Mr Allister: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Some time ago, you wrote to us all to advise that, due to the pressure of business in the House as we approach the end of the mandate, you were encouraging Ministers to make only oral statements that were necessary and to make further use of written ministerial statements. Yesterday, we had a frankly self-congratulatory statement about the high street scheme. It is quite clear that an election is coming. Today, we have a statement from the Communities Minister that amounts to giving us a date, and we have two other statements. Do Ministers not heed the advice that you give them?
Mr Speaker: Mr Allister makes a fair point. I wrote to Ministers, as Mr Allister said, to point out that we are coming to the end of the mandate, and we are working very hard to complete a substantial legislative programme, on which, thankfully, we are making significant headway. As with all these things, there is a balance to be struck. I am not going to comment on the wisdom or substance of any particular statement that a Minister will make in the Chamber. I suppose that we could be at fault; during the year, we normally ask Ministers to make as many statements to the House as possible. At the moment, we are asking them to consider that and to make only those that they consider to be important oral statements.
As I said, I do not want to make a judgement on the wisdom or otherwise, or the merit, of any statement, but, on the back of Mr Allister's point of order, I rehearse that we have somewhere in the region of 10 plenary days left, within which we have to try our best to complete a substantial legislative programme. I think that all Members will commend the parties that are exercising discipline by putting up fewer Members to speak, ensuring that they make shorter contributions and doing away with some of the more repetitious contributions that have been made at various legislative stages. I appeal to Members to maintain the discipline that has been shown to a large degree in the past weeks. It is a punishing programme, but we are a legislative Assembly, and that is what we are here to deliver.
As Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to say that we are doing really well in the passing of legislation. Every time that we have a plenary sitting, we complete a number of Final Stages, and that is to be welcomed. I appeal to Members to continue to exercise the kind of discipline and political maturity that we need to make sure that we bring to the House only matters that are significant or important and worthwhile bringing to the House for scrutiny and accountability. Again, I continue to commend the parties and Members who are exercising that discipline when these debates are going on. You can see from today's Order Paper that we are likely to be here until midnight and possibly beyond. I do not welcome that. In fact, I join Members in thinking that that is certainly not the way to go. However, I repeat that we have possibly 10 further days of plenary sittings in which to complete a fairly significant amount of legislation. I thank Mr Allister for raising that point of order, and, hopefully, it will be duly noted by all the relevant Ministers.
Mr Speaker: Members, the first item of business in the Order Paper is the consideration of Executive business not concluded yesterday. When the sitting adjourned, Further Consideration Stage of the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill remained unfinished, so we will return to that now. After that, we will take the motion from the Public Accounts Committee before starting today's business, which will commence with a statement from the Minister for the Economy.
Debate [suspended on 28 February 2022] resumed.
Clause 29 (Requirements for proposals and policies under section 28)
Amendment No 40 proposed:
In page 11, line 32, after "Ireland" insert—
", recognising that the island of Ireland is a single biogeographic unit,". — [Mr McGuigan.]
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Speaker: The Question will be put again in three minutes. I remind Members that we should continue to uphold social distancing and that those who have proxy voting arrangements in place should not come into the Chamber.
Question, That the amendment be made, put a second time.
Mr Speaker: I remind Members that, as per Standing Order 112, the Assembly has proxy voting arrangements in place. Members who have authorised another Member to vote on their behalf are not entitled to vote in person and should not enter the Lobbies. I remind all Members of the requirement for social distancing while the Division takes place. I ask Members to ensure that they retain a gap of at least 2 metres between themselves and others when moving around the Chamber or the Rotunda, and especially in the Lobbies.
Ayes 46; Noes 37
AYES
Dr Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms S Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Ms Brogan, Mr Catney, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mrs D Kelly, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Mr Muir, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr McAleer, Mr McGuigan
NOES
Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Allister, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Mr Storey, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
Tellers for the Noes: Mr T Buchanan, Mr Harvey
The following Members’ votes were cast by their notified proxy in this Division:
Mrs S Bradley voted for Mr Catney, Mr Durkan, Ms Hunter, Mrs D Kelly, Ms Mallon, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty and Mr O’Toole.
Mr Butler voted for Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr Chambers, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Stewart and Mr Swann.
Mr Clarke voted for Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan [Teller, Noes], Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey [Teller, Noes], Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Storey, Mr Weir and Mr Wells.
Mr Dickson voted for Ms Armstrong, Mr Blair, Ms Bradshaw, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle and Mr Muir.
Mr O’Dowd voted for Dr Archibald, Mr Boylan, Ms Brogan, Mr Delargy, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Mr Kearney, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer [Teller, Ayes], Mr McGuigan [Teller, Ayes], Mr McHugh, Ms A Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mrs O’Neill, Ms Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan and Ms Sheerin.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Amendment No 41 proposed:
In page 11, line 36, at end insert—
"(c) commission a financial, social, economic and rural impact assessment on the effects of the proposals and policies." — [Mr McGuigan.]
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 113(5)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three-minute rule and move straight to the Division.
Ayes 56; Noes 28
AYES
Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Dr Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr Beggs, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms S Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Ms Brogan, Mr Butler, Mr Catney, Mr Chambers, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mrs D Kelly, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Mr Muir, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Mr Nesbitt, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Stewart, Mr Swann
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr McAleer, Mr McGuigan
NOES
Mr Allister, Mr Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Storey, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
Tellers for the Noes: Mr T Buchanan, Mr Harvey
The following Members’ votes were cast by their notified proxy in this Division:
Mrs S Bradley voted for Mr Catney, Mr Durkan, Ms Hunter, Mrs D Kelly, Ms Mallon, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty and Mr O’Toole.
Mr Butler voted for Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr Beggs, Mr Chambers, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Stewart and Mr Swann.
Mr Clarke voted for Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan [Teller, Noes], Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey [Teller, Noes], Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Storey, Mr Weir and Mr Wells.
Mr Dickson voted for Ms Armstrong, Mr Blair, Ms Bradshaw, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle and Mr Muir.
Mr O’Dowd voted for Dr Archibald, Mr Boylan, Ms Brogan, Mr Delargy, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Mr Kearney, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer [Teller, Ayes], Mr McGuigan [Teller, Ayes], Mr McHugh, Ms A Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mrs O’Neill, Ms Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan and Ms Sheerin.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Amendment No 42 proposed:
In page 11, line 36, at end insert—
"(d) give due regard to the special economic and social role of agriculture, including with regard to the distinct characteristics of biogenic methane." — [Mr McGuigan.]
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 47; Noes 38
AYES
Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Dr Archibald, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr Boylan, Ms S Bradley, Ms Brogan, Mr Butler, Mr Catney, Mr Chambers, Mr Delargy, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mrs D Kelly, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Mr Nesbitt, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Stewart, Mr Swann
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh
NOES
Ms Armstrong, Ms Bailey, Mr Blair, Mr Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyons, Mr Lyttle, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Muir, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Storey, Ms Sugden, Mr Weir, Mr Wells, Miss Woods
Tellers for the Noes: Mr T Buchanan, Mr Harvey
The following Members’ votes were cast by their notified proxy in this Division:
Mrs S Bradley voted for Mr Catney, Mr Durkan, Ms Hunter, Mrs D Kelly, Ms Mallon, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty and Mr O’Toole.
Mr Butler voted for Mr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr Chambers, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Stewart and Mr Swann.
Mr Clarke voted for Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan [Teller, Noes], Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey [Teller, Noes], Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Storey, Mr Weir and Mr Wells.
Mr Dickson voted for Ms Armstrong, Mr Blair, Ms Bradshaw, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle and Mr Muir.
Mr O’Dowd voted for Dr Archibald, Mr Boylan, Ms Brogan, Mr Delargy, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Mr Kearney, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Mr McGuigan [Teller, Ayes], Mr McHugh [Teller, Ayes], Ms A Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill, Ms Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan and Ms Sheerin.
Miss Woods voted for Ms Bailey and Ms Sugden.
Question accordingly agreed to.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Beggs] in the Chair)
In page 12, line 37, leave out subsection (5). — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]
In page 13, line 4, leave out "report under section 28" and insert "climate action plan". — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]
In page 13, line 5, leave out "report" and insert "plan". — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]
In page 13, line 6, leave out subsections (9) and (10). — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I will not call amendment No 48 as it is mutually exclusive to amendment No 47, which has been made. I will not call amendment No 49 as it is also mutually exclusive to amendment No 47.
In page 13, line 10, leave out "or (10)". — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]
In page 13, line 11, leave out subsection (12). — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]
Amendment No 52 proposed:
In page 13, line 14, at end insert—
"(13) Each report under Section 28 must explain how the Department intends to mitigate against any negative effects uncovered in the relevant financial, social, economic and rural impact assessment." — [Mr McGuigan.]
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 58; Noes 28
AYES
Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Dr Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Ms Bailey, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms S Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Ms Brogan, Mr Butler, Mr Catney, Mr Chambers, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mrs D Kelly, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Mr Muir, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Mr Nesbitt, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Stewart, Ms Sugden, Mr Swann, Miss Woods
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr McAleer, Mr McGuigan
NOES
Mr Allister, Mr Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Storey, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
Tellers for the Noes: Mr T Buchanan, Mr Harvey
The following Members’ votes were cast by their notified proxy in this Division:
Mrs S Bradley voted for Mr Catney, Mr Durkan, Ms Hunter, Mrs D Kelly, Ms Mallon, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty and Mr O’Toole.
Mr Butler voted for Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr Chambers, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Stewart and Mr Swann.
Mr Clarke voted for Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan [Teller, Noes], Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey [Teller, Noes], Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Storey, Mr Weir and Mr Wells.
Mr Dickson voted for Ms Armstrong, Mr Blair, Ms Bradshaw, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle and Mr Muir.
Mr O’Dowd voted for Dr Archibald, Mr Boylan, Ms Brogan, Mr Delargy, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Mr Kearney, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer [Teller, Ayes], Mr McGuigan [Teller, Ayes], Mr McHugh, Ms A Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mrs O’Neill, Ms Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan and Ms Sheerin.
Miss Woods voted for Ms Bailey and Ms Sugden.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 30 (Just Transition Fund for Agriculture)
Leave out clause 30 and insert—
"Just Transition Fund for Agriculture
30.—(1) The Department must by regulations establish a scheme for the administration of a fund to be known as the ‘Just Transition Fund for Agriculture’ for the purpose of providing advice and financial assistance to the agriculture sector to deliver its contribution under proposals and policies for the purposes of section 28.
(2) The regulations may make provision—
(a) for determining eligibility or entitlement for advice or assistance under the scheme;
(b) regarding applications (if any) for advice or assistance under the scheme;
(c) imposing conditions or restrictions in connection with the scheme;
(d) requiring persons to provide specified information, or imposing other obligations on them, in connection with the scheme;
(e) conferring functions on the Department or other public bodies in connection with the scheme;
(f) about steps to be taken to bring the scheme to the attention of persons likely to be eligible for assistance under it;
(g) about the enforcement of obligations imposed by or by virtue of the regulations (which may include a power for the Department impose financial penalties);
(h) about the general administration of the scheme, including provision for the review of decisions taken under the scheme and for dealing with disputes as to eligibility or entitlement under the scheme;
(i) about any other matter which appears to the Department to be necessary or appropriate for the efficient and effective administration of the scheme.
(3) If the scheme provides for financial assistance, the regulations may make provision—
(a) for the assistance to be given in any form, including, in particular, by way of a grant, loan or guarantee;
(b) for determining the extent of assistance (including for the calculation of payments that are to be made);
(c) for the assistance to be provided subject to such conditions as may be specified in, or determined in accordance with, the scheme;
(d) for those conditions to include (in the case of a grant) conditions for repayment in specified circumstances;
(e) for assistance to be provided—
(i) directly to those entitled to receive it under the scheme; or
(ii) indirectly (for example by being made to a public body on terms which require that body to provide financial assistance to those so entitled)." — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]
Clause 31 (Policies and proposals: targets)
In page 13, line 21, leave out "Policies and proposals under section 28 shall" and insert "Climate action plans must". — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]
In page 13, line 34, at end insert—
"(3) Climate action plans must also include annual targets on—
(a) greenhouse gas emissions, and
(b) air quality." — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]
Clause 32 (Policies and proposals: further provision)
In page 14, line 14, leave out "in relation to the exercise of its functions" and insert—
"regarding matters in relation to which it has functions". — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]
Amendment No 57 not moved.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): There are some complications, Members. To be clear, as amendment No 58 is an amendment to amendment No 57, which has not been moved, I will not call amendment No 58.
Clause 34 (Policies and proposals: impact on small businesses)
Amendment No 59 proposed:
Leave out clause 34 and insert—
"Proposals and policies: workforce, employers and communities
34.—(1) Each climate action plan must—
(a) explain how the proposals and policies set out in the plan are expected to affect the workforce, employers and communities; and
(b) include proposals and policies for supporting the workforce, employers and communities.
(2) The explanation, proposals and policies included under subsection (1) must make particular reference to small businesses.
(3) In subsection (2), a ‘small business’ is a business that employs fewer than 50 persons.
(4) The Department may by regulations amend subsection (3); and such regulations may define a small business by reference to such matters (or combination of matters) as the Department considers appropriate (including, in particular, the number of its employees, its turnover and its balance sheet)." — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): As amendment Nos 60 and 61 are amendments to amendment No 59, we need to dispose of them before returning to amendment No 59.
Amendment No 60, as an amendment to amendment No 59, made:
In subsection (1), leave out "climate action plan" and insert "report under section 28". — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]
Amendment No 61, as an amendment to amendment No 59, made:
In subsection (1)(a), leave out "plan" and insert "report". — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]
Amendment No 59, as amended, made:
Leave out clause 34 and insert—
"Proposals and policies: workforce, employers and communities
34.—(1) Each report under section 28 must—
(a) explain how the proposals and policies set out in the report are expected to affect the workforce, employers and communities; and
(b) include proposals and policies for supporting the workforce, employers and communities.
(2) The explanation, proposals and policies included under subsection (1) must make particular reference to small businesses.
(3) In subsection (2), a ‘small business’ is a business that employs fewer than 50 persons.
(4) The Department may by regulations amend subsection (3); and such regulations may define a small business by reference to such matters (or combination of matters) as the Department considers appropriate (including, in particular, the number of its employees, its turnover and its balance sheet)." — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]
Clause 35 (Policies and proposals: carbon leakage)
Leave out clause 35 and insert—
"Proposals and policies: carbon leakage
35.—(1) In deciding its proposals and policies for the purposes of section 28, each Northern Ireland department must take into account—
(a) the risk of that implementation of those proposals and policies will result in carbon leakage, and
(b) the desirability of eliminating or minimising that risk.
(2) ‘Carbon leakage’ means the transfer of the production of goods (including agricultural goods) and the provision of services to countries without comparable climate change policies.
(3) In subsection (2), ‘comparable climate change policies’ are policies that are intended to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions for the country in question which are equivalent to the targets set out in sections 1, 3 and 4, by the years set out in those sections." — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]
Clause 36 (Just Transition Commission)
Leave out clause 36 and insert—
"Just Transition Commission
36.—(1) The Department must by regulations establish a body to be known as the ‘Just Transition Commission’.
(2) The functions of the Commission are to—
(a) oversee the implementation of the just transition elements of this Act, and
(b) provide advice to the Northern Ireland departments on how to ensure that proposals, policies, strategies and plans required under this Act comply with the just transition principle.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1)—
(a) must make provision for the constitution of the Commission (including, in particular, its membership, general powers and proceedings);
(b) may provide that the Commission is established as a body corporate (and that section 19 of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 applies to it with such modifications (if any) as may be prescribed in the regulations);
(c) may make provision for the payment of remuneration and allowances to members of the Commission, and for the defraying of its expenses;
(d) may make provision in relation to accounting, reporting and record-keeping by the Commission;
(e) may make such further provision in relation to the Commission as the Department considers appropriate.
(4) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (3)(a) must provide for the members of the Commission to include a representative of each of the following—
(a) the agricultural sector;
(b) the fisheries sector;
(c) academia;
(d) trade unions;
(e) youth groups;
(f) civic society;
(g) environmental groups.
(But this does not prevent the regulations from providing for other persons to be members of the Commission.)
(5) Regulations under subsection (1) may also make provision about the functions of the Commission, including provision specifying—
(a) how the oversight function is to be performed;
(b) what the just transition elements of this Act are." — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]
Clause 37 (Interim progress reporting for budgetary period)
In page 15, line 12, leave out "report" and insert "climate action plan". — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]
Clause 38 (Final statement for budgetary period)
In page 16, line 11, leave out "report" and insert "climate action plan". — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]
Clause 49 (Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner)
Leave out clause 49 and insert—
"Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner
49.—(1) The Executive Office must by regulations establish an independent office known as the ‘Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner’.
(2) The functions of the Commissioner are to oversee and report on the operations of this Act.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1)—
(a) must make provision for the appointment of the Commissioner;
(b) may provide that the Commissioner is to be a corporation sole;
(c) may make provision about the general powers of the Commissioner;
(d) may make provision for the payment of remuneration and allowances to the Commissioner, and for the defraying of the Commissioner’s expenses;
(e) make provision in relation to accounting, reporting and record-keeping by the Commissioner;
(f) may make provision for the appointment of officers and staff by the Commissioner;
(g) may make provision about the acquisition and disposal by the Commissioner of property, rights and liabilities (including land);
(h) make such further provision in relation to the Commissioner as the Executive Office considers appropriate.
(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may also make provision about the functions of the
Commissioner, including provision specifying how the oversight and reporting functions are to be performed.
(5) The first regulations under subsection (1) must be laid in draft before the Assembly within the period of 2 years beginning with the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent." — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I will not call amendment No 67, as it is mutually exclusive to amendment No 66, which has been made. I will not call amendment No 68, as it is mutually exclusive to amendment No 66, which has been made.
Clause 50 (Climate action plan)
In page 21, line 11, leave out "3 years" and insert "24 months". — [Mr McGuigan.]
Amendment No 70 proposed:
In page 21, line 13, after "must" insert—
"commission a financial, social, economic and rural impact assessment on the effects of the draft climate action plan and". — [Mr McGuigan.]
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ayes 58; Noes 28
AYES
Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Dr Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Ms Bailey, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms S Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Ms Brogan, Mr Butler, Mr Catney, Mr Chambers, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mrs D Kelly, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Mr Muir, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Mr Nesbitt, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Stewart, Ms Sugden, Mr Swann, Miss Woods
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr McAleer, Mr McHugh
NOES
Mr Allister, Mr Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Storey, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
Tellers for the Noes: Mr T Buchanan, Mr Harvey
The following Members’ votes were cast by their notified proxy in this Division:
Mrs S Bradley voted for Mr Catney, Mr Durkan, Ms Hunter, Mrs D Kelly, Ms Mallon, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty and Mr O’Toole.
Mr Butler voted for Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr Chambers, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Stewart and Mr Swann.
Mr Clarke voted for Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan [Teller, Noes], Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey [Teller, Noes], Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Storey, Mr Weir and Mr Wells.
Mr Dickson voted for Ms Armstrong, Mr Blair, Ms Bradshaw, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle and Mr Muir.
Mr O’Dowd voted for Dr Archibald, Mr Boylan, Ms Brogan, Mr Delargy, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Mr Kearney, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer [Teller, Ayes], Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh [Teller, Ayes], Ms A Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mrs O’Neill, Ms Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan and Ms Sheerin.
Miss Woods voted for Ms Bailey and Ms Sugden.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Members will be pleased to learn that that concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments before the next item of business.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McGlone] in the Chair)
That this Assembly takes note of the following Public Accounts Committee reports:
'Major Capital Projects' [NIA 46/17-22];
'Management of the NI Direct Strategic Partner Project – helping to deliver Digital Transformation and The LandWeb Project: An Update' [NIA 68/17-22';
'Impact Review of Special Educational Needs' [NIA 75/17-22];
'Capacity and Capability in the Northern Ireland Civil Service [NIA 97/17-22];
'Driver and Vehicle Agency 2019-20' [NIA 101/17-22];
'Generating Electricity from Renewable Energy' [NIA 123/17-22]; and
'Speeding up the Justice System' [NIA 127/17-22];
and the following Department of Finance memoranda of reply:
'Major Capital Projects';
'Management of the NI Direct Strategic Partner Project – helping to deliver Digital Transformation and The LandWeb Project: An Update';
'Impact Review of Special Educational Needs';
'Capacity and Capability in the Northern Ireland Civil Service';
'Driver and Vehicle Agency 2019-20';
'Generating Electricity from Renewable Energy'; and
'Speeding up the Justice System'.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): The Business Committee has agreed to allocate two hours for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 15 minutes to propose and 15 minutes to make a winding-up speech. The Finance Minister — an tAire Airgeadais — will have 20 minutes to respond, and all other Members who speak will have seven minutes.
