the Chamber towards the Minister.

Indeed, when you look at what happened, there is a phrase that is quite often used in any case, which is: "Who benefits?" If you are looking for a motive, you ask: "Who benefits?" From that point of view, there was no personal financial gain for the Minister, and, from the meeting, there was no financial gain for Turkington's, which did not receive a single penny as a result of this. Those who did benefit were the public and the purse of Northern Ireland.

Mention has been made in my constituency, as it has been in others, of the need for greater provision of social housing and better provision, particularly for those most deprived. Surely if we are to get the best possible delivery for all those people, which is something that I would have thought, tacitly, we should all acknowledge, we need to ensure that we get the best possible bang for our buck from public expenditure. That was the appropriate response taken by the Minister when he heard of the prospect of many millions of pounds of savings being made from the way in which the windows were installed. Indeed, the public would get a better and more cost-effective service. Every penny that is saved in one sphere of social housing can ensure that more people benefit from social housing. However, that is not the priority for Members; rather, it is to don the black cap and carry out the witch-hunt against the Minister.

The Member who spoke previously said that the honourable thing to do for Ministers who are mucking up is to resign or to throw themselves on their sword. If there is culpability, the current Minister's predecessors in the SDLP should have resigned a long time ago, as they presided over millions of pounds worth of mistakes that were made in contracts. A blind eye was turned, and, clearly, there was a lack of drilling down into the details of the Housing Executive on that basis.

Sorry, was the —

Mrs D Kelly: I was wondering, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, whether the Member opposite was referring to Gregory Campbell, when he was the Minister for Social Development.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Weir: No, in case there has been a lack of understanding, I was referring to the SDLP Ministers who, in the previous Assembly, presided over a farrago of mismanagement of the Housing Executive, which this Minister is trying to clear up, not for the benefit of himself but for that of social housing tenants, time and time again. This Minister should be commended for that. Indeed, it is noticeable that the Member opposite is accusing with her usual level of accuracy. She accuses Gregory Campbell of being the guilty man.

Mrs D Kelly: I did not. I just asked.

Mr Weir: You specifically mentioned Gregory Campbell. He was never even the Minister for Social Development. He was in DRD. You cannot have it both ways in that regard.

This is a clear witch-hunt; it is a farce. Yes, the Assembly is on trial, but it is on trial because of the pantomime of a motion, which seems to be act one in a series of pantomimes that some of the parties opposite are bringing. Consequently, I am very happy to stand beside the Minister today and say that the House should reject the report —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?

Mr Weir: — but there is not a prospect of the House rejecting the report, because it was a predetermined outcome from day one.

Mr Allister: There is no dispute or issue but that the Minister misled the Committee. The issue is whether he did so inadvertently, as he now claims, or did so deliberately. The answer as to which it is lies, I suggest, in the very significant and very determined efforts that the Minister and his right arm — his special adviser — made to cover up with whom the relevant meeting had been. It is clear that everyone else at that meeting was abundantly in no doubt that they were meeting Turkington's. Indeed, anyone who had read the letter of invitation would have known that. The civil servants there knew that it was Turkington's, and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive knew that it was Turkington's. But, in this wonderland, the Minister and the special adviser believed that it was someone else.

To sustain that pretence, they set about a concerted effort of writing Turkington's out of the record. So, the Minister's diary was changed. The Minister's diary for 16 April, or whenever, stated, "Meeting with Turkington's", but, retrospectively, it was changed to write Turkington's out of it. It was changed to, "Meeting with the Glass and Glazing Federation".

The special adviser, in his own hand, changes an answer to the House to write Turkington's out of the record. Then, we have the letter to the Committee Chairman changed not only to write Turkington's out of the record but to write somebody who definitely was not at the meeting, namely Fusion21, into the record. Then, to crown it all, the minutes of the meeting — the official record of the meeting — are changed to write Turkington's out of it, in the headline of with whom — with whom — the meeting had been held.