Mr Humphrey: As Chair of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), I welcome the opportunity to provide the House with an overview in this take-note debate of the PAC's seven published reports so far. In doing so, I will provide the House with an overview of the important issues that the Committee has grappled with in a variety of different areas of government and pull together some of the key themes emerging from our work. That will be important to Members and our successor Committee in the new mandate. The Committee has sought to complete as much work as is possible to identify the areas to be taken forward in the next mandate. I emphasise the constructive contribution that the Committee has sought to make to the review and reform of public services and to the delivery of value for money and principles throughout government here in Northern Ireland.
Before I open the discussion, it is important that I give thanks, on behalf of the Committee, to the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr Kieran Donnelly CB, and his team at the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO). The support that they have provided to the Committee has been invaluable. I also thank those who provided evidence to the Committee to inform our work. That is crucial to the Committee's effective carrying out of its functions.
I also take this opportunity to thank the Deputy Chair, Mr Beggs, and my other colleagues on the Committee. I do not think that we had a single vote in the past two years and more, so thank you very much to my colleagues.
In total, the PAC will have completed 14 reports by the end of the mandate. Seven of the reports being debated today have been published with memorandums of reply (MORs). That allows me to provide the House with a more complete sense of the response made to the Committee's recommendations in those areas. At the end of my speech, I will summarise the issues that have been cross-cutting across all the reports, identifying the thematic issues and monitoring the progress within and across the Departments to improve the functioning of government, which will be critical in the longer term. The work of our successor Committee in the new mandate will continue to be crucial to promoting accountability, transparency and commitment to good governance in Northern Ireland.
I will start with the 'Major Capital Projects' report. The focus is on the 11 high-profile, high-value infrastructure projects, including the A5, the A6, Casement Park, as part of the regional stadia programme, and the subregional stadia programme for football. Over an eight-year period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2019, almost £10·6 billion was spent on infrastructure projects. It was estimated that, by the end of March 2021, more than £14·8 billion would have been spent on those projects.
Each of the major capital projects suffered from time delays and cost overruns against the total timescales and budgets to a total value of £700 million. The Committee was shocked by the delays and cost overruns, including those associated with securing planning permission and the scale of judicial reviews. The Committee notes the importance of genuine concerns being addressed by judicial reviews but wondered whether a new balance could be struck to avoid vexatious challenges. The Committee notes that the £700 million of cost overruns could have been better invested in our schools, hospitals, roads and, of course, transport network. In short, not only was the system for commissioning and delivering major capital projects overcomplicated but it was clear that many of the senior staff did not have the relevant experience or expertise to allow them to deliver the projects within the agreed timescales and budgets.
One of the major recommendations coming out of the report was for senior staff to have the correct skill sets and experience to deliver major capital projects. We are pleased that that recommendation has been accepted by the Department. The Department has also accepted the recommendation for action to strengthen accountability and transparency for major projects. The Committee was disturbed to find that there was no single oversight body whose function is to ensure that projects are being delivered properly. Central overview is critical to improving project delivery. The Committee's report strongly recommends that Northern Ireland should have the same kind of oversight body that other jurisdictions have. The Department accepted in principle a further recommendation for independent non-executive members with a commercial background to be added to the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) board. In all, the PAC made 15 recommendations in the report, many of which have been accepted in full or in part by the Department. The recommendations will drive a large part of the reform agenda in that area.
Our report on digital transformation and the LandWeb project focused on a project designed to deliver a digital transformation to the Northern Ireland Civil Service, as well as LandWeb, which was a project to provide online access to Northern Ireland's Land Registry, Registry of Deeds and Statutory Charges Register. The Committee examined the two projects, both awarded to British Telecom (BT), to look at the way that each project was awarded and managed and at whether they provided value for money. The Committee took evidence from the permanent secretary and other officials in the Department of Finance, and, frankly, we were shocked at the inadequate negotiation and management of those two contracts. One thing that really stood out was the number of times that the contracts were rolled over to the benefit of BT. In the case of nidirect, the Department misunderstood the terms of the contract and was forced to extend it for three years as a result of failing to put alternative delivery mechanisms in place.
A new tender for LandWeb will not come into force until later this year, meaning that the contract will have been in place for 25 years, eight years beyond the original time frame. The result of the contract extensions means that the Executive have had to increase their payment to BT by over £120 million. The overall costs incurred are more than double the original contracted values.
The PAC made 11 recommendations in the report, and the Finance Minister accepted them all in full or in part. They included the need for a "deep culture audit" of contract management and related skills, robust monitoring of contract management and continuity and training of staff on the projects.
The PAC is still concerned, however, that all Executive Department contracts must provide value for money for the consumer and the public purse. It is vital that Departments take immediate steps to guarantee that contracts are managed effectively, including by ensuring that staff have appropriate contract management and commercial skills and awareness. All projects must employ the necessary skills and experience to ensure that projects have staff continuity — staff were continually moved, resulting in loss of knowledge and experience — and, where that is not possible, training and access to new knowledge and transfer of skills should compensate for it. If local people are to have confidence that public moneys are being allocated and spent with consideration for value for money, the recommendations in the report must be implemented.
The next of our reports on which I will focus is on special educational needs (SEN). No inquiry that the Committee conducted in the past two years was more important than that one on investing in our young people. The report examines the way in which the Department of Education and the Education Authority (EA) support children with special educational needs, including those in mainstream schools. It looked at the period from 2015 to 2020, during which the Department and the authority spent more than £1·3 billion on supporting children with special educational needs, with costs rising each year.
An Audit Office report reviewed SEN practices in 2017. A follow-up in September 2020 found that none of the recommendations in 2017 had been fully implemented. The 2017 report noted:
"no strategic evaluation of the support provided to [SEN] children"
was conducted in order to ensure that the "best possible outcomes" were delivered. The Department spent over £3·6 billion on reviewing its practices in more than 13 years, with the Audit Office noting that unacceptable issues persisted.
We were disappointed to find a culture in the Education Authority that allowed it to deliver a substandard service continually for far too long. That is particularly clear in the operation of the statutory assessment process for SEN. The weaknesses failed families and, in particular, our children with special educational needs. That is intolerable and plainly wrong.
The Education Authority did not know how many children were seeking to access SEN support or why SEN was more prevalent in Northern Ireland than in any other jurisdiction in the UK. In the absence of such data, it was impossible to gauge the real demand for services and to identify the gaps in provision.
The PAC made seven recommendations, including on the need for independent reviews of the effectiveness of Education Authority and SEN processes. All the recommendations were accepted by the Department and should be taken forward to address dysfunctionality in the authority and to ensure that SEN processes are fit for purpose. That would help to build the confidence of the public and of families who rely on SEN provision for their children. As part of the external review, we would like to see an evaluation of all the types of SEN support that are provided. That should include benchmarking and data collection to demonstrate the progress that children make.
Although there is much to do to increase confidence in SEN provision, the Committee cannot and will not overlook the excellent work of those — indeed, we congratulate them — who deliver SEN services to children on a daily basis. The dedication of front-line staff is exemplary, and we applaud the fact that the educational attainment gap between children with and without SEN is closing. We recognise that commitment as steps are taken to embed reform; it is invaluable and deeply appreciated.
I will move on to the report on 'Capacity and Capability in the Northern Ireland Civil Service'. The report concentrated its investigation on the fundamental issues in the Northern Ireland Civil Service workforce: succession planning, recruitment and performance management. The PAC made 12 recommendations that it believes must be acted on in order to ensure that the Northern Ireland Civil Service, which employs some 22,000 staff, is fit to deliver the necessary public services to the people of Northern Ireland.
As a Committee, we were deeply appreciative of the exceptional work done by many civil servants across all Departments, particularly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, however, we were utterly shocked by the failure to ensure that the right number of people with the required skills, knowledge and expertise were in post.
The PAC identified the gap between where the NICS is and where it needs to be. It requires radical transformation. The Committee recommended that the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service be pivotal in driving fundamental transformation. Strong and decisive leadership from the top needs to drive the change, and it must include total commitment throughout the Senior Civil Service. Other recommendations included the fundamental revision of recruitment and selection, injecting independent, non-executive representation into the Northern Ireland Civil Service Board and delivering a Northern Ireland Civil Service that is wider in its representation of our workforce in Northern Ireland.
The Department accepted the vast bulk of the report's recommendations. Improving capacity and capability across the board is of huge strategic importance and will have a direct bearing on many of the issues that the Committee explores in specific areas of government. In the Committee's view, more needs to be done to strengthen the powers and role of the head of the Civil Service. Sadly, that was not taken up. We want the head of the Civil Service in Northern Ireland to have a role and powers that are similar to those of her opposite number in Scotland.
I move on to the report on the 'Driver and Vehicle Agency 2019-20', which follows two reviews commissioned by the Minister for Infrastructure. One was carried out by independent engineers; the other by the Northern Ireland Civil Service's internal audit and fraud investigation service. The Committee found that the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) had not correctly projected the lifespan of crucial equipment and that the scissor lifts, which were used to enable inspection of the underside of vehicles, did not have a phased programme for replacement. That led to a significant disruption of services that affected many homes in Northern Ireland as the lifts failed. Moreover, DVA used equipment that far exceeded the usual lifespan. It was a high-risk strategy that did not put health and safety first and placed workforce lives at risk.
As I am running out of time, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now make a few points as a DUP member of the Committee. I draw attention to a report that we have just concluded, although we were unable to have the MOR for today: 'Closing the Gap'. As Members will know, that is close to all our hearts. It was a follow-up to the 'A Fair Start' report. That was produced after Peter Weir, when he was Education Minister, instigated work on closing the gap in educational attainment in working-class areas.
I pay tribute to Dr Noel Purdy and his team: Jackie Redpath, Mary Montgomery, Joyce Logue and Kathleen O'Hare. They did a fantastic job, and our Committee, in its report 'Closing the Gap', wants to build on that. We want to see government across Northern Ireland and across the Executive providing the resource to deliver for those young people. It is hugely important. There are files — cases of files — on this issue in Northern Ireland over the years. Sadly, there has never been a resolution. We need to see the gap being closed and government investing in our young people. All Departments should step up to that. We will push that to the head of the Civil Service when she returns to the Committee in the near future.
Mr Humphrey: I also thank the Boys' Model School for allowing us to host the launch of the report there.
Mr McHugh: I will focus my remarks on the 'Major Capital Projects' PAC report. The Audit Office report on 'Major Capital Projects', released in December 2019, was illuminating and shocking. It identified 11 major capital projects, including seven flagship projects, that experienced huge delays, for various reasons, despite the vast resources provided to ensure their delivery.
Among the projects identified in the report were Casement Park, the A5, the Strule Shared Education Campus in Omagh and the regional children's hospital. Those projects have seen little to no progress over many years, with delays and cost overruns on a scale rarely seen elsewhere. Although the House regularly debates these projects, unfortunately, progress is frustratingly slow. These projects have faced setback after setback, including public inquiries, judicial reviews, procurement problems and funding issues.
It is recognised by all that the delivery of those major projects will provide a much-needed economic boost, as well as developing associated sectors such health, education, transport and sports.
The Public Accounts Committee looked at the issues that give rise to long delays in capital projects. One of the main factors is the high number of judicial reviews. Of particular concern is the A5 project in my constituency, which has been beset by legal issues from the outset. Far too often, we see tragic deaths on the A5. It is one of the most dangerous roads on the island of Ireland, and my heart goes out to the families who have lost ones on the A5. The simple fact is that, the more delays we have, the more grieving families there will be. Minister Mallon has said that another public inquiry must take place before work can commence. We need the Minister to give a firm commitment to when that inquiry will take place and to expedite it ASAP. The Audit Office has been investigating the JR process, and I eagerly await the publication of its findings. Perhaps lessons can be learned so that we do not get sucked into endless cycles of public inquiries and judicial reviews and citizens still have fundamental access to legal action, should they so choose.
Planning issues also often contribute to long delays. While planning powers were transferred to councils, the Department for Infrastructure retains planning powers over regionally significant applications. The proposed development of Casement Park is an example of how planning issues can cause huge delays. I hope that the issues have now been resolved and that we will soon see the long-awaited redevelopment of Casement Park commence.
Planning is an issue that the Public Accounts Committee has examined more recently, and the Department for Infrastructure is undertaking a review of the Planning Act 2011. Everyone who gave evidence to the Committee agreed that the system needed to work better and to work for the people. Departmental officials need to listen to the concerns of councils and statutory consultees to ensure that reforms can be brought forward that make sure that there is a more effective and efficient planning system that delivers for all.
Procurement is another area that impacts on the delivery of major capital projects. We need procurement policies that are fit for purpose and that deliver high-quality value-for-money contracts. Last year, the Minister of Finance restructured the Procurement Board to include representatives from the construction industry with skills and experience in delivering public-sector contracts. I welcome the renewed focus on the security of supply and the social value of public-sector contracts.
The Audit Office report identified multiple projects that suffered from funding issues. Projects that take place over a number of years need security of funding over their lifetime. That is necessary to attract the best contractors. There has been much discussion about the benefits of multi-year Budgets, particularly for our health service, but it must also be stressed how vital multi-year Budgets are for delivering major capital projects. It is extremely frustrating for all those in our community who wish to see the projects delivered that the first opportunity for a multi-year Budget in a decade has been jeopardised by the walkout by the DUP.
I hope that the next mandate will bring a renewed determination to see the delivery of major capital projects for the benefit of all our communities.
Mr Muir: I come here today as a member of the Public Accounts Committee to speak about two reports: 'Capacity and Capability in the Northern Ireland Civil Service'; and 'Major Capital Projects'. Both reports are vital, and they are interrelated. I will touch in due course on why I feel that that is the case.
Being a member of the Public Accounts Committee for nearly two years and considering the reports that are presented to the Committee, it is clear to me that government has a number of roles. The first is to keep citizens safe. In the context of COVID-19, that role and aim of government has been clear. The primary duty of government is to keep citizens safe. It is also about delivering quality public services. We excel at that in many different ways. Lastly, it is about enabling economic growth and job creation and delivering thriving communities.
The role of the Civil Service is absolutely critical to what I have just outlined. I commend the role that the Civil Service has played, especially over the past two years in the context of COVID-19. There are many examples of when civil servants have gone way above and beyond their job descriptions and duties to assist the people of Northern Ireland, keep them safe and deliver good public services, and also to safeguard the economy and jobs.
In the context of what I have just outlined, the report 'Capacity and Capability in the Northern Ireland Civil Service' was extremely useful and important. The issue of the capacity and capability of the Northern Ireland Civil Service has arisen in multiple Public Accounts Committee inquiries, and is the theme that runs through most of the inquiries that we have considered. When considering the inquiry and report, and then the memorandum of reply that we received from the Department, key issues, such as workforce planning, recruitment and performance management were highlighted. Those are critical issues that came up as part of the inquiry and need to be addressed.
There is a high level of vacancies in the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The last figure that I noted was over 1,400. There is also an elongated recruitment process. That adds to the challenges in the Civil Service, and is also an issue for people who consider applying, or who apply but go elsewhere because, by the time that they receive a job offer, it is too late.
One thing that I also picked up on in the inquiry was the significant over-reliance on the Strategic Investment Board. That needs to be addressed in order to ensure value for money.
The Department needs to give greater clarity on succession planning, taking into account that the Northern Ireland Civil Service has an ageing workforce. From my perspective, the principle of generalists also needs to be challenged. That is being considered in a number of areas, such as project and contract management, which I will touch on soon with regard to major capital projects.
On performance management, it came up that the performance of only 19 staff had been assessed as unsatisfactory, which equates to 0·1% of the total number of staff. That comes in the context of my view that the overwhelming, vast majority of civil servants whom we have the pleasure and honour of working for us in Northern Ireland are performing highly. However, we also need to have a performance management process in place.
The head of the Civil Service has a key role to play, as do the Civil Service commissioners. That arose in the recommendations for action. Change is needed in that regard. It is notable that 11 of the 44 RHI inquiry recommendations can be traced to shortcomings in the capacity and capability of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. That is a critical issue, and implementation of the recommendations that have been set out by the Public Accounts Committee is critical.
On the report 'Major Capital Projects', the ultimate demonstration of the challenges that we have in Northern Ireland in the delivery of major capital projects is the unspent money that is left at the end of the financial year. At the end of this financial year, there would, potentially, have been £36 million of unspent capital funding. It is only through luck and the Treasury's redoing its sums that that money will not be unspent. In other financial years, we have not been as lucky. In 2020-21, £22 million was returned. In the 2019-2020 financial year, over £100 million was unspent. That is a critical issue that highlights the associated challenges.
Multiple projects are listed that, as Maolíosa outlined, have a significant impact on people across Northern Ireland. A key issue for me is the delivery of an infrastructure commission for Northern Ireland. It is regrettable that it has been delayed. Lastly, clear benefits are associated with multi-year Budgets. It is regrettable that we are not able to grasp that opportunity.
I am proud to have been a member of the Public Accounts Committee. We are a unified Committee. There has not been one vote in the Committee thus far. We work together. Hopefully, it provides a role model for how other Committees should function.
Mr Irwin: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the take-note debate. I will focus my remarks on the report 'Generating Electricity from Renewable Energy'.
Mr Irwin: Sorry about that. I will start again.
Mr Irwin: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the take-note debate. I will focus my remarks on the report 'Generating Electricity from Renewable Energy'. The generating of electricity from renewable sources is an area of growing importance, given the intensifying debate and actions on climate change and the efforts to lessen the reliance on fossil fuel energy sources.
The debate is also becoming more crucial because the House is debating the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill. Much to my displeasure and disappointment, it has voted for a net zero target by 2050, which is massively costly and increasingly unachievable. A vote by the House to opt for a net zero target by 2050 will have a significant impact on the generation of electricity from renewables and is something that I do not believe that MLAs and parties who have competed to out-green one another have taken into account. In opting for that target, they have disregarded the advice of the UK Climate Change Committee.
That having been said, and focusing on the report that the Public Accounts Committee produced, I believe that there are certain lessons to be learned, as the report highlights. DAERA believes that lessons are being learned in the Department for the Economy about that area of work, and that can only be a good thing as we move forward. The fact remains, however, that, in order to encourage businesses and sectors to pursue the generation of electricity from renewable sources, financial aid must be available, otherwise a business of any sort will resist such a costly exercise as pursuing renewable solutions. It is also the case that renewable technologies are very costly at this time and will remain so. That will change, however, as time progresses, technology improves and energy prices remain so volatile.
Those are the challenges that lie ahead for the Assembly and the Executive to ensure that opportunities are provided for industry to harness renewable energy generation. Already, 49% of electricity consumed in Northern Ireland comes from renewable sources. That has been achieved through various assistance schemes that have been initiated within the hugely ambitious new targets set for emissions, and those opportunities will have to be forthcoming for some time into the future.
The Committee's recommendations focus on any new energy initiatives by the Department and on the need to ensure that any potential environmental planning risks are discussed with other public bodies and mitigated. Skill sets and human resources in the Department must be at a level that gives adequate assurance that any new schemes are administered with an assured level of competence and less reliance on outside consultants. There are also improvements to be made by ensuring a greater sharing of information across Departments.
The Committee believes that there will be a huge benefit from ensuring that, where issues are cross-cutting, data and information is shared more widely across Departments. I welcome the Committee's contribution on the issue and welcome the fact that, since 2017, the Department for the Economy has actively taken steps to address concerns around the renewable energy scheme.