Anyone ask themselves this: why were those determined efforts made? The Minister says, "Oh, I didn't realise any of that. It was only when I heard the evidence and read the evidence from Turkington's many months later that said that it was actually them I'd met that I realised that it was Turkington's I'd met." Had he not got a letter from the BBC challenging him that he had met Turkington's? Yet here he was saying, "The first time that I ever heard or knew it was Turkington's was when they gave evidence". Had he not watched the 'Spotlight' programme in which Mr Young from Turkington's refuted the suggestion that the meeting was with the Glass and Glazing Federation?

The truth of the Minister's position is that he ran out of road in maintaining the pretence once Turkington's gave the evidence, and he was not prepared to challenge them. Turkington's behaved honourably in front of the Committee. They threw no lifelines to the special adviser, who wanted to misrepresent a private meeting they had back in January in the Radisson hotel. He threw no lifelines to the Minister. The Minister ran out of road and then came up with this combination: "I inadvertently, unintentionally misinformed the Committee". He did no such thing. He calculatedly, deliberately misled the Committee, and all the changes that were made point to that. Sadly, neither he nor his special adviser has been man enough to face up to it.

The private secretary —

Mrs D Kelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Allister: Yes.

Mrs D Kelly: I just wanted to ask the Member whether he has given any consideration to the claims from those on the Bench opposite about the £15 million in savings and whether or not that is an accurate and evidenced point.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Allister: This debate is not about savings. No one is disputing whether or not making savings is a good thing.

We heard very important evidence from the Minister's private secretary — the lady who changed the minutes and changed the diary. When she was pressed, "Who asked you to make the change?", she said, "I certainly didn't do it of my own volition." She suggested that the two most likely people were the Minister and the special adviser because it was their belief that they had met the Glass and Glazing Federation. Sadly, she was not prepared to be more emphatic than that. Even more sadly, those we expect most of — the Minister and his special adviser — were not man enough to say, "Yes, it was me who gave the direction." Instead, they took refuge in "I can't recall" and such things — the ever-present refuge of the dissembler. I think that it was a very poor reflection indeed upon the Minister and his special adviser —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Allister: — that they were not even man enough to face up to that.

Mr Agnew: It is clear that what is at stake here is not whether or not the House has been misled but whether or not it was deliberately misled. The Minister's claim that it was inadvertently and unintentionally misinformed lacks credibility when we look at the timeline and the number of queries that the Minister faced around the issue. The first of five letters from the BBC to the Minister, as well as one to his special adviser, was sent on 7 June. Every Member of the House will know that, if the BBC or any journalist is asking questions about their work that suggest they have done anything untoward, it is given the highest degree of importance.

Mr Humphrey: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. He mentions the BBC. Given the resources the BBC put into the 'Spotlight' programme and the fact that investigative journalists worked on it for months, why did it not come in front of the Social Development Committee?

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that the Member will not have the customary extra minute, because we are running out of time allocated for this debate.

Mr Agnew: OK. I will learn not to give way in future.

I cannot speak for the BBC. I am not here to represent it; I am here to present facts that challenge the Minister's statement of events.

The Minister had ample opportunities to check his records and the details of the meeting, and took none of them to correct the misinformation he had provided to the Assembly. In fact it was not until 12 December, five months after this query was first raised, that he finally made that admission, when it was very much in the public light and when the scrutiny and the public eye was on him. He then realised that he had no other option but to apologise for, in his terms, an inadvertent mistake.

As many Members have said, this goes beyond the individual issue to the credibility of the Assembly. There are serious issues at play here, including one that I have raised on many occasions, which is the issue of transparency in party political funding. There has been much speculation about the links between Turkington's and the DUP. There will always be speculation, and it will grow until there is evidence to prove or disprove it. When we have no public record of who gives money to political parties — until parties such as the DUP choose to support legislation to require them to make that transparent to the public — we will always have this speculation, and those parties can have no defence because there is no record of who gives money to them.

Mr Clarke suggested that we should not challenge big employers. I would say that the real issue at stake for the party opposite is that we should not challenge big donors. That is not good for democracy or for faith in democracy, as has been highlighted by other Members.