In closing, I note, from an official response to a question that I tabled to the Economy Minister, that work is ongoing at pace to meet the target set of having at least 70% of all renewable electricity consumed in Northern Ireland come from a variety of renewable sources by 2030. In his answer, the Minister for the Economy rightly mentioned the success of meeting the 40% consumption target by 2020, and, crucially, he states that meeting the 2030 target will require the establishment of a suitable support scheme for renewable electricity.
I understand from his official answer that a consultation will be undertaken this year, as per the commitment in the energy strategy action plan, to see how best to devise a support scheme, but I have no doubt whatsoever that lessons previously learned will feature in the building of any new supporting elements.
Mr Hilditch: I welcome the opportunity to highlight the work of the Public Accounts Committee during this Assembly term.
It is an honour to work with the Committee as it examines public spending with the benefit of hindsight. It allows us to highlight good practice and poor value for money and to recommend improvements to the stewardship of taxpayers' money.
The PAC has conducted significant work throughout the Assembly term, and I am pleased to see the motion being discussed on the Floor today. I hope that it will lead to significant change in the way that business is conducted and to lessons that can be learned. I thank all who have worked and engaged with the Committee, particularly the staff, the Audit Office and the witnesses. I also thank the Chair, Mr Humphrey, for his flawless navigation of the Public Accounts Committee during the term.
I will touch on some issues in the report on speeding up justice, which described a justice system that moves too slowly and is hindered by ineffectiveness and significant financial wastage. It is essential that all cases that enter the justice system are completed as quickly and efficiently as possible. It was welcomed that the justice system has begun to work in tandem to address the various issues, with the development of long-term high-level performance standards. However, it was noted that delays are still obvious and that, with the additional impact of COVID, it will take at least an estimated two years for the Crown Court system to return to the position that it was in prior to the pandemic.
Crown Court cases take twice as long to complete in Northern Ireland as they do in England and Wales and at a much higher cost. One particular concern is the lack of effective partnership working among key organisations in the justice system despite numerous attempts to remedy that. The Committee welcomes many of the initiatives that the justice system has introduced over the years to improve the system for citizens. However, it is critical that the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service (NICTS) and the Department of Justice develop and publish a strategy for working together, including long-term high-level performance standards for improving the timeliness and quality of Crown Court cases.
One of the most worrying findings is that there has been little apparent effort to reliably establish the cost of processes in the justice system or the financial impact of delay and inefficiency. We know that the justice system in England and Wales is significantly less expensive, and it appears that the endemic inefficiency in Northern Ireland contributes to the higher costs. The PAC's report also recognises the impact that COVID-19 has had on the system. It has not only interrupted normal operations but slowed the introduction of some reforms.
The Department of Justice accepted the Committee's recommendations with some qualifications, including a clear plan to reduce backlogs to the Crown Court, modelling the financial impacts of delaying cost savings from reform and a cross-agency strategy with long-term high-level performance standards.
We deserve a justice system that delivers for everyone and does so quickly and effectively. Monitoring progress against that vital objective is critical for the period ahead. We look forward to when our successor Public Accounts Committee revisits the issue. We hope to see a vast improvement for the betterment of the judicial system in Northern Ireland to provide the service that our constituents deserve.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Glaoim ar an Aire Airgeadais chun freagra a thabhairt ar an díospóireacht. Beidh suas le 20 bomaite agat, a Aire. I call the Minister of Finance, Conor Murphy, to respond to the debate. You will have up to 20 minutes.
Mr C Murphy (The Minister of Finance): I acknowledge the good work undertaken by the Committee and the Audit Office.
The financial context has changed dramatically over the last two years due to the pandemic. We have had to change how we conduct our business and take risks that previously we would not have contemplated. We have had to react at pace and radically change how we do things. There were new challenges and risks to be taken. In that unprecedented context, we did not get everything right, but risks had to be taken as we acted at pace. Schemes that previously would have been developed, tested and refined over many months were turned around within weeks.
While there must be accountability for decisions taken, the focus should be on learning lessons from that period. It is important that we do not become risk-averse. I hope that the Committee recognises that, as we continue in the time ahead to embrace new ways of doing things, applying innovation and creativity where possible, it will not be without risk. It is, therefore, important for the Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee to play their part in ensuring that Departments, agencies and other public-sector bodies can embrace change and take appropriate risks without the fear of criticism being foremost in their minds, overshadowing them or, worse, inhibiting the changes and transformation that are needed.
Because we had to react at pace, decisions had to be taken outside the normal processes for ensuring value for money and without having the right controls in place at the outset. Many departmental accounting officers, mine included, had to seek ministerial directions on a range of issues due to the abnormal operating environment that we were in. As I said, we must be held accountable for those decisions, and I welcome the scrutiny of the Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee in instances where ministerial directions are sought and given. In particular, I have to mention and welcome the new enhanced openness and transparency with regard to ministerial directions, as driven by the Public Accounts Committee, whereby they are now published on the Department of Finance website.
As we move forward and into recovery from the pandemic, we must try to get back to our more normal processes and ways of conducting business. Our public sector has been under enormous financial pressure, as it had to react to the unique circumstances that COVID presented and put resources towards dealing with the health emergency. Without a multi-year Budget, we lose a significant opportunity to put plans in place to provide for longer-term stability and create a platform to transform our public services. Nevertheless, with regard to service delivery, it is essential that we do what we can to continue to transform how services are delivered in the future. It needs to be driven not only by the budgetary position but by the need to improve how we develop, design and engage in the delivery of all public-sector services. Several strands of work are going on that contribute to the transformation of how we deliver services. As well as tackling operational challenges, the transformation that we are embarking on needs to address the Executive's longer-term aims and identify and develop innovative and cost-effective ways to deliver high-quality services to the public.
It is key to have the right structure and balance in place between central government Departments and their delivery partners or arm's-length bodies (ALBs). After all, around 70% of the Executive's resource DEL Budget is spent on services delivered through our arm's-length bodies. Members will therefore be aware that a review of arm's-length bodies is a priority in 'New Decade, New Approach'. In June 2021, the Executive agreed that a two-part approach should be adopted to the review of the arm's-length bodies with legislation to be brought forward to facilitate the rationalisation of bodies, informed by an efficiency and effectiveness review. It is for each Minister to consider the effectiveness and efficiency of their ALBs. My Department is, however, working with other Departments to enable and support the process.
Given that almost three quarters of our Budget is spent through ALBs, it goes without saying that there needs to be a good working relationship between Departments and arm's-length bodies. They need to work in true partnership to deliver the best outcomes for the citizen. It will be of interest to the Committee, therefore, that my Department has been taking forward work in the area over the last few years to improve and rebalance those relationships. That work kicked off with an innovation lab, at the start of 2018, that was attended by key stakeholders and partners, including the chairs forum, the chief executives forum, the Audit Office and representatives from a range of Departments. My officials have continued to work in collaboration with those key stakeholders, and, up to early 2020, good progress was made and a number of products and guidance were agreed on. However, with the onset of the COVID pandemic in early 2020, unfortunately, progress on implementing the new arrangements slowed down as we all focused on responding to the unique challenges presented by the pandemic. However, now is the right time to refocus efforts and progress the full implementation of the action plan. That will help to rebalance relationships and facilitate a move towards a true partnership-working arrangement.
As we move forward, it is not just about working well in partnership with our arm's-length bodies to deliver public services; we need to think of a whole-systems delivery model to achieve our outcomes. We need to break down barriers and work as a joined-up Government across Departments and sectors, including the local government sector. A good example of that in my Department is how we are managing the delivery of city and growth deals. My Department is leading on a joined-up, cross-Civil Service approach to that £1·3 billion capital programme. Finance officials are opening doors for a whole-systems approach, facilitating cross-government working groups, agreeing governance on structures and delivery models, championing a consistent approach to city and growth deals and continually engaging and collaborating with councils and delivery partners.
We are working to get our organisation, relationships and leadership right and focusing on more joined-up thinking and working across Departments. We must also focus on our people, and getting a diverse range of people with the right skills in the right job at the right time is crucial to a well-functioning, modern civil service. We are making good progress but must not underestimate the programme of work required to address the breadth and depth of the Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee's recommendations on long-standing issues, such as recruitment, skills, performance etc. Department of Finance officials are working with the head of the Civil Service and trade union colleagues on the interventions that will make a real difference.
What I have talked about so far are ways in which we are trying to improve how the public sector operates in order to improve outcomes for the citizen. However, another key element in improving for the future is learning from the past. We are all familiar with the issues that came to light not only through the various PAC evidence sessions on the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme but through the RHI inquiry itself, and many lessons have already been learned and applied. However, top-line messages for the Civil Service from the RHI inquiry are that officials need to understand their role as civil servants; be confident and competent in fulfilling that role; and uphold the ethical standards of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality.
Corporate policies and processes need to make it easier to do the job well, so there has been some revision of policies and guidance. The Executive's response to the inquiry is about making sure that things are done better, and that is not just a matter of changing the rules. Civil servants need to understand the principles behind those policies and practices and to abide by them. That is why the inquiry report states that its recommendations for the Civil Service require sustained system-wide change and will take time to implement effectively. Importantly, change needs to be driven at a political level, particularly by Ministers.
Learning from the past is where the Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee can continue to deliver real added value across the system. It is that retrospective look, shining a light on areas where things could and should have been done better or where they have gone wrong, that helps us to continually learn and improve. It will therefore be important that we — Departments, the Audit Office and the PAC — continue to work together to deliver an effective public audit process that adds value whilst ensuring a balance between constructive criticism and point-scoring or unfair criticism.
On lessons, I will address some of the main reports that the Committee dealt with as part of the debate. A number were touched on by Members.
The Chair, Mr Humphrey, touched on the one that a number of Members mentioned: the 'Major Capital Projects' report. My Department acknowledges the need to strengthen the capability in the Civil Service to commission and deliver major contracts and projects overall. We are working on reform in project delivery and commercial capability. Some reports are more specific to other Departments, of course. I am sure that the Public Accounts Committee will continue to engage with the Department of Education, the Department for the Economy and other Departments. However, in relation to capacity in the Civil Service, a review is under way of the operating model for people management within the Civil Service, and a report is expected by the end of March. I do not underestimate the programme of work required to address the full range of recommendations. We are working with the Executive Office, the head of the Civil Service and the Civil Service board to prioritise interventions that will make a real difference. I am pleased to say that there has been progress across all the areas identified by the Committee.
Mr McHugh also touched on capital projects. He mentioned specifically his frustration at a range of projects. The lack of delivery of projects has been a consistent theme from Members, specifically in relation to the Procurement Board, which falls under my Department. It has commissioned work to determine the root causes of delay in major projects and to quantify their impact. That information will be used to inform proposals for changes to systems and processes. The Committee is aware that the Department developed and introduced new business case guidance in November 2020 designed to improve the business case development process and ensure that relevant specialists are involved throughout. Work has begun on an interim review of the implementation of the guidance, with a full review to be undertaken after 36 months.
Andrew Muir also touched on some of the capacity issues in the Civil Service and on ensuring that there was a joined-up approach to dealing with them. As I said, the Department of Finance is working with the Executive Office, the head of the Civil Service and a reconstituted Civil Service board to provide strategic leadership, delivery focus and governance. An MOU setting out the respective roles of TEO and my Department creates a platform for the joint working between us. We are also developing proposals with the Executive Office to enable delivery and continuous improvement of HR services, as well as delivery of a range of organisational development commitments such as workforce planning. As I said, we need to review the operating model for people management.
Mr Irwin focused on the report on renewable energy and raised points about future schemes, consultation and ensuring that matters were got right. The Department for the Economy has assured my Department that any future schemes that are developed with appropriate stakeholder engagement will be done with particular regard to the information and evidence provided by vested interests and that it will ensure that they have access to appropriate costs and rates of return to ensure appropriate value for money.
Mr Hilditch raised points about the report on speeding up the justice system. The Department of Justice has informed us that it is working with the justice organisations to deliver a programme of work aimed at speeding up the criminal justice system. That is being overseen by a multi-agency programme board, which has representation from the key justice organisations and is chaired by the Minister of Justice herself. The Criminal Justice (Committal Reform) Bill will, among other things, help to speed up some of the more serious cases in the Crown Court. The Bill has passed its Final Stage in the Assembly, and officials are working with justice partners to discuss its implementation. In response to the Committee's report, the DOJ is seeking to build on reporting opportunities to help to gain a better understanding of the impact of delay in the justice system.
I have covered a number of the points that were raised. The Public Accounts Committee has produced valued and valuable reports, and I am pleased to respond on behalf of my Department on some of the matters that we are dealing with and on behalf of some of the other Departments. Having been a member of the Public Accounts Committee on a number of occasions, I know that it will continue the work of engaging with Departments to ensure that, when reports are done and recommendations made, the recommendations are followed through in a timely fashion.
I thank all those who contributed to a good debate. I hope that we can all work collaboratively to meet the challenges that, no doubt, lie ahead and, in turn, help our public sector to meet those challenges.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): I call the Deputy Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee, Roy Beggs, who will have up to 15 minutes to conclude the debate and make the winding-up speech on the motion.
Mr Beggs (The Deputy Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank my fellow Public Accounts Committee members for their contributions today and for the way in which we have worked together to bring about improvements in a wide range of areas. It is clear from the Northern Ireland Audit Office reports that things have gone wrong on many occasions. It is important to focus on those mistakes and to contribute constructively to bringing about improvements. That is certainly how I saw our members working. As was said, I do not believe that we divided on any issue. We worked together in the interests of the public.
The Chairperson, Mr William Humphrey, began the debate by giving an overview of the seven PAC reports that have been brought before the House. The Committee was inhibited during this Assembly session, in that it has been operating for only the past two years, which included a period when COVID was at its height. Therefore, quite an extensive number of reports were completed. Many have finished the process and have received memorandums of response from Departments. Others still require a response. The PAC shone a light — a further light — on those areas, and it is evident that there is a gap between where the Northern Ireland Civil Service is now and where it needs to be. I noted the Minister's comments, and I hope that many of those gaps will be filled.
The Committee came across a range of themes. They included the need for strong and decisive leadership from the top to drive change; the need for the correct skill set and experience to deliver projects, particularly large-scale projects; the need to identify barriers at an earlier stage; and, most importantly, the need for collaboration across Departments and, for that matter, other public bodies.
We cannot afford the cost of silos.
Mr Humphrey focused on the 'Impact Review of Special Educational Needs' report. He highlighted the cross-cutting issues and, again, the need for collaboration, which is a constant theme in our reports. He later linked that to the report on 'Closing the Gap', where social deprivation and links to educational under-attainment are apparent. That is one of the additional six published reports that have yet to be fully responded to, but that will be done in the fullness of time. Mr Humphrey highlighted the fact that it is vital that we improve the lot of our young people.
The evidence sessions on special educational needs demonstrated to me how Committee members can bring their own experience and add to Northern Ireland Audit Office reports through our Committee work and our engagement with witnesses. A constituent had advised me about an issue involving special educational needs and had complained about multiple classroom assistants in post-primary school settings standing at the back of the classroom and not actually engaging. When I raised that during our evidence session, I got a wide range of comments, and a wide range of people agreed with me. The permanent secretary agreed that that does not show value for money. Mr Boyd, the former chief executive of the Education Authority, said, "You are absolutely right" and that it was one of the issues previously highlighted by a 2017 Audit Office report. Dr McMorran, who is a member of the Education Authority, said that I was absolutely right and that what I said was "100% true". He then said that it is a "total disgrace"; that is the language that he used.
Subsequently, Ms Logue, the principal of Long Tower Primary School, when discussing the 'Closing the Gap' report, said:
"I have a classroom at present with four — almost five — classroom assistants and over 30 children in it."
She said that she would much rather have the money to decide so that she could make better use of it for the benefit of those children. Ms O'Hara, the former principal of Hazelwood Integrated College, said:
"you have hit the nail on the head".
Mrs Montgomery, the principal of Belfast Boys' Model School, indicated how she had to fight to get autonomy with that budget each year, but she also demonstrated how much better use she had made of that budget by employing additional teachers for some one-to-one learning, small group classes and, indeed, some classroom assistants. I was pleased that that was taken on board by the Public Accounts Committee report, which recommended an:
"immediate independent, external review of the SEN service provision".
That recommendation was accepted by the Department of Education, and it will be commissioned by DE to address the specific elements and will be delivered in phases. Among the areas covered is an external review of:
"funding of SEN services including the delegation of budgets".
We have had an outcome there, and I am delighted about that. It is important that we contribute to change.
Andrew Muir spoke about the 'Major Capital Projects' report and the report on 'Capacity and Capability in the Northern Ireland Civil Service'. I agree that there is an overlap between those reports, because it is clear to me, from reading the reports, that the lack of capacity has created some of the difficulties. Often, there was not strong leadership, not the correct skill set to deliver and no experience to deal with the sheer scale of some of the projects. In particular, Ulster University's rebuild project in Belfast was plagued with problems, and the cost was ultimately paid from the public purse. That meant that other capital investment could not occur because it had been sucked up into some of the large investments. He also said that we needed to look more carefully at the capital spending left at the end of the year. In the past, moneys were returned unspent, and he said that it was almost by accident this year that we managed to balance out and not lose some of that funding. Clearly, there are many challenges going forward.
Mr McHugh spoke on the report on 'Major Capital Projects' and highlighted the delays to Casement Park, the A5, the Strule educational site and the regional children's hospital. He focused on a couple of issues that were, he thought, contributing to those delays, particularly the need for planning reform and to speed up planning decisions. Everyone agrees with that, and that urgency is becoming even more apparent to everyone. He highlighted the fact that public inquiries and judicial reviews are also causing delays. He said that it is important to learn from those, and I agree. He said that it is important that there is public access to legal process so that no inappropriate decisions occur. There is a need for balance: how do we ensure that we protect the public interest against not just bad decision-making but undue delays? That will have to be resolved. It is certainly having an impact on large projects, and we need to do things better than they are being done at present.
William Irwin focused on the 'Generating Electricity from Renewable Energy' report. He spoke about the importance of renewable energy, particularly in reducing emissions. That must be becoming clearer to everyone, especially as we have just spent two days talking about climate change and its implications. Going forward, this will be an increasingly important area. He also highlighted the need for awareness across Departments when bringing in new funding, to ensure that all cross-cutting issues are addressed. When we examined that report, we saw how public funding was given to some projects that did not have all the necessary planning or environmental requirements in place. Clearly, there is a need to be more careful in stipulating requirements before funding is approved and handed over.
David Hilditch concentrated on delays in Crown Court cases. He said that we were taking twice as long to dispose of such cases as our counterparts in England and Wales, which brought with it an additional cost. He highlighted the need for the PSNI, the PPS and the Courts and Tribunals Service to work more collaboratively to ensure that, collectively, they provide a better service. There can be no doubt about that. It is not just about the cost, which is an important element; we also have to think of the victims who suffer during those delays. He made the very important point that many relevant bodies need to work together in the public interest. Again, the issue of silo working was highlighted in the 'Speeding up the Justice System' report.
The Minister of Finance talked about risk and how it was important that we should not be risk-averse but take appropriate risk. We have to embrace change and take some risk. We need to be careful about what we do. That is the clear message that should go out to everyone. There is a danger of all public bodies and civil servants becoming risk-averse. It is important that we bring about change, which involves some risk. The point was well made that we should make that a calculated risk. The Minister also said that he wished that some of his reforms were further ahead but that COVID had contributed to some delays. He was hopeful that, going forward, those delays could be overcome and that he could get back on his intended path. He said that it is important that the Department works well with bodies such as local government — he mentioned city deals as an example of that — and that ethical standards are maintained across the Civil Service.
Mr Humphrey mentioned that we had engaged with the head of the Civil Service. It became apparent from our report on capacity and capability that there was a need for a change at a higher level. I do not recall this happening before, but I was pleased that the Public Accounts Committee engaged with the head of the Civil Service on those issues in order that she was fully aware of some of our areas of concern. A further meeting is scheduled for Tuesday 8 March with Ms Brady at which the Public Accounts Committee will review how she is progressing on the areas that we presented to her as requiring change. Those include ensuring that business cases are realistic and have all the required information and ensuring that the skills that are required to manage that area are available; ensuring that there is good governance; and being aware of the need to identify early warning signs of inefficiencies or that projects are starting to veer off course so that rectifying action can be taken at an early stage.