The institutions have been further undermined by the attempt to undermine the Social Development Committee and its investigation. The Members across the Floor may disagree with the conclusion of the report, but what is vital is that after the 'Spotlight' programme, the interviews, the evidence and every scrap of paper that the Committee could gather is put into the public domain so that the public can decide for themselves what their views are. The Committee came to a conclusion; that may have been political, but there is transparency for the public now as to the facts of what happened and what should have happened but did not happen.

Furthermore, we now have a petition of concern. We had an investigation and we have had a conclusion, but we then have the party whose Minister is under investigation saying that it will not accept that conclusion. How would that be perceived if it was a judiciary case where the defendant stands up and says, "Me and my mates say I didn't do it, and there are enough of us to put our stamp on it and make sure it does not happen"? That is what is going on here. The Minister and his friends behind him have said that they do not and will not accept any judgement and, therefore, they are going to stop any judgement from being made. That is a disgrace. It undermines our democracy and it will further increase public cynicism as to the legitimacy of decisions taken in the House.

Mr McCausland (The Minister for Social Development): I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this debate, and I want to thank those who have contributed to it. If my response fails to address any specific points, I will, of course, write to Members separately.

I have already put on record my concerns about the process for this inquiry. It is a process that, I believe, would not meet the requirements that would be applicable if the inquiry were a public inquiry conducted, for example, under the Inquiries Act 2005. Indeed, the departmental solicitor has written to the Committee Clerk in relation to this. His letter was sent to the Committee on 10 July. We are now well into the month of September, and there has been no reply. However, in his letter — writing of course from a legal perspective — he highlighted a number of issues about the manner in which this inquiry has been conducted.

I have also put on record my concerns that the actual content of the report falls short of the standards expected in relation to any inquiry and is fundamentally flawed in relation to its analysis of the evidence and its conclusions. This debate therefore provides us with an opportunity to note the work of the Committee and debate whether this is the way to proceed.

I do not believe that the evidence, both written and oral, provided to the Social Development Committee was given due regard, and I fail to understand how the Committee considered the evidence and the facts appropriately in line with its own terms of reference for phase 1 of the inquiry. The Committee’s conclusion that I deliberately misled it is, in fact, totally and utterly unsubstantiated. The report does not set out in what way the Committee believes I misled it in relation to my decision to seek a review of the specification for the supply and fitting of double glazing.

The report claims to be an objective assessment of my decision to seek a review of the specification for supply and fitting. However, it is anything but that. The actual review of the double glazing specification is hardly even mentioned in the report, and, had it focused on this review, it would, in fact, have confirmed that I was not involved in that process. The process of review was carried out entirely by the Housing Executive’s own technical advisers. The resultant decision reflected the guidelines. Those who raised the issue did not benefit from the changes, and the subsequent changes led to estimated savings to the public purse of £15 million. Indeed, instead of these significant points, the report focuses entirely on whether the people I met at one meeting on 16 April 2012 were representing themselves or the glazing industry.

I have said many times in relation to that meeting on 16 April 2012 that it was not important who I met but that what was important was the fact that I was being advised that, if the Glass and Glazing Federation guidelines were followed, this could lead to significant savings —

Mr Allister: Will the Minister give way?

Mr McCausland: — to the public purse and indeed provide a better standard of service to tenants, a fact —

Mr Allister: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member knows not to persist.

Mr McCausland: — that was then further confirmed to me by my professional and technical officials. The savings to the public purse were subsequently estimated to be around £15 million. That is what led to my decision to seek a review of the specification for supply and fitting, not who was at the meeting or who they were representing.

Mr Campbell: I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he agree with me that it appears that Mr Allister, who came onto the Committee only after being in consultation with the late David McClarty, did so for one purpose and one purpose only, which had nothing to do with saving £15 million? Having walked away from confronting Sinn Féin in 1987, he decided to come back in 2004. He spends more time asking about the price of mint imperials than he does about saving £15 million to the public purse; that is what he is concerned about.

Mr McCausland: I thank the Member for that point. I would also say to the Member who made the point that it is interesting that the Member to whom he has referred has such a sudden interest in housing because, when it came to the last election and you looked at the manifestos for all the political parties, you saw that all the parties around here said what they were going to do in relation to housing. They were concerned about their constituents, and they were concerned about practical issues and matters such as this. That was except for one person, one party and one manifesto.

After the meeting with my special adviser on 25 January 2012, I genuinely believed that the Turkington representatives were attending the meeting in April in their capacity as representatives of the Glass and Glazing Federation. Indeed, whilst the report refers to Mr Trevor Turkington's written evidence, it does not, in fact, quote that Mr Turkington's written evidence in relation to that meeting on 25 January 2012 with my special adviser actually stated:

It also stated:

Those are the very words that were used in the written evidence to the Committee but, of course, that was omitted from the Committee's report.

In addition, the report states, in relation to changes to the minutes of the meeting on 16 April:

Indeed, in the BBC Northern Ireland 'Spotlight' programme that aired on 3 July 2013, the reporter actually stated:

Those are the very words of the BBC reporter.

I had nothing to hide in relation to the meeting on 16 April, and that was demonstrated by the fact that I ensured that the Housing Executive's chief executive and its head of procurement also attended that meeting. I also point out that the review of the specification and the subsequent tendering process for new double-glazing contracts were handled by the Housing Executive, as the contracting authority, and not by me or my Department. I also never sought to hide or deny who was at that meeting, which is, in fact, a matter of public record, as I answered an Assembly question for written answer on 7 September 2012 that clearly stated that the managing director and general manager of Turkington Holdings were at the meeting on 16 April.

Taking account of all that, how did the Committee come to its conclusion? I do not know, and the report does not enlighten me in that regard. It does not set out a logical set of arguments. It is hard, therefore, not to see it as anything other than a basis for political point scoring. That, of course, is not what an inquiry is meant to be about and is not what the public expects, and it is the sort of flawed process that brings the Assembly into disrepute. However, I readily accept that, on foot of this inquiry and the oral evidence provided to the Committee by the Turkington representatives in November 2013, I was wrong in my assumption that they were representing the Glass and Glazing Federation. I therefore acknowledged to the Committee on 12 December 2013 that I had "inadvertently unintentionally misinformed the Committee" but that that was not in any way deliberate. I said at the time that we are only human and are all fallible, and I acknowledged that I had made a mistake but said that it was not in any way deliberate. I therefore fail to see and understand how the Committee can come to the conclusion that, based on my genuine belief at the time that the meeting had been with representatives of the GGF, I deliberately misled the Committee in relation to my decision to seek a review of the specification for the supply and fitting of double glazing.

I want to pick up on points that were made by some Members. Some important points need to be made. I will start with the Chairman, Mr Maskey, whose chairing of the Committee was very generously applauded by his party colleague Mr McCann. Mr Maskey said that it was about establishing facts. That is the problem: the Committee failed to establish facts and based its conclusions on supposition and innuendo.

Mr Maskey: Will the Minister give way?

Mr McCausland: No.

He said that the allegations were extremely serious —

Mr McCausland: I know that it is difficult for Mr Allister to contain himself, but he might try.

He talked about criticism of the provision of information. The problem for my officials and my Department was simply that, when the information was being sought, the questions were being framed in such a vague way that it was very difficult for officials to know what exactly was being sought. In many ways, that is why you ended up with a situation where the Committee was flooded with information.

I am actually amazed that some people, who were not even on the Committee, obviously think that they have read through hundreds and hundreds of pages of documentation that were given before coming to a conclusion that the Committee was right.

Secondly, he went on to talk about the BBC. He acknowledged, quite rightly — he is absolutely right — that it is interesting that the BBC was happy to put out the programme but would not appear before the Committee. If the BBC were man enough, it would come to the Committee. In fact, it went away and refused to appear. Conclusions should be based on evidence. The fact is that the evidence was not produced.