In conclusion, the Public Accounts Committee legacy report will include seven reports that have received a memorandum of reply. An additional six reports have still to complete their process. We will receive a response back from the Department of Finance on the recommendations. Those reports are 'Addiction Services in Northern Ireland'; 'Closing the Gap — Social Deprivation and Links to Educational Attainment'; 'Sports Sustainability Fund', 'The Northern Ireland Budget Process'; 'Broadband Investment in Northern Ireland'; and 'Planning in Northern Ireland'. We will draw that response to the attention of the subsequent Public Accounts Committee so that it can appropriately scrutinise those areas.
Mr Beggs: I have welcomed the opportunity for the Public Accounts Committee to present to the Assembly some of the key aspects of its work over the past two years. I hope that lessons will be learned for the benefit of the public.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly takes note of the following Public Accounts Committee reports:
'Major Capital Projects' [NIA 46/17-22];
'Management of the NI Direct Strategic Partner Project – helping to deliver Digital Transformation and The LandWeb Project: An Update' [NIA 68/17-22';
'Impact Review of Special Educational Needs' [NIA 75/17-22];
'Capacity and Capability in the Northern Ireland Civil Service [NIA 97/17-22];
'Driver and Vehicle Agency 2019-20' [NIA 101/17-22];
'Generating Electricity from Renewable Energy' [NIA 123/17-22]; and
'Speeding up the Justice System' [NIA 127/17-22];
and the following Department of Finance memoranda of reply:
'Major Capital Projects';
'Management of the NI Direct Strategic Partner Project – helping to deliver Digital Transformation and The LandWeb Project: An Update';
'Impact Review of Special Educational Needs';
'Capacity and Capability in the Northern Ireland Civil Service';
'Driver and Vehicle Agency 2019-20';
'Generating Electricity from Renewable Energy'; and
'Speeding up the Justice System'.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): I have received notice from the Minister for the Economy that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members in the Chamber that, in light of social distancing being observed by parties, the Speaker's ruling that Members must be in the Chamber to hear a statement if they wish to ask a question has been relaxed. Members who are participating remotely must make sure that their name is on the speaking list if they wish to be called. Members who are present in the Chamber must also do that, but they may do so by rising in their place as well as by notifying the Business Office or Speaker's Table directly.
I remind Members to be concise when asking their question. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed. I also remind Members that, in accordance with long-established procedure, points of order are not normally taken during a statement or the question period afterwards.
Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy): Members are not shy about declaring their ideas or policies as "game changers", even if few of those genuinely are. There is no doubt, however, that Project Stratum is a genuine game changer, not least for those living in rural communities who, previously, could not access fast or reliable broadband.
Project Stratum is the largest publicly funded telecommunications infrastructure project of its kind in Northern Ireland. I hope that Members across the House are familiar with the genesis of the scheme, but, for those who, perhaps, choose not to acknowledge the origins of the project, it came about as a direct result of the DUP/Conservative confidence-and-supply agreement. When given the opportunity to do so, DUP colleagues in Westminster used their influence to the benefit of everyone in Northern Ireland by negotiating a broadband intervention scheme that was allocated £165 million of public funding, £150 million of which was secured under the confidence-and-supply agreement between the Democratic Unionist Party and the Conservatives, with £15 million coming from the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.
After a competitive tendering process, Fibrus Networks Ltd was appointed as the contractor to deliver gigabit-capable broadband to over 76,000 premises using the £165 million of public funding and its own substantial investment of more than £45 million. My Department has now secured additional capital funding of £32 million to bring a further 8,500 premises into Project Stratum, mainly, again, in rural areas of Northern Ireland. That additional funding has been allocated by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), along with additional funding allocations from DAERA and DFE. The additional premises now include those that were out of scope owing to insufficient funding when the contract for Project Stratum was signed and premises that were not considered for inclusion at that time owing to anomalies in the Pointer address database maintained by Land and Property Services (LPS).
It is important to remember that 97% of Project Stratum’s intervention area is rural. It is defined as Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) band H rural, which means small villages and hamlets of less than 1,000 in population and sparsely populated open countryside. As a result of this much-needed public intervention, some 85,000 eligible premises will now benefit from Project Stratum. Those homes and businesses will have access to gigabit-capable broadband, which delivers the fastest speeds available to consumers. The services will be provided on an open access network, where I expect healthy competition will emerge to provide consumers with more broadband choice.
Broadband is now increasingly viewed as a utility. In 2018, the National Infrastructure Commission, the Government’s independent adviser on the UK’s infrastructure needs, stated:
"Digital connectivity is now an essential utility, as central to the UK’s society and economy as electricity or water supply."
The broadband connectivity figures for Northern Ireland paint an improving picture. According to Ofcom’s latest data, Northern Ireland now has the highest coverage of high-speed broadband services in the UK, with three quarters of homes being able to access gigabit-capable broadband. That is a result of significant commercial investment from telecommunications providers such as BT Openreach, Virgin Media, and Fibrus Networks.
Commercial deployment of gigabit-capable infrastructure, regarded as the gold standard, has, however, been focused mainly on our urban centres. Ofcom's figures in its latest 'Connected Nations' report, published in December, indicate that, for urban areas, gigabit-capable broadband is available to 76% of premises, but the figure drops to 36% for rural areas.
The broadband connectivity gap is now closing, thanks in large part to Project Stratum. Although we are still behind the rest of the UK, 91% of premises here now have access to superfast broadband services that deliver speeds of 30 Mb per second or higher. In the past year, superfast access in rural areas has increased from 67% to 70% owing mainly to the implementation phase of Project Stratum.
To date, Fibrus Networks has completed infrastructure deployment work to over 22,000 premises. All scheduled builds in seven areas for this quarter are on track to be delivered in line with deployment targets. More than 10,000 fibre poles have been planted, and 2,000 kilometres of fibre cable have been installed, despite challenges to working conditions that the contractor and its subcontractors have faced during the pandemic. That is a remarkable achievement when compared with comparable projects in other parts of the UK or Ireland.
The additional 8,500 premises that my Department has now brought into the project's scope include 2,500 harder-to-reach properties that, owing to the exhaustion of funding, were not part of the original contract, plus a further 6,000 eligible premises in Project Stratum's state aid-compliant postcode areas, which were identified through the project team's ongoing engagement with LPS colleagues, following the further interrogation of premises data held in the Pointer data set.
That process was state aid-assured and approved by the Building Digital UK (BDUK) assurance board in early December, and the Department of Finance granted approval in late December. The portal that is managed by the contractor for Project Stratum will continue to be updated to reflect those changes, along with build plans and timelines. The public can go online at www.hyperfastni.com for information on continued deployment plans.
The deployment of the new full-fibre network infrastructure to reach all 85,000 premises now within Project Stratum will continue across four extended quarters of network build, with Fibrus Networks expected to complete deployment to some of the most hard-to-reach premises by March 2025.
As a result of our continued public investment in broadband infrastructure, the connectivity gap in Northern Ireland will be all but closed at superfast levels, with all premises to benefit from new infrastructure under Project Stratum having access to gigabit-capable fibre to the premises broadband. That means that Northern Ireland will be well placed to benefit from further government initiatives, including Project Gigabit, the UK Government's plan to bring full-fibre and gigabit-capable broadband to every home and business across the UK as soon as possible.
By building on the momentum that has resulted from both commercial and publicly funded investment in broadband infrastructure, Northern Ireland has the opportunity, once again, to lead on broadband connectivity. My Department will continue to engage with colleagues in DCMS to ensure that Northern Ireland benefits from investment in gigabit-capable infrastructure in predominantly rural areas, where it is evident that commercial investment is not viable.
Regardless of where people live and work in Northern Ireland, I believe that they should have access to the best broadband services available. A recent Ipsos MORI report that was prepared for DCMS and published in 2021 looked at the benefits of access to improved broadband services through extensive engagement with businesses and local bodies. Benefits highlighted in the report include increased employment; the creation of jobs; increased business turnover; efficiency gains; improved e-learning capabilities; enhanced school admin processes; improved e-health capabilities, including video-enabled consultations; and improvements to subjective well-being, particularly among older age groups.
As Project Stratum fulfils its objectives, and as my Department further develops opportunities to improve the broadband connectivity landscape in Northern Ireland wherever it is needed, we can look forward to the benefits that a better-connected society will bring to those who work and live in Northern Ireland, thanks to publicly funded initiatives such as Project Stratum. I commend the statement to the House.
Mr O'Dowd: That was not so much a ministerial statement as a party political broadcast. On the subject of party political broadcasts, since the previous time that I questioned your Department on the subject, you have spent a considerable amount of time misrepresenting my position. In fact, I even featured on a DUP social media channel.
When I see the words "DUP" and "subsidy" in a statement, I instinctively have to ask questions, and that is what I will continue to do. Minister, in your statement, you said that broadband is a utility, so why are you standing over a situation in which rural dwellers are paying twice as much for that publicly subsidised utility as those in urban settings?
Mr Lyons: I do not know whether that is a U-turn from the Member. If it is, I welcome it. What the Member said in the Committee was fairly clear. He questioned whether we should use public money to fund broadband improvements in rural areas. Neither I nor my officials believe that those improvements would have been sorted out through the market and private investment. If he has changed his mind, I am delighted that he has come on board and realised the importance of the DUP investment in infrastructure.
He referred to the different costs between urban and rural areas. That is something that can now be addressed. As I said in my statement, I hope that there will be increased competition, because that is the way in which we will drive down prices. I recognise that there are differentials in costs right now. However, thanks to the investment that we have provided, the infrastructure is in place, which means that competition can happen. We have been able to include 2,829 properties in his constituency that did not previously have access to broadband. Not only will they now be able to access broadband, but, thanks to the infrastructure that has been put in place and the competition that I hope will follow, they will get cheaper prices too.
Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister. I know full well how beneficial Project Stratum has been to my rural constituency, even if other Members in the House are not so sure. Will the Minister detail how long people in rural constituencies such as Fermanagh and South Tyrone would have had to wait to get proper broadband were it not for Project Stratum?
Mr Lyons: Of course, that is a very difficult question for us to answer, because it would have been outside of our control. Had we not been prepared to put in the funding to enable that to happen, it would have been left entirely to private investment, which might never have come along. We could have been waiting for a very long time — possibly forever — for that essential infrastructure to be put in place, so it is the right question for the Member to ask.
I am pleased that, by the end of 2025, an additional 13,572 premises will be connected in her constituency. An additional 3,398 premises in Fermanagh and South Tyrone are connected today because we took action and were prepared to combine the public investment that we secured with the private investment from Fibrus. That is making a change today.
Ms S Bradley: I rise in fear of being a participant in a DUP party political broadcast. It is public money. Although I welcome people having fair access to broadband, can the Minister say with absolute confidence that every penny spent has been value for money and well spent? Is he absolutely certain that every penny can be accounted for, and that there are no shadows around the pot of money?
Mr Lyons: It went through all of the appropriate tendering processes, as she would expect. There was a business case for which all of that information was gathered. The work was done, and it was passed. I am confident that the project is set to do what we planned it to do. She will see the benefit in her constituency through the additional 10,132 properties that will have access to broadband. In fact, her constituency is behind only Fermanagh and South Tyrone and West Tyrone in the total number of properties that will be impacted by the project. As of today, an additional 4,828 properties in her constituency have been connected. I encourage her to ask those residents and businesses in her constituency whether they think that it is worth it, because I think that they will say that it is.
Mr Nesbitt: I am still reeling from John O'Dowd effectively quoting Margaret Thatcher. That will take some processing.
I will agree with the Minister: in the 21st century, this is as important as water or electricity supply. I hope that he will join me in making a distinction between premises that have access to gigabit-capable broadband and those that avail of it. I would be interested in the percentage of premises that have taken up Stratum and signed up with a telecommunications provider. What are his thoughts on the customer satisfaction data that he requested I forward to his Department?
Mr Lyons: First, when properties became eligible, we wrote to individuals and made them aware that they would be able to avail themselves of it for their properties. They will have been made aware when that work was completed. I am happy to find out that information for the Member. I do not know what percentage of properties that were unable to get it before and are now able to get it have signed up, but, on the basis of the conversations that I have had and the discussions that my Department has had with individuals, I expect that percentage to be exceptionally high. For the Member's information, 4,729 properties in his constituency will benefit by the end of the programme. As of today, 1,084 have already been connected.
I appreciate the Member's sending through the results of the online reviews that were conducted in regard to Fibrus. I believe that that is the internet service provider (ISP), rather than Fibrus Networks, which is operating in Northern Ireland, so I have not had any complaints that I have been made aware of directly about Fibrus, either as the network or the ISP, other than the general cases that we are dealing with. I do not know whether that data was based on the rest of the UK or where it was based, but I am not getting a huge volume of correspondence about that in Northern Ireland. Of course, as I have said before, I hope that, as more and more people get connected, there will be greater competition between providers in Northern Ireland. That is the way in which we drive down costs and improve customer service.
Mr Dickson: Minister, there is not much confidence now between the DUP and the Conservative Party. You said in a previous answer in the House today that you were confident about the whole process of Project Stratum, yet the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) issued a report that issued criticism, particularly around the procurement aspect of Project Stratum. Can you tell the House what lessons you and your Department have learned from the criticism that you received from the Northern Ireland Audit Office?
Mr Lyons: Of course, we took that report seriously, and, drawing on some of the best practices acknowledged in the NIAO report on Project Stratum, we have identified a requirement for further funding to provide qualifying next generation access. Of course, we continue to monitor the connectivity landscape and take into consideration all available premises data in regard to that. Concerns were raised around the deployment and the tendering process, but my Department is satisfied that, without further funding, those premises would have remained commercially vulnerable. We believe that all of the appropriate processes were followed. Having raised the issue with my officials, I know that they are content that the right steps were taken at every opportunity. Of course, where there is opportunity for us to learn from these, we should do so.
Ms Dillon: On a point of clarity, I think that the Minister, when he responded to my colleague, said that the DUP funded this: I am fairly certain that it was the National Insurance and tax payers who funded it, as is the case with any subsidised project. People are paying for this already, and then they have to pay doubly for it. For some of my constituents, I question the value for money when people who live on one side of a lane have access to broadband through Project Stratum while, on the other side of the same lane, other people do not. This is happening across Mid Ulster, and I am certain that it affects constituents of Members across the House. Will the Minister please respond on how he will address that issue? It is not value for money where you are not connecting all houses on one lane or one road or where there is one house at the end of a road that is being left out of the project.
Mr Lyons: My goodness, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sinn Féin are turning into the Tories, it seems. First we hear that public money should not be invested in rural areas in this way, and now we hear that there is no such thing as public money but it is taxpayers' money instead. That is an interesting change to witness from Sinn Féin across the way.
The first issue that the Member raised was funding. I agree that the funding came from the UK Government, but it was my party that secured that funding, and, as a result, we are able to deliver those benefits for people across Northern Ireland, including 9,695 people in the Member's constituency, for 4,714 of whom the service has already been delivered.
We are keen to hear where there are issues. I have heard in my constituency about someone on one side of the road getting access while others do not. We have been able to find solutions or alternatives. If we can do that, I will be more than happy for her to pass the details to me, because our aim in the Department is to make sure that as many people as possible are connected. Additional funding has been provided to increase the capacity and the number of people who can get access to broadband, if we can do that in a simple, straightforward way. It does not make sense to build infrastructure down a lane to one house; if someone else can also benefit from it as well, you are essentially halving the cost of the subsidy. If there are ways in which we can help, I am more than happy to ensure that we do so.
Mr Weir: I welcome the statement from the Minister on this vital intervention for consumers and the wider economy. Some Members make jibes about confidence, but today's statement shows that, as a result of the arrangements that were made, there has been plenty of supply for Northern Ireland. In light of that, what is the Minister's assessment of the impact of Project Stratum on businesses across Northern Ireland?
Mr Lyons: I welcome the Member's words. We have been able to deliver on this and to secure the funding. He is absolutely right to raise the issue of impact on business because, as I said, research has proven that it increases the capability and efficiency of businesses and increases employment. When I was in the Middle East a few weeks ago to talk about why Northern Ireland is such a good place to do business, I did not have to raise the issue, but others raised the issue of our connectivity and Project Stratum with me. Businesses and investors have heard about it, and connectivity, along with talent and skills, is one of the major draws of Northern Ireland.
We hear a lot about regional disparity in the House, but we are making sure that we are not just helping cities and urban areas but helping across the board to make Northern Ireland a much more attractive place. Many Members have told me about the issues that they have experienced in struggling to get jobs and investment into their areas. Connectivity is one of the ways in which we can improve investments, jobs and businesses in rural areas. The scheme targets rural areas in particular, and we are seeing the benefits of that being delivered, including to over 1,000 properties in the Member's constituency already.
Mr K Buchanan: My colleague from Mid Ulster referred to the anomalies down a laneway, for example: four houses and one of them missed. Minister, you referred to the Pointer database that assisted your Department in producing the white list. How big an issue was that system, given that it was not correctly maintained to include all houses — there are five houses down a lane, but suddenly there are only four — and how can you be accountable if the LPS system was not correct and you did not know that a house existed?
Mr Lyons: That was one of the problems that we faced. We relied on data maintained by LPS that was outside our control. The issue became known to us because so many additional properties were identified and brought to our attention. That is why we were able to secure the additional £32 million of funding, and that is why we are now able to access those additional properties. This is not the end of our quest to ensure that more people in Northern Ireland can have access to broadband. I will continue to liaise with the UK Government on Project Gigabit to ensure that, where additional funding becomes available for Northern Ireland, we use it to increase those figures even further.
Mrs Barton: Thank you for your statement, Minister. I agree that the connectivity gap is closing, particularly in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. It is disappointing, however, that it will take another three years for some of the hardest-to-reach premises to receive broadband access. In particular, a lot of small businesses in remote and rural areas still have difficulties.
Mr Lyons: If I could ensure that everybody had it tomorrow, I would do that. Unfortunately, it is not within my power. However, we have set a timetable for it to be carried out. I confirm that we are on track, despite the difficulties that came as a result of the pandemic. We are on course to have, by the end of 2024, all the original properties identified delivered with that high-speed access. In 2025, we will deliver to the additional properties that have been identified but not picked up in earlier phases.
Many will be disappointed that it has not happened sooner. I hope that, in the Member's constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, 13,752 properties will be very pleased that they will get it by the end of that period. I am sure that there is great joy in Fermanagh and South Tyrone over the 3,398 that already have it as a result of what we have been able to secure.
Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his statement and his work in delivering Project Stratum across Northern Ireland. How important is connectivity when Invest NI sells Northern Ireland to investors abroad?
Mr Lyons: It absolutely is important, because, more and more, the connectivity issue is raised with us. I mentioned what foreign direct investors said to me when I met them. It is crucial, in particular, in those rural areas. That is what we are able to deliver.
Of course, it is not just in rural areas. We are still able to help in areas that have relatively good broadband provision. The Member's constituency is a good example of that. There has been good connectivity in North Down. However, this will deliver an additional 874 premises that will get access to broadband. That helps for those who have established businesses or are establishing businesses. They should make sure that they take advantage of it.
Mr Beggs: I welcome the improvement in broadband services generally. However, I understand that, in GB, 100% of homes will have access to a broadband service of 2 megabits per second or greater. Even after Project Stratum, approximately 2% of homes in Northern Ireland will still have a relatively poor broadband service with such a slow speed. Others, like me, have an unreliable broadband service — I declare an interest — of less than 10 megabits per second. My question is this: what options will exist for people who still have a poor broadband service to enable them to get the high-speed service that the Minister alludes to?