This is fact. This is a Committee where five out of six parties are political opponents. That is cutting to the chase of the matter. You have five parties that are political opponents, and they simply take the opportunity, as they are able to do with the sort of system that we have, to produce a report and have a political attack.

I was interested in what Mrs Kelly said. She said that the Committee was impartial, and she said that she was impartial. I refer to the 'Irish News' of 23 July 2014 — a paper that I am sure she reads. Mrs Kelly may have forgotten what she said to that newspaper reporter: last night, the SDLP's Dolores Kelly, a member of the Committee, said that she believed that I should consider my position. She said that there were two more inquiries coming up. She has not just settled for this one: she is away on to stage 2 and stage 3 — right down the road to the very end. She said that there were two more inquiries coming, so it will be death by a thousand cuts.

She has not even seen one bit of evidence — not one scrap, not one page — and already she has not just come to a conclusion in the way that a jury would come to a conclusion; she has actually gone the whole way and has signed us all up for a death warrant. It is absolutely appalling. In fact, if anybody should be thinking of stepping down, she should be thinking of stepping down from the Committee, because her prejudice, her partisanship —

Mr Wilson: Don't worry: she never attends.

Mr McCausland: Oh well. Her prejudice, her partisanship and her partiality have all been amply demonstrated, and if she, who talked about impartiality, can say something like that and stay on the Committee, her presence on the Committee does damage to credibility. She is not the only one. I just picked out the one out of the 'Irish News' for Mrs Kelly. We could go through other newspaper reports and pick out what other members of the Committee said at the particular time. The partisanship and the prejudice there amongst those parties was amply demonstrated when they said it — it is not something that I produced. The words out of their own mouths condemn them. When Mrs Kelly says that the Committee was impartial, that is an absolute joke. The fact is that the whole report was based on smear —

Mr P Robinson: Will my friend give way?

Mr McCausland: Indeed.

Mr P Robinson: Is it not even more absurd that you have on that Committee, as members of the Committee, people who were on the programme making the accusations, and then they sit on the Committee pretending that they are going to impartially judge what the outcome should be?

Mr McCausland: I thank the Member for his point, which is very significant. One of the fundamental issues here is this: you have a flawed process. I am waiting to see what the answer will be in response to the letter from our Departmental Solicitor's Office, because we have been waiting a couple of months already for an answer, and we have not got one. The fact is that it was a flawed process, with a predetermined outcome, that produced a flawed product.

I have talked about the prejudice and the partisanship of certain members, and I can easily go through other newspaper reports for other members. However, as Mr Robinson, the First Minister, said, quite rightly, not only is it what they said in the press, it is what they said in the very programme. I think that all of that raises serious questions about the credibility of it.

The fact is that we could look at the evidence of what happened in regard to double glazing and in regard to other matters. Let us just have a quick look at that. I have a record for delivery in the Department for Social Development that is far better than what there was in terms of delivery by predecessors. I know that it is difficult for Mrs Kelly, as she cannot even remember who was in the office. She thinks that —

Mr P Robinson: Senior moment.

Mr McCausland: It could be a senior moment, indeed.

Let us think about it: in Northern Ireland at the moment, we have 32 tower blocks under the control of the Housing Executive. There has never been a strategy for the maintenance of those tower blocks. The situation now is that finally, under the DUP, there is delivery on that. Within a matter of weeks, we will have a strategy for the first time. People who live in those conditions, with mould growing on the walls, who complained about the conditions when the SDLP Minister was in place, saw that nothing was done about it. It is only now, under the DUP, that there is delivery. There was no concern for tenants. My intention was not only to deliver double glazing with £15 million of savings but to deliver double glazing within the term of this Assembly, not through a 10-year programme as was previously considered.

Thousands of Housing Executive properties with no cavity wall insulation — no-fines properties — are finally being addressed, and there is delivery on external cyclical maintenance (ECM) schemes, which, year after year, had been slowed down. There is better management and monitoring of contracts. We are now seeing a Housing Executive that is far superior to what was there under the SDLP and under the direct rule regime.