Mr Lyons: I understand the concerns expressed by some who have missed out on Project Stratum. There are those who have been identified as having a speed of more than 30 megabits per second but do not feel that they are getting that service and feel that they have been excluded. The Member probably falls into that category. I am sorry that I was unable to deliver for my constituent Mr Beggs on this occasion. However, this is where Project Gigabit comes in to make sure that there is an opportunity to use that funding to target those who have been missed out. We are talking about a relatively small number of people who have been left out. In the meantime, there are additional service providers that provide methods other than fibre to get increased broadband speeds. I hope that Mr Beggs is able to avail himself of those in the meantime. I continue to make the case to the UK Government so that we can get to the position that we all want to be in, which is 100% coverage and high-speed broadband for all.
Mr Allister: I take advantage of the self-congratulatory electioneering statement to ask about a group of my constituents in the Braid who were excluded from Project Stratum. Openreach had promised to make provision for them but has failed to do so. How can those residents be brought into the ambit of Project Stratum, or are they to be forgotten about?
Mr Lyons: My Department is aware that some coverage claims from broadband suppliers may be susceptible to data anomalies or that, in some cases, those claims may not reflect a commercial supplier's ability to deliver against indicated plans or that a supplier's deployment plans may change That continues to be a source of frustration for my Department, but the target intervention area was defined based on the best data point that was available at the time.
We will continue to engage with broadband suppliers, including wireless internet service providers, to identify potentially viable solutions for premises. We realise that commercial roll-out plans sometimes change, but my Department encourages broadband suppliers to stand over commitments made during the Project Stratum open market review.
Individuals who require information on their premises' inclusion or exclusion from Project Stratum should contact my officials via the email address on the DFE website. If their premises are identified as having been incorrectly excluded, my Department will explore directly with the Project Stratum contractor, Fibrus Networks, what options might be available and whether it will be in a position to identify a viable connectivity solution that does not require an immediate public subsidy. If the Member would like to contact me, we can look at those options.
I am sure that the Member will also want to congratulate me on being able to deliver for 7,296 of his constituents in North Antrim who will benefit from this. That is real delivery for the Member, and I am happy to have done that through the money that was secured by my party. I have even better news for him: right now, as a result of my party's intervention, 2,982 households have broadband in Mr Allister's constituency as of today. I hope that that is a cause of great rejoicing in North Antrim and, indeed, across Northern Ireland.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): I do not think that there is a Standing Order on self-congratulation.
As the Business Committee has agreed to meet at 1.30 pm, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The first item of business when we return will be questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.
The sitting was suspended at 1.32 pm.
On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —
Mr Dickson: Thank you very much, Minister, for a somewhat disappointing answer. Do you agree that sanitary and phytosanitary checks at points of entry are vital to upholding our animal welfare and good food standards? How will we deal with standards under the UK's free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand, which definitely threaten our food standards and regulations?
Mr Poots: I certainly do not agree that they are necessary. In the first instance, food that comes into Northern Ireland and is to remain in Northern Ireland poses zero threat to the European Union single market. The fact that the Alliance Party, today, through Mr Dickson, has indicated that it wants to have checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which will lead to less supply and, in turn, to higher costs and a reduced offer to consumers, demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the Alliance Party is more interested in the politics of the European Union than it is about the people whom it serves.
Mr McGuigan: Minister, in your responses to previous questions for written and oral answer, including the one just now, you have not provided an answer about the cost of that advice on halting sanitary and phytosanitary checks. Can you confirm how much was paid to the Attorney General for his advice? Was he paid with public money?
Mr Poots: Well, we do not have a bill, the Attorney General is female, not male, and the Attorney General does not charge for advice.
Mr O'Toole: I note that the Agriculture Minister has not made clear why he chose to take legal advice from the former Attorney General rather than the current one. I want to ask about the free trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, the latter of which was signed yesterday. Last year, Minister, you said that you had been clear with UK Ministers that tariff-free access to the UK for New Zealand farmers posed a serious threat to our farmers. What went wrong, Minister? Did the UK Ministers simply not listen to you?
Mr Poots: First of all, the Member makes an assumption that I did not receive advice from the current Attorney General and, indeed, from the Departmental Solicitor's Office and others. The Member will be well aware that that is purely an assumption and does not have any veracity. Nonetheless, we will leave that to one side.
On the New Zealand trade deal, of course I have demonstrated quite clearly my concerns about potential trade deals. There are trade deals that will bring us significant benefits and open the doors for Northern Ireland to export its high-quality food. Quite a number of trade deals have already taken place that will be to our benefit. The trade deals with Australia and New Zealand will always be challenging for us because they are large food-producing countries. However, there are opportunities for other businesses in Northern Ireland, not least for people who export engineering expertise to Australia, for example, with all the mining equipment that is produced, mainly in mid-Ulster. Therefore, there are advantages to those deals as well as disadvantages.
The disadvantages, if they come through, will take time to come through. At present, Australia sells a large amount of its beef in Southeast Asia, and, consequently, does not need the UK market, but that may not always be the case. I have highlighted and expressed my concerns about that. That having been said, when we left the European Union, our beef was about 20% lower in price than it currently is, so it is hard for the Member to claim that we have done badly out of it.
Mr Allister: The Alliance party and the other rigorous implementers of the protocol are obsessing about the modest cost of legal advice, which established that the checks were unlawful, in contrast with the figure that the Minister gave last month of £10 million for the cost of those checks, never mind the tens of millions of pounds of costs to business under the Trader Support Service (TSS). Does the Minister agree that that is a telling insight into where the interests of such questioners lie?
Mr Poots: Absolutely. Thousands of checks and CHED documents have to be completed by businesses, and additional staff had to be recruited by businesses as a consequence of the protocol. The services that are provided by the TSS will be withdrawn, and, ultimately, that cost will be passed on. The European Union demands that we pass all the costs that the Government and this Department bear to businesses, and it even wants us to check people's cars and luggage. That is what the Alliance Party wants, and that is why the Alliance Party has shown itself up today in its demands for the rigorous implementation of the protocol. [Interruption.]
Mr Beggs: I thank the Minister for his answer
Mr Beggs: — to the question on legal costs, but there is an additional cost for transport arrangements and bureaucracy across business, with some suppliers not even continuing to supply Northern Ireland. What assessment has there been of the detrimental impact on the Northern Ireland economy and to the public, who cannot even buy some plants in garden centres?
Mr Poots: The fact is that it is easier to import a tree from Lithuania than from Lancashire. That might not be the case when Mr Putin is finished, but that is the reality, folks. We have a country that has had a barrier put within it. That has never been tried in any other country in the world. The fact that we have individuals in this country saying, "We want more of it [Interruption.]
Mr Poots, you have not done enough on the protocol. We want you to do more to make it difficult for people to buy goods
Mr Poots: That is an outrageous situation and an outrageous proposal.
Mr Speaker: I do not want to have to keep intervening, but I will insist that we get order so that we can continue with Question Time.
Mr Poots: The report, 'Independent Strategic Review of the Northern Ireland Agri-Food Sector', was published on 26 January. Sir Peter Kendall and his team undertook a considerable amount of work in a short time frame under the very challenging conditions that were presented by COVID-related restrictions. I welcome the report and believe that it contains much that the industry will support. The report was open to comments and feedback from stakeholders until 23 February. Given the report's many recommendations, it will take time to produce a detailed and considered response that takes into account the views of stakeholders.
Ms Á Murphy: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, do you intend to include the independent strategic review recommendations in the development of future agriculture policies?
Mr Poots: We will consider the report in full. We did not ask for a report to be carried out to then ignore it, so we will look at it in detail. I am quite sure that we will adopt most of what is in it. That is not to say that we will ever farm out our decision-making to somebody else and adopt everything, but, nonetheless, we will adopt substantial parts of the report.
Mr Harvey: Do the devastating developments in Ukraine not further highlight the need to retain food production capacity in this region and to not rely on others?
Mr Poots: It would be remiss of me not to express my solidarity with the people of Ukraine at this moment in time. It is an absolutely repellent situation that a sovereign nation has been invaded by another nation. The consequences of it are awful for the people in Ukraine, first and foremost, and many thousands of people will lose their lives. Quite frankly, the response from NATO countries has been poor in the first instance, and, had more been done to avert the situation, we may not be in that circumstance.
Nonetheless, we are in that circumstance, and people need to realise some of the realities.
First, across the world, the amount of food available for the number of people is quite balanced. Ukraine is a country with the capacity to feed 600 million people. If that capacity is taken away — if farmers in Ukraine cannot plough their land, put their crops in or sell their meat — we will have a problem. Secondly, Russia is one of the biggest suppliers of nitrogen fertiliser in the world. If farmers do not get nitrogen fertiliser to spread on their crops, their crops will deliver less yield, the consequence of which would be significant. Thirdly, Russia is the second-biggest supplier of oil and gas in the world. Therefore, the consequences of the invasion for oil prices are very significant, which, again, feeds through to food prices. Fourthly, Ukraine is one of the richest countries for minerals, including titanium, uranium and other products. All of those things will have implications, and the consequences will be far-reaching. If anyone does not realise that, they will realise it in the months to come.
Mr O'Toole: I welcome the Minister's answer. I echo his warnings about the importance of food security and the issues with the supply chain. The independent strategic review majors on the importance of exports. Of course, we have access to the EU single market. If we all agree that we want streamlined movement of goods from GB into Northern Ireland, does the Minister agree that it is a good thing that Northern Ireland food producers retain untrammelled access to sell into the EU single market, unlike those in GB?
Mr Poots: Yes. I welcome what the Member has just said about wanting to have streamlined access from GB to Northern Ireland. I actually want complete access, but streamlined access from Great Britain to Northern Ireland is a significant step forward from the rigorous implementation of the protocol. The SDLP has certainly moved well ahead of the Alliance Party, and I congratulate the Member on that.
Mr Chambers: Minister, has any of the information from the Ulster Farmers' Union report, produced by KPMG, been utilised in any reviews carried out by your Department?
Mr Poots: The report was not commissioned by the Department, but the Department takes note of its findings. Interestingly, we talked to the Climate Change Committee, and the findings of the KPMG report coincided with its views. The KPMG report is credible and, therefore, we all need to take cognisance of it in our decision-making approach.
Mr Poots: To ensure that rural communities would continue to receive support, when the rural development programme (RDP) came to an end, officials in my Department began work on the rural policy framework for Northern Ireland. In addition, my Department has taken the opportunity to deliver a range of pilot schemes that will help to inform future funding programmes, while ensuring the continued delivery of programmes and funding to rural communities. The framework is nearing completion.
Work will soon begin on developing the new rural business and community investment programme. That new programme will replace the LEADER and rural tourism elements of the rural development programme. As those new programmes are designed to replace the rural development programme, I do not anticipate any adverse impact on rural communities from the absence of the EU rural development programme. On the contrary, the opportunity that we now have, through the rural policy framework, to address the needs of Northern Ireland’s rural communities provides us with the opportunity to enhance the support that we provide and target our investment to address the most pressing needs of rural communities.
Ms Dolan: Minister, the former EU rural development programme was a ring-fenced, dedicated pot of money for rural communities. That is in stark contrast to the British Government's Levelling Up Fund, which will see rural communities in the North competing for funding against big infrastructure projects in cities such as Manchester. When that is the case, are we really expected to believe that our rural communities will get anything like their fair share?
Mr Poots: Of course, that will be down to the Department of Finance; from the Budget proposals thus far, maybe not. The Member would be as well talking to the Finance Minister about getting a Budget that reflects the needs of the rural community; that reflects the need to tackle carbon neutrality issues; and that reflects the investment that is needed to ensure that we deliver for the environment so that we can head towards net zero. We need to have the funding from the Department of Finance to do all of that.
Mr Irwin: Will the Minister provide an update on the rural halls pilot scheme and on the next steps for those groups that are eligible but that did not fall within the first 50 to receive funding?
Mr Poots: Yes. The rural halls refurbishment scheme thus far has been exceptionally successful. We have had a full roll-out of the first pilot for the successful applicants. We have been able to provide financial support and training and are now looking at the next stages of the scheme. We are bidding for funding to ensure that we can deliver for all the applicants, because they all merit support. As a result of that work, many parent-and-toddler groups, women's groups, older people's groups and youth organisations have better facilities in which to work. A wide range of people in the rural community have therefore benefited significantly from the scheme. We want to roll it out to all the halls that applied, because they are applying for things such as new electrics or fresh plastering to deal with damp. They are halls that have not received funding before but are part of the hub of their community and are essential to that community.
Mr McGlone: What discussions has the Minister had recently with the Minister of Finance and/or the Treasury around replacement or substitute funding for the rural development programme and rural development grants.
Mr Poots: We talked to the Minister of Finance before and during the Budget process. We have indicated very clearly the needs for the Budget process. When it comes to levelling up, we will ensure that our voice is heard on that particular issue. Indeed, some of our MPs have indicated that Northern Ireland has not done as well out of levelling up as Scotland and Wales have at this stage. We will therefore ensure that Northern Ireland's voice is heard and that the opportunities for the levelling up to take place are carried through. I would love to see some real signature projects happening in Northern Ireland on the back of that. One that needs to be delivered, for the rural and agri-food community, is a new veterinary college. The delivery of a veterinary college in Northern Ireland would demonstrate to everybody the sustainability of our agriculture industry and represent a significant step forward. I trust that other parties will be supportive of having a new veterinary college here.
Mr Poots: Our young people are the key to safeguarding our environment and tackling the biodiversity crisis. Acknowledging that, DAERA funds Keep Northern Ireland Beautiful to deliver the Eco-Schools programme in Northern Ireland. That highly successful endeavour makes environmental awareness and action an intrinsic part of the life and ethos of our schools, with a focus on practical, positive environmental behavioural change.
Since 2020, Keep Northern Ireland Beautiful has progressed two programmes that focus on biodiversity in schools through the development of school garden projects. The productive biodiversity gardens programme, in partnership with Radius Housing, has involved 16 primary schools to date, and the upcoming stage will involve a further 23 primary schools. The productive outdoor learning gardens programme is delivered in partnership with Danske Bank and has created an outdoor learning space in 11 schools, with spaces at a further 11 to be developed. Work is also under way to support the development of a new GCSE module on biodiversity recovery, and biodiversity was listed as one of the three key topics in nearly half of the most recent tranche of Green Flag applications, thus showing the importance that our young people place on biodiversity.
The tackling plastic project, in partnership with Keep Northern Ireland Beautiful, aims to raise awareness of the problem of single-use plastics and to provide support to reduce consumption. All schools here have been given resources on plastic in marine environments, and school workshops have been delivered to complete single-use plastic audits and action plans to help them reduce consumption. Additionally, 11 webinars were delivered, focusing on tackling single-use plastics, and 75 schools have signed the Plastic Promise, making a commitment to reduce single-use plastics at school and at home. In 2021-22, my Department provided funding to the Lyric Theatre to continue the delivery of a short performance piece on waste prevention and plastic pollution. That will be performed to an audience of over 3,000 Key Stage 2 pupils and will offer children solutions that they can easily understand and undertake.
The competition on plastic in schools, which is delivered in partnership with Queen's University, the Department of Education and Keep Northern Ireland Beautiful, gives pupils an opportunity to win monetary prizes for work on investigating the use and disposal of single-use plastics in their schools.
The rural pollinator scheme —
Ms Armstrong: Thank you very much to the Minister for that. I am sorry you were cut off in full flow.
Pupils from local schools in my area have been out beach walking in the past few weeks. In the area of biodiversity, over 2,000 types of marine species live in Strangford lough. What progress has the Minister's Department made during the mandate to protect important marine life and their habitats?
Mr Poots: We are doing a key piece of work on marine protected areas (MPAs). We are hoping to deliver that in 2024 in conjunction with the development of a blue-carbon policy. We can see the evident benefits of investing in and protecting our seas, which contain a third of our biodiversity, while at the same time ensuring that the people who live and work in those places can continue to enjoy that habitat and earn a living off it. We have been looking at the moorings for yachts in Strangford lough and how we can ensure that they do not cause damage to key parts of the seabed. Therefore, pieces of work are already taking place in Strangford lough.
Miss Reilly: A huge amount of engagement with young people on this issue in particular is carried out by groups such as the Belfast Hills Partnership, which launched its Wild Youth programme early last month. What engagement does the Department have with groups such as the Belfast Hills Partnership when it comes to supporting campaigns for young people?
Mr Poots: Recently, we supported the acquisition of a substantial tract of land in the Belfast Hills for the Woodland Trust. We now have further support going to the National Trust for it to acquire land. All of that land will become accessible to the public and be planted out and used in a way that supports biodiversity in the Belfast hills and creates access for the young people who live in the area and, indeed, people who visit the area.
Mrs Dodds: Minister, do you agree that farmers play a vital role in managing our natural environment and encouraging biodiversity, and that without their work there would be much greater land abandonment in Northern Ireland? Do you further agree that farmers are part of the solution to our climate issues rather than part of the problem, as some in the House would suggest?
Mr Poots: I thank the Member for raising that point, because land abandonment is a significant issue. It was a significant issue a number of years ago in Scotland when many crofters left the land, and a consequence of the wilding that took place after that was less biodiversity. People need to wake up to the fact that managed land can improve biodiversity and that wilding land often leads to less biodiversity.
Farmers are keen to engage in all these things. They are keen to ensure that they improve biodiversity on their land. We see that in the uptake of environmental farming and other schemes whereby farmers are out planting trees and hedges and putting in protections for waterways and so forth. A lot of work is going on in the farming community, and there is a real desire to do more.
Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister for his answers. I declare an interest as a governor at an excellent primary school, Kilbride Central Primary School. We have an election, so I thought that I would mention that. One of the big issues that people raise with us is this: we want to do some planting of trees but are finding it enormously difficult to source trees because of the problems that we have with the protocol. What can we do to sort that ridiculous situation out?
Mr Poots: First, I am delighted that Kilbride Central Primary School, the excellent primary school that the Member mentioned, is desirous to do that. I would encourage it to apply for the rural community pollinator scheme. We are making £1·51 million available to up to 183 applicants. It would be good if that school were one of them.
The Member raised a political issue that needs to be resolved between the UK Government, which introduced the protocol, and the European Union in a way that protects the European Union's single market and the single market between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Both are obtainable, and the European Union, in particular, needs to recognise the problems that it is causing and the reality that it will achieve what nobody else has been capable of achieving: the grinding to a halt of the political aspect of the peace process in Northern Ireland. That will be on the hands of the European Union if it chooses to dig in its heels and not cooperate.
Mr Poots: A sustainable catchment pilot project to address water quality issues has started recently and is being delivered in partnership with the Rivers Trust across three catchments in Dundrum, Ballinderry and Upper Bann. The project provides advice, combined with capital support, to farmers to implement on-farm measures that aim to reduce impacts on the water environment.
Last summer, I visited the Upper Bann catchment, where my Department has established a research project in collaboration with the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) and has introduced our pilot soil analysis scheme and an environmental farming scheme group project. It was encouraging to meet the scientists and farmers and hear that we are starting to see improvements in water quality.
Furthermore, I intend to consider the findings from the public consultation on a wide range of options for Northern Ireland’s first clean air strategy. I will further consider how a pilot catchment-sensitive scheme to address air quality issues could be integrated into that strategy.
Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for his answer. I am sure that he is aware of how important such strategies are for the health and well-being of those who suffer from lung conditions, for example. Given the apparent success of the catchment-sensitive farming scheme that has been employed in England, will the Minister update the House on how that scheme works? Will he also commit to delivering a number of specific pilots in the near future?
Mr Poots: The College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise's (CAFRE's) advisory service was set up in April 2018 as a single advisory service to provide advice and support to potential applicants. The sustainable land management branch in CAFRE delivers advice to farmers across the key areas of air quality, biodiversity, land management and water quality. In collaboration with AFBI, it delivered a pilot scheme that included soil testing and nutrient advice, and the Department has secured funding to roll that out further.
As to how catchments are prioritised, we look at the status of a water body and whether it has deteriorated or stagnated. We also look at the environmentally protected areas that the water bodies support — I know that this is particularly important in County Fermanagh, because there is a lot of water — whether they are experiencing pressures related to the water environment and whether the water bodies are upstream of areas of potential significant flood risk.