The Committee, on the other hand, has failed to address such issues. So much time has been eaten up with this type of inquiry, and so much energy has been spent on trying to come to a predetermined conclusion, that these sorts of issues have not been on its agenda. I have not been getting letters from the Committee on what we are doing about tower blocks. I have not been getting letters about all these issues. The Committee would do a much better job if it looked at such problems.

I will go back to some of the other points made by the Chairman. One key issue is that, when the meeting took place, it emerged that the Housing Executive had already started a review of the specification for fitting double glazing. Even before that meeting, it had already started the review process. It was not something that I conjured up out of thin air or that someone told me I should do: the Housing Executive recognised that the way in which it was being done needed to be looked at. Of course, that sort of thing simply gets thrown out of the way and ignored.

I believe that the report falls far short of the standard that you would expect in any other part of the United Kingdom or British Isles. It is a report from a Committee that used a flawed process. It has produced a flawed product with a flawed outcome, and I think that it is the sort of document that is best dispensed in a waste bin.

Mr Brady (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development): Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I add my voice to those of Members who have shared concerns about the use of a petition of concern today.

The Committee members who spoke today in support of the report referred to the evidence that was collated and reviewed. They were all clear that the weight of the evidence was such that it could not have possibly come to any conclusion other than the one that we reached: the Minister deliberately misled the Committee regarding the meeting of 16 April 2012. Contrary to this, those Committee members who supported the Minister's position made a number of points to underpin that support. Naturally, the Minister also made his opposition to the report clear. I will try to reflect all those positions over the next few minutes.

The Chair of the Committee gave a comprehensive overview of phase 1 of the inquiry. He said that the evidence was based on the inquiry and talked about the difficulty in getting papers from the Department and the obstructive approach that it adopted, with papers being passed to the Minister first. He also commented, as did others, on the BBC choosing not to appear before the Committee. That was certainly a grave disappointment.

Mr Humphrey: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brady: No; I do not have enough time.

The Chair also described the process of the guidelines on procedural fairness, the fact that the Department's and the Minister's replies were included in appendices to the report, and he also mentioned the minority report.

Dolores Kelly thanked the Committee team for their efforts and noted the Chair's adherence to procedural fairness. She noted that any objective reader of the report would agree with its conclusions. She referred to the defence raised by Mr Wilson as unprincipled. Mrs Kelly also noted that the Minister threatened legal action but did not follow it up. She emphasised that any Minister anywhere on these islands who was found to have misled a Statutory Committee would have already left his post. She went on to say that evidence heard by the Committee was a public indictment of the Minister.

Michael Copeland stated that he based his decision on the evidence presented before the Committee. He referred to the petition of concern and what its application was originally aimed at. He noted that the issues raised and the ramifications of this affair will go far.

Stewart Dickson stated that the Minister was either guilty of incredible incompetence or had deliberately misled the Committee. He found it extremely alarming that officials allowed the Minister to sustain the belief that he had met the Glass and Glazing Federation, when they had evidence that made clear whom he met. Mr Dickson lambasted the DUP for its use of the petition of concern. He noted that the Committee found the Minister's evidence unbelievable.

Fra McCann spoke in support of the Committee motion. He noted that the Department held the Committee in disregard, given how it addressed its responsibility to provide information. He stated that Turkington's was brushed out of the record; however, Turkington's was clear that it had represented no one but itself. Indeed, that was borne out by the Glass and Glazing Federation, which also gave evidence. Mr McCann noted that requests from other double-glazing firms were rejected. He said that the evidence was clear that the meeting had been with Turkington's. The Committee's only interest was, he said, to get to the truth, and he criticised the behaviour of DUP members at some of the meetings.

Ross Hussey noted the serious allegations made by 'Spotlight'. He made some broad observations on the report. He questioned the Minister's claims that he did not realise that he had met Turkington's until after the first evidence session. He noted the concern about the inability of the Minister's former private secretary to recall who gave her instructions. He suggested that the Minister should apologise, and he referred to the arrogance of the DUP.

In supporting the report's findings, John Dallat stated that the Assembly was on trial as public confidence is at an all-time low. He considered that the Minister asking us to believe that he was not aware whom the meeting was with was sad and undermined the Assembly. He called on the Minister to resign.

Jim Allister said that there was no disputing that the Minister misled the Committee, and he noted that significant and determined efforts were made to change the records to show that he had met the Glass and Glazing Federation rather than Turkington's. He stated that changes were made to the Minister's diary and that the special adviser had instructed that changes be made to Assembly Questions and the letter to the Chair. Importantly, he noted the significant changes to the minutes of the meeting of 16 April 2012. He noted that the Minister had been challenged by the BBC, yet he maintained his pretence. He said that the Minister "ran out of road" and "calculatingly and deliberately" changed the record. He noted that the former private secretary stated that it was likely that either the Minister or the special adviser had instructed her to change the minutes of other records, and neither of them was man enough to admit who did that.

Sammy Wilson, who was one of the Members who spoke in support of the Minister, said that there was a public witch-hunt, during which established political prejudices were aired. He said that people entered the inquiry with their mind made up, as was evidenced on 8 July in the House, and the inquiry was a means of sustaining that. He recalled that the Minister's meetings had resulted in savings of £15 million, but that was not recorded in the report as Committee members argued that these savings were not conclusive. He recalled that officials were clear that it would not have mattered whom their meetings were with, it would have gone ahead. He recalled that the minute of the meeting, a letter and an answer to a question in the Chamber show that it was with Turkington's. He said that the petition of concern was tabled because this was not a public inquiry but a political witch-hunt, and no party would allow it to go ahead.

Paula Bradley expressed grave concerns about the findings. She stated that she was not convinced that the Minister deliberately misled the Committee. She said that the Minister told the facts as he understood them at the time, and, when he realised his mistakes, sought to rectify them. She highlighted the savings that would have been realised as a result of the meeting and stated that the only beneficiaries were Housing Executive tenants — not the Minister or the party. She stated that this was a cheap political move by other parties.

Trevor Clarke highlighted the cost and the time that the Committee wasted on the inquiry. He expressed concern about the reputational damage caused to the company Turkington Holdings. He reiterated the £15 million cost savings that the alternative fitting method that Turkington's suggested at the meeting could realise. He recalled that Turkington's did not benefit financially in any way from its suggested cost savings. He expressed concern that some Committee members have already predetermined outcomes for phases 2 and 3.

Peter Weir agreed that the debate goes beyond the Minister and said that it is about the Assembly's credibility. He reiterated his colleagues' views that there was a predetermined outcome to the report before the inquiry had begun. He also reiterated that there was no financial gain to the Minister or to Turkington's, only to the public of the North. He stated that the Minister was seeking to ensure that the public were getting a better and more cost-effective service. He also stated that the previous Minister should have resigned over his handling and mismanagement of contracts in the Housing Executive. He was happy to stand by the Minister and reject the report.

The Minister, in referring to the process, indicated that the inquiry does not adhere to the principles of the Inquiries Act. I will point out that it is not a public inquiry, so the Inquiries Act does not apply. Maybe the Minister could take note of that. However, the Committee is considering a response, and it aims to have that with the Department this week.

The Minister referred to the savings of £15 million that arose as a result of the meeting, and he said that it was immaterial to him who he met. Obviously not, because, presumably, if it was immaterial, he would not have changed the record. He noted that the Committee's report did not refer to this. The Minister referred to Mr Turkington's letter as evidence that the special adviser was under the impression that a letter was coming from the Glass and Glazing Federation. He stated that he had nothing to hide about the 16 April meeting and that the tendering process for double glazing was handled by the Housing Executive. He also said that he had referred in a previous Assembly question to a meeting with Turkington Holdings. He accepted that he was wrong in his assumption that he had met the Glass and Glazing Federation, and he stated that he had already admitted that. He said that he did not see how the Committee could reach the conclusion it did.