Therefore, a considerable amount of work is being done. It is important that we ensure that water and air quality is improved, particularly in constituencies such as Fermanagh and South Tyrone.
Mr Blair: Between 28,000 and 36,000 people in the UK die each year from illnesses that are attributed to long-term exposure to air pollution, yet we in Northern Ireland still have no air quality strategy to deal with that. Will the Minister publish the clean air strategy before the end of this mandate?
Mr Poots: We have had the public consultation, and it is important that we consider everything that was received in response to that consultation. Whilst I would like to do it, I do not think that my Department will be able to publish the strategy during this mandate. However, the work is done and is ready and will be considered during purdah. The officials will continue to work on it and, should we have an Executive, it will be ready and prepared for a new Minister to enter the Department, on the other side of the election — that is if we have an Executive.
Mr Speaker: That ends the period for listed questions, Members. We now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions.
T1. Ms Bradshaw asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs what his Department is doing to protect and enhance places such as Belvoir forest park, Cregagh glen and others in her constituency, which are enjoyed by her constituents, given that, recently, she was contacted by a constituent who was concerned about some trees that had been felled in Belvoir forest part, albeit she is not questioning the rationale or background to that work by his departmental officials. (AQT 2111/17-22)
Mr Poots: Our forest parks are very important to us, and we have made substantial investment in them in conjunction with local authorities. Fantastic work has been carried out in a whole range of our forest parks. Indeed, I was most recently in Gortin Glen forest park, and there has been substantial investment in that area. Right across Northern Ireland, a considerable amount of work has been done.
There will always be tree felling in forest parks; that is the nature of it. Some of it will be to deal with ash dieback, for example, and other tree diseases, and some of it will be to remove trees and thin out the trees to allow greater biodiversity in areas of the forest or, indeed, to create opportunities for new planting. Sometimes, people see a tree being cut down and do not like it, and that is understandable, but there is usually a very good reason for that to happen, particularly in our forest parks. Destroying good trees is not what we are about.
Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Minister, will you support some of your departmental officials' meeting some residents on-site? There is a new campaign called Save Our Lagan which covers that whole Stranmillis/Rosetta area. Will you support your officials' meeting some local residents?
Mr Poots: If there are any requests from public representatives for us to meet members of the public who have concerns about anything that is going on in our properties, we will, of course, always be willing, ready, prepared and open to meeting those people to discuss issues with them and to hear their concerns. Their concerns will very often be our concerns, and very often the general public are the first people to notice that something is not right and alert us to it.
T2. Mrs Barton asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline the effect that the outbreak of war between Russia and Ukraine will have on the farming community here being able to import animal foodstuffs and fertiliser. (AQT 2112/17-22)
Mr Poots: Ukraine is a supplier of cereals to Northern Ireland, and that has implications for the chicken, pork and dairy industries, in particular. We will seek to identify other sources, which will probably be North American, but prices going up is an inevitable consequence. There is a significant issue there. As I indicated in a previous answer, Russia is a big supplier of nitrogen, and that causes its own problems. I have absolutely no doubt that the sanctions imposed on Russia will lead to the availability of nitrogen being more challenging. That is a price that has to be paid, because we cannot tolerate Russia's behaviour. At the same time, it has a consequence for the amount of food that we are capable of producing, because nitrogen is a key nutrient for our soils.
Mrs Barton: Minister, given your answer, do you foresee a global shortage in products like fertiliser?
Mr Poots: There is every possibility that we will have food shortages this year on the back of what is happening in Russia and Ukraine, and people need to recognise and realise the risks involved. I am requesting a meeting with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to discuss these issues and to get a better handle on where we might stand on them, but I have my own obvious concerns as a consequence of what is going on. The consequences will be significantly greater than the consequences of Brexit, which people talk an awful lot about. I put that to the Chamber. We really need to be prepared for what might come if this turns into a prolonged war in Russia and Ukraine, and there is every likelihood of it heading that way.
T3. Ms Sheerin asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for his assessment of the impact of his future agricultural policy on hill farmers, particularly those who keep sheep. (AQT 2113/17-22)
Mr Poots: Our future agricultural policy will seek to encourage people to farm and to engage in farming activity. Whilst the greater volume of money remains with the land-based payment, there are some enticements, in particular, for suckler cows, which are considerably beneficial in allowing hill farmers to move forward. The enticements are there to ensure that farmers can operate in a more environmentally friendly way, including having shorter periods for calving, shorter periods between calvings and reducing the time between birth and when the animal goes to slaughter. All of that will help us to ensure that Northern Ireland's carbon footprint is not just competitive but ahead of other places: that is why those steps were taken in that area.
We do not have the same opportunities to do that with sheep, and, therefore, those farmers did not get that enticement to improve their practice to the same extent. Nonetheless, sheep farming has done reasonably well over the last two years.
Ms Sheerin: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, it is almost two years since the House supported my party colleague Declan McAleer's proposal to reinstate the areas of natural constraint (ANC) payment. Instead of doing that, however, it appears that you are intent on doubling down on punishing sheep farmers in hill areas, such as the Sperrins in my constituency of Mid Ulster. When will you start to deliver for all farmers, including sheep farmers in less-favoured areas (LFA) and ANC areas?
Mr Poots: Hill farmers were significantly advantaged as a result of the changes that took place 10 years ago or thereabouts, and the ANC payment was made on top of that. The then Minister O'Neill found that payment to be unsustainable and that is why she extended it for only two years and did not make it a permanent extension. You may want to contact the then Minister O'Neill, the former deputy First Minister, who will advise you as to why she was not able to have a permanent ANC payment and why the business plan did not support that.
That said, the average producer price for sheep increased by 18% from £4·52 per kilo dead weight in 2020 to £5·35 per kilo in 2021. The average prices in 2020 and 2021 were 11% and 32% respectively above the 10-year average for sheep prices. The latest statistics show that the average farm business income of cattle and sheep LFA farms is expected to increase from £20,454 to £21,181, which is an increase of £727 or 4% per farm, whereas the average farm business income of cattle and lowland farms is expected to decrease from £21,242 to £20,793, which is a reduction of £449. If the Member wants to talk about fairness, she should agree that we cannot take money off farmers whose incomes are going down in order to supplement farmers whose incomes are going up.
T4. Mrs Dodds asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline the impact on the agri-food sector of the full implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. (AQT 2114/17-22)
Mr Poots: Even with the grace periods [Interruption.]
Oh right: will I give way to the real Minister, Mr O'Toole?
Even with the grace periods [Interruption.]
Mr Poots: Even with the grace periods, Northern Ireland's points of entry are currently processing in excess of 2,500 common health entry documents (CHEDs) a week and over 10,000 a month. Approximately 90% of those CHEDs relate to products of animal origin, and they must be validated and recorded by one of my Department's official veterinarians, which is a complete waste of their time. In addition, each consignment that is covered by a CHED requires an identity check, and European Union law dictates that a range of physical checks are also required, with frequency depending on the type of consignment. Were the grace periods not in place, it is estimated that Northern Ireland's points of entry would be required to process in excess of 12,500 CHEDs a week across all consignment types.
Those would also require a significant number of identity and physical checks. To be clear, that is five times the number of checks that currently take place.
Mrs Dodds: I thank the Minister. The rigorous implementers may want to think about those statistics.
Jacob Rees-Mogg was recently promoted in the Cabinet. One of the first things that he said was that he would like to have a bonfire of retained EU law. What would the Minister like to see on the bonfire? [Laughter.]
Mr Poots: I thank the Member for the leading question. The first thing that I would put on the bonfire is the protocol, because, as it exists, it is damaging to every person in Northern Ireland due to the unnecessary and onerous burdens and checks that it puts in place. We can get a reasonable position with the European Union to provide the protections that it needs but ensure that there are no checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland on products that will remain in Northern Ireland. That is a reasonable outcome for the people of Northern Ireland.
I see some Alliance Members shaking their heads. I do not understand why they want to have checks on goods that remain in Northern Ireland. Our Asdas, Sainsbury's, Eurospars, Vivos — whatever it happens to be — pose no threat to the European Union. The consumers — the ladies, gentlemen and young people — who are going in and out of those shops to buy goods do not need to have one of my vets checking those goods, because the goods, which come from Great Britain, are of the highest standard anywhere in the world, and we should ensure that access to those goods is as free as possible for each and every citizen.
T5. Ms Flynn asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs what steps he is taking to address the challenges caused by the labour shortages in the agri-food industry, which are affecting companies such as Moy Park. (AQT 2115/17-22)
Mr Poots: We have engaged in much correspondence and raised the issue verbally with UK Ministers regularly, whether that was Ms Truss in her roles or George Eustice and other Ministers. We have ensured that they are very aware of the problems that the food industry faces. It is not just the food industry here; the food industry across the United Kingdom and, I have to say, the food industry in the Republic of Ireland also face those problems. It is not an issue related to leaving the European Union that has caused the problems; it is an issue of the Government's policy on allowing people to come into the country. Of course, it is for the Government to decide, but I am making it clear that we need more butchers and more people who can carry out that work in the factories and it is sensible to have a migration policy that ensures that businesses can operate fluidly. The previous open-door policy was not sustainable in the long term.
Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister for the response. It also appears that the labour shortage crisis, which — we will disagree — has been caused by Brexit, is getting worse for the food and drinks industry. Is it a fair assessment that those shortages pose a serious threat to the food and drinks industry, similar to what the Minister warned about from the British Government's various free trade deals?
Mr Poots: It is not just the food industry; it is other areas, including health. There are available workers in many parts of the world who would love to work in Northern Ireland. Jobs are available in Northern Ireland, be that for welders in the engineering sector, butchers in the food sector, fishers in the fishing sector or care workers etc in the healthcare sector. We need to ensure that we continue to get the Government into the right place so that they make the right decisions to allow the requisite number of people to come into this country to fill the available jobs.
There is another aspect. I agree with the Government that there are people who are unemployed and on benefits who could be employed. We need to continue to ensure that we drive and encourage those opportunities and that people who are capable of taking up employment take those jobs. It is odd that someone from the Philippines can get a job here, but someone from here cannot take such a job. We need to continue to encourage that.
Mr Speaker: Time is up. Will Members take their ease for a moment, please?
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Beggs] in the Chair)
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): It is now time for questions to the Minister of Health. These questions have been rescheduled from 22 February. Questions 1 and 7 have been withdrawn.
Mr Swann (The Minister of Health): I thank the Member for his question. Members will be aware that virtually all waiting times — not just first consultant-led outpatient appointments — were in crisis at the return of the Executive in January 2020. Whilst the pandemic has exacerbated the situation, we must never forget that it did not cause it. It is not the first time that Northern Ireland has faced issues with waiting times. Prior to 2005, our hospital waiting times were the longest in the United Kingdom, but, by 2009, the situation had broadly stabilised. It remained relatively stable until 2013-14. Then, through a combination of one-year budgets, poor performance management and a lack of serious strategic oversight, the situation shamefully deteriorated to the extent that it did.
As Members will know, last June, I published the elective care framework, which set out a detailed series of time-bound immediate, medium-term and long-term actions to address our unacceptable waiting lists. A number of initiatives are well under way, including the payment of enhanced elective care rates to staff in specific key areas of work; the introduction of mega clinics to maximise patient throughput; the introduction of a cross-border reimbursement scheme; and a move towards leasing Health and Social Care (HSC) theatres to independent providers, at times when they are not otherwise in use, to address backlogs. I made it clear, however, that certainty of investment through multi-year budgets would be absolutely critical for the delivery of the actions and targets that were set out in the framework. The recent resignation of the First Minister has cruelly robbed patients and our staff of the prospect of a three-year budget. I cannot over-emphasise how frustrated I am that some in this place are so willingly repeating the mistakes of the past. The task at hand has been made immeasurably more difficult.
Mr T Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his response. I note the number of initiatives that, the Minister keeps telling us, are ongoing to bring waiting lists down. As always, he points to the pandemic. It seems that everything else was put on hold because of it.
One thing that concerns me is the people who are red-flagged for cancer. We all know that, when people are red-flagged, there are a number of weeks — six, I think — until they are taken for surgery.
Mr T Buchanan: Yet, some of the people who have been red-flagged are waiting for months on end. What are we doing to deal with that situation? We all know that cancer is much more deadly than COVID has ever been, so what are we doing to address that matter?
Mr Swann: I thank the Member for his question. He makes a valid point about the work that we need to do on cancer. That is why I have deliberately set out the cancer strategy and the work that we need to do to get on top of that.
The Member will be aware that a number of the red-flag cases that are cancelled are usually rescheduled within a pretty quick time to make sure that those patients can be seen as quickly as possible. It is important for us to be sure that we have as few COVID patients as possible in not only our hospital system but our intensive care system so that we can utilise that capacity for the people who need to come forward for more serious operations. If the Member has a specific constituent in mind and wants to communicate with me about that, I will be glad to get back to him.
Mr Gildernew: Minister, the three-year Budget prioritised health and, as you stated, set aside funding for the elective care plan. Now that the DUP has walked away from its responsibility, what impact will that have on waiting lists?
Mr Swann: I thank the Member for his point. I welcomed the fact that health had been given priority by the Executive in the Budget. That commitment was made by all Ministers and parties. However, it is important to note that the lack of recurrent investment received by the health service over the last number of years, not just that that will not be received in future years, means that it is needed simply to ensure that our existing services are funded on a sustainable basis. It will not fully resolve the financial gap that faces the health system as we move forward, but the inability to plan and put those transformation projects on a sound, firm financial basis makes it all the more difficult for us. The likes of our cancer strategy, our elective care strategy and our mental health strategy all become that bit more difficult when we do not have that recurrent Budget.
Mr McGrath: Waiting times are impacting across the health service. At the weekend, I had more reports in my constituency of an ambulance taking 30 minutes to arrive, and, regrettably, the person passed away. That happens regularly. What are you doing about those waiting times?
Mr Swann: I thank the Member for his question. I note that he has a petition out on that issue: I am not sure whether the petition will also address the budgetary pressures that we are under, but I would welcome that being highlighted as well.
The Member will be aware of a number of initiatives that the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service is putting in place to meet the needs of all the population of Northern Ireland, whether that is the rural or urban population. He will note the response to Maggie's Call at the end of last week, through which we will see our Northern Ireland Ambulance Service and Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service (NIFRS) working in partnership on cardiac response. I want to see that programme brought in as quickly as possible in phases so that we can truly look at those different ways of working together to address a challenging situation in Northern Ireland.
Mrs Barton: Minister, will you provide an update on the extra activity that you have been able to deliver following the decision to allocate an additional £90 million of funding, albeit non-recurrent funding in the absence of a multi-year Budget, to tackle waiting lists in the current financial year?
Mr Swann: I thank the Member for her question. In my initial answer, I indicated what can be done in-year with substantial amounts of money, but it becomes all the more challenging when that money is not recurrent. As of the end of December 2021, an additional 157,687 outpatient and allied health professional (AHP) assessments and diagnostic tests and inpatient and day-case procedures had been delivered through those waiting list initiatives, both in Health and Social Care and through the independent sector. That shows that that £90 million has already brought forward over 150,000 people who have been seen somewhere in our health service. If that money were recurrent, it would really make a large difference to what we could not only strategically plan but strategically deliver.
Mr Muir: Waiting times in Northern Ireland are now not just weeks and months but years. At what stage do we in Northern Ireland seek assistance outside Northern Ireland to get people off those waiting lists?
Mr Swann: I thank the Member for his point. He will be aware that we instigated the cross-border initiative, although, again, that was only for one year, because of the financial pressures. We have been utilising that, and we have been able to send people to the Republic of Ireland under a cross-border healthcare directive.
A number of people are already utilising that, and we look for such assistance where we can buy it.
The Member will be aware that COVID is not a problem that only the Northern Ireland health service has faced. All of the health services across the UK and the world have faced it. We would have utilised additional international capacity, but that has been taken up by the health services in different countries. The ability to purchase international procedures is not as readily available as it has been in the past.
Mr Swann: I thank the Member. Adult day care and short breaks are still subject to nationally agreed health protection guidance to keep service users safe. Dynamic risk assessments of each setting and the implementation of infection control measures ultimately determine the level at which services can be delivered safely. The Chief Social Worker wrote to trusts, on my behalf, to outline my expectations of the implementation of the pathway to remobilise adult day care, short breaks and transport, and to seek an updated position on current service provision.
As of 15 February, the Northern Health and Social Care Trust provides a day service to 81% of its pre-pandemic clients in adult day centres. However, the trust's approach to provide as many people as possible with the opportunity to attend respite has meant that some clients have had a reduced number of attendances each week. The volume of day-care attendance is at 63% of pre-pandemic capacity. The trust has provided a range of alternative services to mitigate the reduction in capacity. However, it is recognised that respite services must be fully restored. The Northern Trust has provided an indicative time frame to fully restore services to pre-pandemic capacity in adult day-care centres by 27 March and short-break capacity by 11 April. That time frame is subject to any further surges or localised outbreaks of COVID-19. A formal review of the implementation of the pathway and remobilisation will be undertaken in late spring 2022.
Mr McGuigan: Go raibh maith agat, Minister. I appreciate the response. Rainbow Lodge in Ballymena, and other respite and day-centre services in our constituency, are invaluable to those who use them. They can help to provide a few hours of relief and support when families need it most. Going above the detail that the Minister has already given, will he ensure that the trusts will resume full services and that those who need it get the respite care that they have been unable to access for some time?
Mr Swann: I thank the Member. I am aware that a number of inspections done in Rainbow Lodge by the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) raised some concerns. The areas for improvement of care in Rainbow Lodge have been identified. My officials are working alongside the Health and Social Care Board (HSCB) and the RQIA to ensure that services that are delivered at Rainbow Lodge are compliant.
The Member will note that, in my initial answer, I indicated that the Northern Trust has given an indicative time frame for full restoration of services to pre-pandemic capacity in adult day centres: it is to be done by 27 March.
Mr Storey: I thank the Minister for the information on the work that has been done by the Northern Trust to date. Will the Minister give an undertaking that there will be a rigorous assessment of the people who use the respite services, given the impact that COVID has had and the time that they have been away from the service provision, and that whatever additional support and help those individuals need will be provided, especially for their health and well-being?
Mr Swann: I thank the Member for that valid point about those who have not been able to access the full gamut of respite services and support. When I asked the Public Health Agency (PHA) to conduct the review with the Chief Social Worker, there were four key guiding principles that I and the Chief Social Worker asked to underpin the proposed pathway to restate our services: that those services were person- and family-centred; that they promoted health and well-being; that they worked in partnership with families and service users; and that they were underpinned by the proactive surveillance that the Member referred to. That is to ensure that any service that an individual returns to is fit for purpose and meets their needs. It must be person-centred and specifically focused, and it must also support the family.
Dr Aiken: Welcome back, Minister. It is good to see you here.
The value of respite services is undoubted, not only for service users but, just as importantly, for their families and carers. The Minister took the right decision last year in ordering the PHA to undertake a review, and I welcome the fact that its implementation will be formally reviewed. Can the Minister confirm that, once finalised, all the trust rebuild plans will be published online, so as to provide maximum transparency and assurance?
Mr Swann: I thank the Member for his question. He will be aware that, during the rebuilding phase that we have been taking part in, and over the past 18 months especially, all trusts have been publishing in three-monthly chunks. As part of the review that I have asked all trusts to implement, I have asked that they also publish their plans for rebuilding respite care so that families are fully aware of the targets that have been set and of what I expect of the trusts.
Mr Allister: Minister, it is 26 days until 27 March. That is a very short period in which to attain 100% restoration. Is the Minister confident that that can be done, and, in that regard, are ancillary support services, such as having an adequate number of drivers to take people to day centres, in place? I have had cases in which families have been told that they can be offered only two or three days a week because drivers are not available. Has that problem been sorted?
Mr Swann: The Member will be aware that one part of the review concerned transport and not just the physical location at which respite care is being provided. That is therefore part of the implementation plan. The Northern Trust has given me a commitment that those services will be restored for adult day centres by 27 March and for short-break capacity by 11 April, but, as I said in my initial answer, that time frame is subject to further surges or localised outbreaks of COVID-19, of which I hope that we have none.
Mr Swann: I thank the Member for his question. It is not the responsibility of my Department to recruit health and social care staff. That responsibility lies with the employing organisation. It is unfortunate and disappointing that the Southern Trust had to take action on emergency surgery at Daisy Hill Hospital. I recognise, however, that that action had to be taken in order to maintain safe services. We cannot compromise on patient safety. It must always be our number-one priority. The operational decisions taken by the Southern Trust should be viewed in that context. It is a temporary change, and I expect that the Southern Trust will do all that it can to seek to recruit additional consultant general surgeons so that it might reinstate services as quickly as possible. I do recognise that that will be challenging and will likely take some time.
It is an unfortunate reality that a number of our hospitals, particularly the smaller hospitals, face an ongoing challenge in recruiting and retaining specialist clinicians. Hospitals in other jurisdictions face similar issues. No amount of additional funding or workplace planning can resolve that challenge alone. I have therefore asked that the Health and Social Care Board and the Southern Trust take appropriate and feasible steps to ensure that the consequences of the changes are managed in a way that minimises both the impact on the local population and the risk of increased pressures on other health trusts. I have also asked that fresh efforts be made to secure consultant general surgeons at the Daisy Hill Hospital site while the Southern Health and Social Care Trust develops proposals for a sustainable, long-term model of care for general surgery across the Daisy Hill and Craigavon hospital sites.
The trust has advised that it is due to commence recruitment for four consultant surgeon posts with support for specialty interests. Those posts will specify the need to work across all Southern Trust hospital sites, as the trust does not have permission from the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) to advertise for consultant surgeon posts with support for specialty roles for Daisy Hill Hospital alone. I receive monthly updates on the situation, including progress reports on securing additional medical staffing for the site.
I appeal to local elected representatives to continue to work with trusts to promote their local hospitals and local areas and to help attract new staff. That action demonstrates the fragility of parts of the system. I have said before, and I will say again, that, if we are to deliver the step change in health services that we need, including for general surgery, that is critical to addressing our waiting lists, we will need every inch of capacity at all our hospitals.
Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for his response. I, too, welcome him back to the Chamber, and it is good to see him back to health and strength again. Does he agree that it is vital that consultant general surgeons be back in place as soon as possible?
Mr Swann: I definitely agree. We have been supportive of that for the entire time, but there are challenges in recruiting them. That is why I have asked that all elected representatives in the area play a positive role in making the hospital an attractive site to work at and the area an attractive place to be recruited to.
I see that your colleague Mr Storey is nodding behind you. He will recall that we had exactly the same challenges in North Antrim with the Causeway Hospital. It was through productive, positive engagement with elected representatives, working with trust management, the Health and Social Care Board and the Department of Health that a transformation has been seen in the outworkings for the Causeway Hospital. I would like to see the same for Daisy Hill, which is why I have asked all elected reps to support us in that effort.
Ms Kimmins: To reiterate what you said, Minister, it is very important that we create a positive image of Daisy Hill. That is something that I have been championing in my area. What has happened at Daisy Hill is, basically, a service collapse as a result of staff shortages. You said that recruitment is not within your remit, but the fundamental issue is a lack of workforce planning in the Department. Are you able to outline the other services that may be at risk of collapse for the same reasons? Can you confirm whether the Department's review of urgent and emergency care, which is yet to be published, will consider the crucial issue of workforce recruitment?
Mr Swann: I thank the Member for her question. Effective workforce planning is a key theme of 'Health and Social Care Workforce Strategy 2026: Delivering for Our People', which was published in May 2018, when there was no Minister of Health. The aim is, by 2026, to develop and sustainably fund an optimum workforce model for our reconfigured health and social care services. That challenge is across a number of surgical specialties. The surgical workforce review's current and planned action, which is being considered by my Department, includes, as of 8 February 2022, vascular surgery, general surgery, cardiothoracic surgery, ENT surgery, neurosurgery, paediatric surgery, plastic surgery and a number of other specialties. Seeing an attractive site to work at and trust to work for is what helps, and a general message being put out by elected reps that a hospital or a trust is under threat or that a hospital is not an attractive place in which to work makes it all the harder for the trust to recruit.
Mr McNulty: The Southern Trust has said that, despite repeated recruitment attempts, it has not been able to fill emergency general surgery posts at Daisy Hill Hospital and that that has forced it to remove that service from the hospital. However, in your response to a question on recruitment that I put to you on 20 January, you indicated that the trust last advertised for a permanent general surgeon position at Daisy Hill Hospital on 5 October 2019. The 5 October 2019. That is a symptom of either woeful mismanagement or wilful indifference. Which is it?
Mr Swann: Once again, the Member is attacking the trust rather than supporting it in trying to recruit to positions that are at a premium, not only in Northern Ireland but across these islands. I am aware of the Member's statements about Daisy Hill and of the difficulties that he raises. I am also aware of his party leader's comments on the future of the health service. I think that he has conceded that the Republic of Ireland's health system is a major turn-off as far as reunifying the island goes, even for people who are convinced nationalists.
I see that the Member is trying to rebadge Daisy Hill as a hospital that will cover not only parts of Northern Ireland but parts of the Republic of Ireland. I would rather see Daisy Hill being utilised for the people of Northern Ireland — the people of Newry and Armagh and of South Down, who are paying into the National Health Service — rather than it being politicised because we are coming up to an election.
Mr Swann: I thank the Member for his question. The South Eastern Trust is preparing an outline business case to consider accommodation requirements for a full range of services.
That includes a minor injuries unit to be delivered as part of the future service model for the Ards and North Down area, taking advantage of the existing estate where possible. Until the outline business case process is complete, detail regarding the plans for a primary and community care centre in Bangor cannot be provided at this time as it will be examined in detail at the outline business case stage.
The trust remains committed to working with the Health and Social Care Board and my Department to progress this project as soon as possible, to deliver new primary and community care infrastructure for the population of Ards and North Down.
Funding for hub schemes will be considered alongside other capital priorities as my officials continue to evaluate what can be funded with the draft 2022-25 budget settlement. Allocations will remain subject to final budget confirmation and, it says, "my approval", but it should say "the Minister of Health's approval".
Mr Easton: I thank the Minister for his answer. I am particularly pleased to hear that a minor injuries unit will be considered for the community care centre. The current Bangor minor injuries unit has been closed for two years and, unless you, the Health Minister, tell the South Eastern Trust to reopen it, I fear that it may not reopen until a community care centre is built. I ask the Minister to speak to the South Eastern Trust to reopen the Bangor minor injuries unit.
Mr Swann: I thank the Member. As he knows, the consolidation of the Bangor and Ards minor injuries unit on the Ards Hospital site remains under continuous review as part of the trust's plans for rebuilding services, but, due to the ongoing impact of COVID, the trust is unable at this time to provide a definite date for the reopening of Bangor minor injuries unit.
Mr Chambers: Will the Minister provide an update on what facilities might be envisaged for the proposed primary and community care centre in Bangor?
Mr Swann: Plans to replace Bangor health centre and Bangor Hospital with a new primary and community care centre were included in the primary care infrastructure development strategic implementation plan. That will create an integrated model of care in an environment that will maximise multidisciplinary and professional team working and encourage shared opportunities for developing links within health and social care and with external health care partners.
The plans envisage a new centre in Bangor and assume that accommodation will be required for at least five practices to service approximately 30,000 patients. That will be in the new Bangor primary and community care centre.
The outline business case currently being developed will fully explore the service need and accommodation requirements for a full range of services to be delivered as part of the future service model for the Ards and North Down area. It will take advantage of the existing estate where possible.
The purpose of an outline business case is to consider all the various options available so that an informed decision can be made on what option provides the best value for money to meet the identified needs and objectives of the project. As the Member will be aware and will understand, it is not possible to pre-empt the outcome of the business case process at this time.
Mr Dunne: Given the growing population in Bangor and the surrounding areas and the pressures on our local emergency department in the Ulster Hospital, is the Minister committed to delivering this multidisciplinary health centre under one roof? Does he believe that that is the best model to improve patient outcomes?
Mr Swann: I do, and it has been the direction of travel, not just for me but for my Department, as regards the development. That is why the outline business case will be of specific importance. Until the outline business case process is complete, detail regarding the plans for a primary and community care centre in Bangor cannot be provided at this time but will be examined in detail at that stage. As the Member understands, it is not possible to pre-empt the outcome of the business case process at this point.
Miss Woods: Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is that for question 6, or on this question?
Miss Woods: Thank you very much. Has the Minister a rough date for the completion of the outline business case? When will that be done by the Department? Also, will the Minister provide an update on Ravara House, please?
Mr Swann: I do not have an update on Ravara House, but I will write to the Member on that. With regard to the outline business case, as soon as it can be brought to my Department, we will consider it in regard to the budget process that we are currently going through.
As I said earlier, funding for the hub schemes will be considered alongside other capital priorities as my officials continue to evaluate what can be funded from within the draft budget 2022-25 settlement. Allocations will remain subject to final confirmation of that budget and the Health Minister's approval.
Ms Bradshaw: Minister, the issue of vacancies runs through all of the questions that you have been asked this afternoon. A Member raised that issue earlier. On 10 February, the British Medical Association raised concerns about the 300 vacancies for consultants and made reference to the fact that there are pay disparities with the rest of the UK. There are problems in the South as well. What is your Department doing to bring parity to pay here?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I remind the Member that the question is about the Bangor community care centre including a minor injuries unit. I ask the Minister to choose whether or not he wishes to answer.
Mr Swann: I thank the Member. With regard to the BMA report on consultants, active recruiting to permanent vacancies is led by each trust. In the longer term, that is done through increased investment in pre-registration education programmes which create the labour supply that is necessary to meet the growing demand for services. The ability to grow our workforce supply depends on the availability of significant recurrent investment in pre- and post-registration training. I continue to strive to ensure that the Department receives the financial resources required to make that essential investment. I also recognise that the ongoing significant increase in agency and locum expenditure is not sustainable, particularly at a time of serious budgetary pressures across the health services.
T1. Mr Storey asked the Minister of Health, who referred to the launch of Maggie’s call at a previous Question Time, to confirm that, after taking legal advice, the Chief Fire Officer has suspended the roll-out of that initiative, which is of great concern, given the publicity around the issue and its importance. (AQT 2081/17-22)
Mr Swann: I thank the Member. I am aware that there is correspondence from the Chief Fire Officer about legal issues that have been raised by the Fire Brigades Union with regard to Maggie's call. It is unfortunate that that stalled what has been a very proactive campaign by Maggie Black's family and the willingness by the Carnlough brigade and station especially to roll that out as quickly as possible.
Mr Storey: I thank the Minister for his answer and concur with his comment. Will he give the House an assurance that adequate training will be given at the fire stations of Northern Ireland, that every resource will be put in place to ensure that there is no liability to the fire officers and that training will be sufficient to ensure that that is done in a way that is professional and safe?
Mr Swann: I can give the Member that commitment. This was a joint initiative between the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service and the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service. It was the Ambulance Service that was providing that specific training for cardiac response. It provided those reassurances. The chairs and boards of those organisations worked together to make sure that they were both satisfied that the training being provided was up to a standard that provided them with the reassurances that they, as boards, need in order to provide me with the reassurance that they are content that we can make sure that we get people seen as quickly as possible, which is the aim of Maggie's call. I am sure that the Member will support me in achieving that aim.
T2. Mr Gildernew asked the Minister of Health, who earlier answered his question about the publication of plans for day centres, to state how many staff continue to be relocated from day centres and respite centres to other settings as a result of COVID-19. (AQT 2082/17-22)
Mr Swann: I thank the Member for his very specific question. I do not have a specific answer, but I will get that number to the Member in writing as soon as I can.
Mr Gildernew: Minister, can you give a commitment that, within the rebuild plans, those staff will be prioritised to return in a coordinated way? Will you also give a commitment to ensure that the trusts publish those plans as quickly as possible?
Mr Swann: The Member has raised that issue a number of times with regard to the rebuilding of services. When the trusts publish their rebuild plans, he will be able to see the steps that are being taken. The indication and commitment that were given by the Northern Trust set an example and lead for the other trusts to follow in regard to their ambition and desire to get those services back to pre-pandemic levels as quickly and safely as possible.
T3. Mrs Erskine asked the Minister of Health to detail the steps that he is taking to strengthen staffing levels in GP surgeries in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, to ensure that the constituency has a future service at the point of need, and to commit to meeting her and GPs from her constituency, given that he will know that she has written to him to request an urgent meeting about GP services in the Western Trust area and is deeply concerned about the staffing levels in GP practices in her constituency. (AQT 2083/17-22)
Mr Swann: My apologies: I am unaware of the request for a meeting, but I will get back to the office and follow that up for the Member, because what she has brought to the table in any engagement that we have had with her about health provision in the west, particularly, has been productive. I will follow that up for her.
The Member led an Adjournment debate on GP services towards the end of last year. A number of initiatives, models and support mechanisms were raised at that point that still stand in regard to the additional funding that has been put in place to support GPs over the winter period, and also to how we look to ingrain and enhance the services that they provide. The Member has given a positive portrayal of GP services when so many others have taken the opportunity to criticise them for the work and support that they have continued to provide throughout the pandemic. I thank her for that. I will check up on her request for a meeting.
Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for his answer and for following up on the meeting. The multidisciplinary teams (MDT) allocation is one thing that GPs in my area have said will significantly help them in their surgeries. Unfortunately, I have not seen MDT funding reach past the Ballygawley roundabout. I want to ensure that we see that funding coming down to Fermanagh and South Tyrone.
Mrs Erskine: Can the Minister detail when he hopes to make any announcement on further MDT allocation and whether my area, which is of greatest need, will see that money?
Mr Swann: I thank the Member for her question on MDTs. Again, she will be aware that, with the primary care multidisciplinary team programme, over 620,000 citizens now have access to physiotherapy, social work or mental health services in their local GP surgeries. Currently, there are around 320 whole-time equivalent front-line staff working across 99 GP practices in seven GP federations. I fully recognise the significant challenges that are faced by primary care colleagues in incomplete or non-MDT areas and their eagerness to begin introduction or to complete the roll-out of the MDT model to help to stabilise vital primary care services to their communities.
I am committed to extending the model across Northern Ireland. Work is under way to develop a plan for the further roll-out of the MDT model. That is challenging, given the current uncertainty over the Budget and the known workforce issues in key professions. However, I am pleased that, recently, the programme team has been able to agree a draft running order for how the programme would be rolled out across Northern Ireland. In that running order, the South West GP Federation has been identified as one of the areas for early further expansion. The programme team will engage further. Detailed work is ongoing and involves key stakeholders, GP federations, Health and Social Care trusts and professional leads to complete the work on the roll-out plan, which includes a high-level timeline for completion. As I said, the speed at which any agreed plan can be implemented, however, will depend on the availability of appropriate funding, which includes capital funding, and suitably qualified and experienced staff.
T4. Mr Dunne asked the Minister of Health for an update on resolving the issue whereby high street pharmacists continue to provide blister pack medication and patient support, albeit it is largely a goodwill gesture, with considerable time and resources needed to provide that vital service. (AQT 2084/17-22)
Mr Swann: I thank the Member for that. I am due to meet Community Pharmacy NI towards the end of this week or the start of next week regarding the commissioning plan for 2022-25. My Department and the Health and Social Care Board have been working with Community Pharmacy, which is the representative body for community pharmacists, on the development of a commissioning plan for community pharmacy services.
In 2021-22, the focus was on the provision of core services, including dispensing, repeat dispensing and adherence and some activities and services that ensured access to medicines and advice for the public, including vulnerable groups and those receiving end-of-life care. That ensured that local pharmacy services were available to meet the needs of the people of Northern Ireland and to support the pressures in our health and social care system.
We have agreed a three-year commissioning plan for 2022-25, but, again, it is subject to the agreement of a funding envelope. That three-year plan aims to consolidate the build on the considerable advances seen in community pharmacy services and the role of local pharmacists and pharmacy teams from which the population has benefited in the past two years.
Community pharmacies have played a pivotal role in delivering health services to communities in Northern Ireland during the pandemic. They have been, and continue to be, the most accessible healthcare professionals on the front line of community health services during our response to the virus.
As we look to the future, it is important that we continue to work together to build on the significant successes that community pharmacy has had and continues to have.
Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his answer. Pharmacists want a properly commissioned, funded and resourced service. As the Minister said, patients, particularly the elderly, vulnerable and carers, rely on it. Is the Minister committed to resolving the issue and providing that much-needed support?
Mr Swann: It is part of the discussions that we have had in developing the commissioning plan for 2022-25. As I said, we have agreed what the commissioning plan will look like, but it is subject to the agreement of a funding envelope. The three-year plan aims to consolidate and build on the services that we have seen in the past two years and the good working relationship that my Department, the Health and Social Care Board and Community Pharmacy NI have had, especially over the past two years.
T5. Mr McGuigan asked the Minister of Health, similar to a previous question, whether he will commit, over and above the staffing issue, to reviewing the support that is available to struggling GP practices, including those on multiple sites and those that have a higher number of patients per GP, given that many of his constituents continue to have problems in securing GP appointments, which results in worry, stress and frustration. (AQT 2085/17-22)
Mr Swann: Ongoing engagement among the Health and Social Care Board, the Royal College of GPs and the BMA's Northern Ireland general practitioners committee continues on the additional support that we can provide. As I said, we supplied additional funding, especially to get them through the winter period. That allowed an increase in investment in telephone services and other additional supports that our GP practices can use to make sure that they can contact and support as many patients as possible.
Mr McGuigan: Thanks for your response, Minister. Following on from a previous question, is the pressure on GP practices expected to impact on the much-needed roll-out of multidisciplinary teams? In your draft running order, when will the roll-out take place in the Northern Trust area?
Mr Swann: The final running order has not yet been agreed, but, as I said in response to Ms Erskine, the value of multidisciplinary teams is about making sure that we have the available workforce as much as the available funding and also capital investment because with multidisciplinary teams comes the need for an increased footprint where additional patients can be seen by additional medical professionals that multidisciplinary teams bring onto a site.
It is about making sure that we get those three tracks running at the same time where we have the staff, the funding and the footprint for as many patients as possible to be seen.
T6. Mrs Dodds asked the Minister of Health, after welcoming him back to the Chamber, for an update on the £23 million that was announced in November for domiciliary care and the impact that that has had on bed waits in hospitals. (AQT 2086/17-22)
Mr Swann: I thank the Member for her question. I know that she has been following up on this in a methodical and astute way. Timely discharge is essential to effective flow through our hospitals and to avoid overcrowding. To tackle the issue, the Health and Social Care Board and the Public Health Agency established a regional discharge group, and that has identified three priorities to expedite discharges. That is on top of the investment of £23 million in November to improve the terms and conditions of domiciliary care workers in the independent sector. The aim was to add capacity to the system and facilitate timely discharge, and early feedback suggests that the intervention is beginning to make a difference. The wider population also has a role to play in improving the timeliness of discharge and the flow through our hospitals. It is critical that all patients deemed medically fit for discharge vacate their hospital bed as quickly as possible to make way for those who are more acutely unwell.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): That is the end of our time for questions to the Minister for Health. I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments.
Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): I wish to make a statement regarding a bilateral meeting under the auspices of the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) on cooperation on criminal justice matters, which was held virtually on Wednesday 2 February 2022. I represented the Executive at the bilateral meeting with Helen McEntee, the Minister for Justice, Ireland. This was the third formal IGA ministerial meeting that I have attended, and, as I said previously, I am committed to keeping the Assembly informed about the important work being carried out under the auspices of the IGA.
Cross-border cooperation on justice matters is vital to both jurisdictions. The bilateral meeting is always a welcome opportunity to meet our Southern counterparts so that we can discuss a range of cross-border initiatives and share learning on issues such as public protection, hate crime, youth justice, forensic science and support for victims. The IGA contributes greatly to ensuring that we are doing everything that we can to promote good practice in these areas.
The meeting on 2 February provided Minister McEntee and me with the opportunity to review progress against and close the IGA’s 2020-21 joint work programme and to agree a new work programme for 2021-23. I put on record my thanks to all the members of the five project advisory groups (PAGs) that have continued to deliver on a wide range of extremely important issues.