He then went on to address comments that other members made, but I will not go into that. He also noted the BBC's refusal to attend to give evidence, and he said that the Committee's process was flawed and that it produced a flawed outcome. The Minister should note that the Committee considered the DSO letter at its first meeting but after the summer recess, and as I said, a response will be agreed this week.

I will now speak as a Sinn Féin member of the Committee. The Minister has consistently — or maybe inconsistently — stated that he wanted to put the record straight. Why, then, does his evidence conflict with that of every other person at the meeting? It conflicts with Housing Executive officials, Turkington's — everybody but him and his special adviser. I suppose that there are only so many ways to itemise how the Minister tried to cover up.

Some Committee members said that it is a Sinn Féin-led Committee, and they spoke about the make-up of this particular Committee. My understanding is that all Committees in the Assembly have a similar make-up. Sinn Féin has three Committee members; the DUP has four. Are they seriously suggesting that we Sinn Féin members are able to influence Mr Allister?

Some Members: Yes.

Mr Brady: Could I say —

Mr Campbell: Quoting approvingly.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Brady: When the playground antics have finished, let me say on that point that, having sat on Committee with Mr Allister, I very much doubt that I could influence him on anything.

Mr Campbell: You are quoting him approvingly, though.

Mr Brady: Could we influence Dolores Kelly, Michael Copeland or Stewart Dickson? I think not. I do not think that that is a serious suggestion from the DUP; it is made to deflect from the real nature and cause of the inquiry.

The Minister and some of his party colleagues went into great detail about the reason for the meeting, and they said that it was about contracts. The inquiry was not about that; it was simply to find out whether the Minister deliberately misled the Committee. The majority of the Committee, in a democratic fashion, came to the conclusion that the Minister deliberately misled the Committee. That is the stark fact. You can dress it up whatever way you want, but that is the stark reality. It is accepted by the majority of the Committee, including other parties, not just Sinn Féin. If you look at it logically, you can see that Sinn Féin has the Chair and the vice-Chair, but we certainly cannot influence other party members. That is for sure, and I think that they would all agree with that. So, the Minister is being disingenuous when he goes off on a tangent and talks about all these contracts and the money that was saved, because the reality of the savings —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Brady: My colleague Fra McCann rightly stated that the only savings were in redecoration grants. The Minister is not great with figures because he has gone from talking about £18 million at one stage down to £670,000: maybe his maths is not that good. On this occasion, we do not know. The Committee was advised in May 2014 that the savings would not be known until the double-glazing schemes had been completed. The £15 million in savings that has been referred to is, therefore, speculation. I want to make that point.

The Committee came to a democratic decision. All the evidence was clear. Every person who gave evidence was asked very clearly by the Chair at the end of their evidence whether they were happy that they had been given the opportunity to state everything that they had wanted to state to the Committee. There was no equivocation from any of the witnesses.

The representatives from Turkington's were unequivocal that they were there to represent themselves and not the Glass and Glazing Federation. The person from the Glass and Glazing Federation who attended the Committee stated very clearly that Turkington's did not represent them. Indeed, he stated that if someone wanted to represent the Glass and Glazing Federation, they would have to have an endorsement from the organisation.

The simple fact is that the Committee did a comprehensive report.

Mr McCausland: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brady: No, I will not, because I want to finish up.

The Committee came to an unequivocal and democratic conclusion that the Minister deliberately misled the Committee.

Mr Clarke: The majority of the Committee.

Mr Brady: I said, "the majority of the Committee". I reiterate that it was the majority of the Committee.

Mr Wilson made much of there being a witch-hunt and used a number of Ps. However, it was a democratic decision. The DUP had the opportunity to vote, as it would have had even if it had not tabled a petition of concern. This was simply a motion to note the report; bringing in a petition of concern seems absolutely ludicrous.

A majority decision was reached on very definite conclusions that were based on the evidence, not on what people made up, not on what Sinn Féin thought and not on what Mr Allister or anybody else thought: they were based exclusively on the evidence presented.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Brady: Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I remind Members that the vote on the motion will be on a cross-community basis.