I will provide Members with a summary of the key highlights of the work that was completed under the previous work programme and a flavour of some of the issues that the IGA PAGs will focus on during the next reporting period.
Through the support for victims PAG, those involved in combating human trafficking have engaged to share learning and experience between both jurisdictions. The work of that PAG also included discussing progress on a range of victims' issues of shared interest, such as domestic and sexual abuse legislation, policy development and updates on programmes and pilots. There was continued regular contact to share information and help inform work in both Departments to implement the Gillen and O'Malley recommendations on education, training and awareness-raising programmes. They include, for example, the DOJ NI 'Have your say, bust the myths' survey, the PSNI 'You will be supported' campaign and the work that DOJ Ireland is doing with the national universities and Rape Crisis Dublin on consent.
The IGA meeting also provided Minister McEntee and me with an opportunity to discuss topical victims' issues that impact on both jurisdictions, and it was agreed to add to the 2021-23 support for victims PAG work plan a commitment to engage further on the justice contribution to the violence against women and girls strategy. Whilst DOJ is not the lead Department on that strategy, I have asked that further work be undertaken to provide reassurance that we are sharing learning, experience and best practice to help women and girls to feel safer, including in border areas.
In the 2020-21 reporting period, the forensic science PAG had been examining cooperation at a strategic level, including the development of a memorandum of understanding between Forensic Science Ireland and Forensic Science Northern Ireland that sets out how resources can be shared in the event of significant loss of capacity or capability. During the next reporting period, the forensic science PAG will continue engagement, information sharing and best practice knowledge exchange.
During the 2020-21 reporting period, the criminal justice and social diversity PAG focused on hate crime and engagement with ethnic minorities. As part of that work, training was delivered by PSNI officers from the ethnic minority police association to members of an Garda Síochána.
During the next reporting period, the criminal justice and social diversity PAG will explore opportunities for cross-border awareness initiatives on issues for various community groups, including refugees and the LGBTQI+ community, and will explore opportunities for an annual cross-border diversity training event.
The public protection group is chaired by the probation services, and work continued during the 2020-21 reporting period to share experiences and learning from offending behaviour programmes and interventions. The most recently shared practice was focused on domestic abuse programmes and early interventions.
On 15 March 2022, partners North and South will hold an event to share practice and learning on mental health and the criminal justice system.
The youth justice PAG offers the opportunity to share experiences and lessons that have been learned on strategy and policy, including the development of a cross-border information-sharing system on children or young persons subject to statutory supervision. During the next reporting period, the PAG will continue to focus on sharing information and practical collaboration. Its work plan also includes an action to work with England, Wales and Scotland to seek support to reinstitute the biennial five nations youth justice conferences to ensure that the broader sharing of key experiences can continue.
It is encouraging to see the tangible outputs from the 2020-21 work programme and the positive engagement that continues across the project advisory groups as we move into the next reporting period.
I also take the opportunity to update Members on the joint agency task force (JATF), which was instituted under the Fresh Start Agreement. The task force is led by senior officers from the PSNI, an Garda Síochána, the Revenue Commissioners and HM Revenue and Customs. At the meeting, senior officers from the PSNI and an Garda Síochána provided an update on the eleventh cross-border joint agency task force report, which covers the period from 1 April to 30 September 2021. There continue to be high levels of cooperation and operational activity between all the law enforcement agencies involved in tackling the six priority areas affecting rural crime; drugs; financial crime; trafficking in human beings, including children; excise fraud; and organised immigration crime.
From the onset of COVID-19, each priority area monitored the ongoing efforts of those involved in serious and organised crime who sought to exploit the changing circumstances during the pandemic. There have been cross-border multi-agency rural crime "days of action", resulting in five arrests; the recovery of €16,500 worth of cannabis, €4,000 worth of stolen property and 56,000 litres of illegal fuel; and the detection of numerous road traffic offences.
An Garda Síochána and the PSNI regularly communicate on emerging trends and changes north and south of the border in the trafficking of human beings, including children. During the reporting period, 153 persons presented as being potential victims of human trafficking, 95 of whom were from Eritrea.
Cooperation between Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the Irish Revenue Commissioners plays a key role in targeting the individuals and organised crime gangs responsible for excise fraud that operate in both jurisdictions. During the reporting period, there were five major seizures of tobacco, resulting in over 13·5 million cigarettes and over 23·5 tons and 11 pallets of tobacco being seized.
The Garda National Drugs and Organised Crime Bureau and the Police Service of Northern Ireland continue to collaborate closely in the investigation of cross-border organised crime gangs that have been involved in the importation and supply of controlled drugs in Ireland and Northern Ireland. Cross-border liaison continues on a number of ongoing operations involving identified organised crime gangs that operate on both sides of the border and are suspected of using multiple port entries to effect the entry of controlled drugs to the island. That investigation involves the cross-border sharing of information regarding travel at ports, North and South, and investigation of identified rogue hauliers.
As demonstrated, effective collaboration between Governments and between law enforcement agencies is key to disrupting and preventing organised criminality. Supporting and enabling that level of cooperation and operational activity between all the law enforcement agencies involved in tackling the six priority areas remains a key focus across both jurisdictions. The joint agency task force is adding value and producing results through that continued collaboration. I am pleased to be able to report such positive results to my Assembly colleagues. The IGA mechanism continues to deliver effective cooperation between our respective law enforcement agencies. I am committed to maintaining that excellent level of criminal justice cooperation with Ireland, which is in the best interests of our respective communities.
Mr Storey (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): I thank the Minister for her statement. Will she provide the Justice Committee with a copy of the 2021-23 work programme so that it can look at what is planned during that period?
Human trafficking is one of the most despicable crimes that we have seen in Northern Ireland and in the Republic. Minister, will you expand on the extent of the trafficking of victims across the border, the main forms of exploitation and whether discussions have resulted in additional actions, including in the modern slavery strategy and related action plans?
Mrs Long: I thank the Chairman of the Committee for his question. I will be happy to share the work programme with the Justice Committee, as would be expected.
Sadly, sexual exploitation is the main form of exploitation of victims across the island of Ireland but not necessarily trafficked across the border. The PSNI is constantly working with an Garda Síochána to improve the intelligence picture of individuals who move between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland and claim to be victims of trafficking. In most cases, the trafficking and exploitation occur in other countries, with the majority of those who come to Northern Ireland claiming to be victims of trafficking being from Libya or Eritrea. In those cases, the main form of exploitation is labour exploitation. The PSNI is seeing a large increase in the number of males coming from Eritrea through Libya and into the Republic of Ireland and then crossing into Northern Ireland who claim to be victims of exploitation.
Where they consent, their cases are referred to the national referral mechanism (NRM). As we have previously discussed, while they are in the NRM, they are entitled to support.
Ms Ennis: I thank the Minister for her statement. I know that the Minister mentioned it in her statement, but will she go into a bit more detail on the discussions that she had with her counterpart, Minister Helen McEntee, on hate crime legislation? I ask that because there is significant overlap, given that the two Departments, North and South, are working on much-needed new legislation to tackle hate crime and hate speech.
Mrs Long: I thank the Member for her question. We had quite a considerable discussion about the potential overlap and also about trying to ensure that there is the potential for harmonisation. As we bring in new laws, it is important that we try to do so as seamlessly as possible so that something that is an offence in Northern Ireland is also captured by our colleagues in the South. We will, of course, take slightly different approaches, depending on the view and will of the Assembly.
As the Member will know, the Department has gone out to public consultation — the first round of public consultation — on Judge Marrinan's recommendations. The consultation includes those matters that have already been accepted and developed by the Department. It also, however, includes a call for views on some of the more complex areas, such as how we address sectarianism and hate crime that is based on gender or misogyny and whether we should specify misogyny and transmisogyny in the legislation or simply refer to gender as a potential aggravator.
We had that discussion with Helen and her colleagues, and the working group will continue to work together. We also discussed the difficulties that we all experience with hate crime, particularly when it is conducted on social media platforms, and the challenges that all police services face in trying to extract the relevant information so that prosecutions can be pursued.
Ms S Bradley: I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, in your statement, you refer to future work on refugees in the next recording period. How nimble are the joint agency task force and other stakeholders in speaking to the changing reality on the ground, particularly given that there are two different sets of circumstances for refugees on this island? Will the Minister speak clearly to that?
Mrs Long: There are two different jurisdictions on the island, and that leads to differences in approach.
I can certainly speak to the fact that, in my meeting with the head of the Civil Service today — she will meet her counterparts in London tomorrow — I stressed my desire for refugees from Ukraine, for example, to be able to access free passage to GB and Northern Ireland. That is incredibly important at this time, and putting bureaucratic barriers in their way is an unhelpful way in which to proceed. When people come here, however, it is important that we have the resources to be able to support them, and we are engaging with Westminster on that. Finally, as I mentioned yesterday, discussions continue with our colleagues in Westminster on how we can toughen up unexplained wealth orders (UWOs) and account forfeiture and seizure powers so that we can cut off the money from the kleptocrats who are funding the current aggression between Russia and Ukraine. They are motivated solely by money and power, and much of their power comes from money. If we can follow the money, we will be able to make a strong response.
It is important for humanitarian efforts that we can coordinate across the island. Many of the local humanitarian charities operate on a cross-border basis. Our meeting obviously preceded the current crisis, however.
The Member asked how nimble the organisations are. This is about having a long-term strategy rather than making operational interventions. The ongoing work of the Police Service and an Garda Síochána will identify where any exploitation of vulnerable individuals is taking place.
Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, on excise fraud and organised crime, particularly in and around the border, you pointed to the cross-border "days of action", during which five arrests were made and €16,500 of cannabis, €4,000 of stolen property and 56,000 litres of illegal fuel were recovered. Was that a success, or is it just the tip of the iceberg? Will rising fuel prices and the fuel crisis give other opportunities to the criminals who operate in that area?
Mrs Long: In short, it can be both a success and the tip of the iceberg. Anything that we do to disrupt criminal activity on the island is welcome. Every disruption leads to changes in behaviour, and those changes in behaviour can make organised crime gangs more vulnerable to detection. Even if the amount that we seize is relatively small in comparison, potentially, with the amount of goods being trafficked, it is nevertheless an important part of the disrupt stream of trying to deal with organised crime, and those operations should continue. It is also important that they continue on a cross-border basis, because that joined-up working closes one of the gaps that such organised crime gangs try to exploit.
With respect to whether or not they will exploit the fuel crisis and exploit people's difficulties with the cost-of-living challenges, I have no doubt whatsoever that those ruthless, self-centred and self-serving individuals will exploit every vulnerability in our community. We even saw them exploit COVID as a way to try to reach more vulnerable people and embroil them in illegal lending scams and other illegal activity, so I have no doubt that they will seek to exploit it. That is why it is so important that we have not only a criminal justice response but a supportive response in the community to try to eliminate vulnerability in our community so that people are less likely to be preyed upon by those individuals.
Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for the statement and the issues covered, ranging from the very serious issue of people trafficking, which was referred to by the Justice Committee Chair, to the proactive work being done by the youth justice PAGs. Further to the information provided, how can we and all agencies work together to improve public protection across the island?
Mrs Long: In addition to the IGA, there is also a public protection group that works on a cross-border basis and brings together individuals from the Probation Board and the Probation Service to look at high-risk offenders, their movements and our monitoring of them to try to learn best practice from each other so that there is a coordinated approach to public protection right across the island.
It is a challenging area, because, obviously, freedom of movement also brings some challenges in the movement of people who may be a risk to the public. However, the good communication between the Probation Service and the Probation Board and between the Police Service and an Garda Síochána is really important in closing any gaps that might exist and ensuring that those who commit serious offences and who are a risk to the public are properly monitored and properly addressed through the criminal justice system, not only while they are in custody but when they are back in the community.
Mr Weir: I thank the Minister for her statement. When there are difficulties for society, there is always the risk that criminals will seek to exploit them. There is particular concern that serious and organised crime groups will have taken advantage of the difficulties created by the pandemic. Can the Minister give us any more details on whether there has been any detection of emerging trends in cross-border crime by serious and organised crime groups? Beyond what she has told us already, can she give us any additional information on what actions are being taken to counteract those emerging trends?
Mrs Long: The biggest challenge arising from COVID is justice recovery, because actually being able to put criminals where they should be — in front of the courts — is a challenge for all of us at a time when we have backlogs in the court system, and that is a reasonable challenge right across the island. We know from our own communities — I certainly know this from people in my constituency — that concerns have been raised that some who were involved in paramilitarism and organised crime used the cover of the pandemic to ingratiate themselves with the community and look as though they were there to do good. Alternatively, some individuals identified those who were vulnerable and then returned to them, not to deliver food parcels but, instead, to offer illegal loans and to place people under the burden of debt.
In terms of the joint agency task force, there has not, so far, been an indication of any trends emerging — certainly nothing that has been shared with us at departmental level or, indeed, at the IGA meeting. One of the benefits of the pandemic has been that much organised crime, particularly on a cross-border basis, was much more difficult, as it was even on an inter-jurisdictional basis within the UK, simply because the movement of people was frustrated. With the frustration of the movement of people, the movement of goods, and particularly contraband, was also frustrated. That, if you like, was an unintended consequence, in a positive sense, of some of the lockdown measures.
Clearly, however, as we emerge from the pandemic, there is evidence that organised crime is returning to its previous levels, so we should not be complacent. There is still considerable work to be done in order to protect local communities from what are parasitic organisations that feed off the misery of people in those communities.
Mr Newton: I thank the Minister for her statement. Obviously, one always wants to encourage cooperation between the two jurisdictions, particularly in addressing the issue of organised crime gangs. Given the quantity of drugs that have been seized, is the Minister able to give us some information on the arrests and prosecutions that followed?
The Minister noted that, during the reporting period, 153 persons presented as being potential victims of human trafficking, 95 of whom were from Eritrea. Is she able to break that down as to whether that was in Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland?
Mrs Long: Unfortunately, I am not able to give the Member the statistics that he has asked for with respect to arrests and prosecutions. I believe that there were five arrests in relation to the particular days of action that took place. There could, of course, be follow-up arrests, because that will only be the starting point for ongoing investigations. I will have to go back and ask for those statistics from the Department. Again, it would be difficult to give an estimate of the number of prosecutions. You cannot link the prosecutions during the reporting period with the activities during the same period, because the prosecutions will come later. I can certainly get an update for the Member on whether any of those cases have resulted in prosecution or are likely to lead to prosecution and what stage they are at.
The figures that I gave for the numbers of people who are presenting were for those who were doing so in Northern Ireland. The PSNI has said that there is a large increase in males coming from Eritrea, through Libya, to the Republic of Ireland who then present in Northern Ireland seeking help. That is a challenge, but I suppose that, from our perspective, irrespective of whether they come directly to Northern Ireland or through the Republic of Ireland, it is crucial that, when they arrive in Northern Ireland and claim that they have been subjected to trafficking, we refer them to the national referral mechanism in order that they can get the help and support that is necessary where they have been trafficked or that they can be passed on to the immigration system where there is any hint of immigration crime.
Mr Allister: The report refers to high levels of cooperation and operational activity between all the various law enforcement agencies. Does that include the terrorism investigation unit? Does the IRA's cross-border criminality come within the ambit of the joint agency task force and, if so, with what result?
Mrs Long: All cross-border crime is covered by the joint agency task force. I am afraid that the question about the terrorism investigation unit can only be answered by the Secretary of State, because terrorism is a reserved matter.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): That ends the period for questions to the Minister of Justice on her statement. I ask Members to take their ease before the next item of business.
Ms Hargey (The Minister for Communities): I thank the House for the opportunity to make the statement to the Assembly — a statement in which I intend to announce the payment date for the energy payment support scheme and to provide an update to Members on how my Department is providing vital support to help those most vulnerable to the cost-of-living and energy price increases. The rising cost of living and soaring increases in energy bills continue to have a major impact on people who are finding it harder to cope. Many are struggling to afford essentials, such as heating their homes and paying for electricity. My top priority has always been to support people, and I will continue to do all that I can. That is why I recently announced that I am freezing Housing Executive rent levels for 2022-23 so as not to place any further financial burden on individuals and families who are striving relentlessly each day to make ends meet.
My Welfare Supplementary Payments (Amendment) Bill, which will complete its Final Stage this afternoon, will bin the bedroom tax by removing the cliff edge that many people are facing. It will provide financial support to people and protect them against the cruel tax of the welfare reforms that were introduced. I have secured the extension of the other welfare mitigation schemes until 2025 and ensured the closure of the loopholes in the benefit cap and bedroom tax mitigations. I have given a commitment to keep welfare mitigations under review, so that I can continue to provide support where it is most needed. A review of the current mitigations is ongoing. I am due to receive that report soon.
I first wrote to the Finance Minister about the energy crisis on 9 November 2021 asking for the immediate consideration of funding for an energy payment support scheme. The Finance Minister quickly wrote to Executive colleagues asking them to identify underspends, in advance of the January monitoring round, which could increase the resource available for the scheme. On receipt of responses, the Finance Minister wrote, again, to Executive colleagues to seek agreement for the immediate allocation of the £13·8 million Barnett consequential funding and, given the scale of the crisis, for additional funding to be allocated for this scheme. Despite that urgent request from the Finance Minister and attempts by me to secure the funding last year, it was blocked from getting on to the Executive agenda to be discussed or agreed. I eventually secured support from the Executive on 13 January 2022 to deliver a £55 million payment support scheme to provide vital support to around 280,000 individuals across a wide range of benefits.
The agreed scheme is targeted at individuals on low incomes who are in receipt of means-tested benefits administered by my Department, and it will provide a one-off £200 payment to help with their energy costs. I asked my officials to explore whether tax credits could also be included within the eligibility criteria for the scheme. My officials engaged with Revenue and Customs, which has responsibility for administering tax credits. Obviously, those are reserved matters. Revenue and Customs stated that it did not have the legal powers to make a payment, and a workable solution could not be found.
Despite the delay in securing Executive approval for the scheme until 13 January 2022, a delay that was caused by not allowing it on to the agenda for decision in November of the previous year, I asked for payments to be made as quickly and practically as possible. I can now announce that the payment date has been brought forward as much as possible, and we will see payments begin to reach people’s bank accounts next week, on 10 March 2022, with most of the payments being paid on 10 and 11 March.
My Department continues to offer a range of supports, including such schemes as the affordable warmth scheme and the boiler replacement scheme, to help improve the energy efficiency of homes, as well as cold weather payments, discretionary support and the winter fuel payment, which has already paid out £51 million this winter to more than 290,000 older people.
My Department also provided a £2 million contribution to an emergency fuel payment scheme operated by Bryson Care to deliver targeted support to families who present as being in fuel crisis or who have a temporary inability to meet their fuel costs.
The crisis will not end soon. As we know, in many cases, the issues lie beyond the Assembly. We need to do all that we can, however, to protect people and families. We need a functioning Executive to take decisions. We also need to support people. Everyone has a responsibility to do all in their power to do that. I will continue to provide support, and I hope that others will continue to support me in doing so in the time ahead.
Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Minister. I welcome the fact that the energy support scheme payment is set to commence on 10 March. I am sure that all of us will agree that constituents have been contacting our offices because they are keen to know the date. Today's announcement will give them reassurance.
Will the Minister confirm that she also sought to broaden the scheme further in order to include those on working tax credit?
Ms Hargey: Yes. We looked at that. As I said in my statement, tax credits fall under Revenue and Customs; they are a reserved matter and are not within my Department's power, so I do not hold the data.
When we contacted HMRC, it said that primary legislation would be needed for it to be able to make payments. We were willing to pay the money to those in receipt of tax credits, but HMRC said that it was not able to do so. We then asked whether we could have the payment details so that we could make the payments ourselves, and we were told that, because of data-sharing issues, primary legislation would be needed to allow that to happen. We have exhausted all avenues.
We know that around 45% of those in receipt of means-tested benefits also receive tax credits. Some people on tax credits, therefore, will be able to avail themselves of the payment through the existing scheme. In the remainder of this mandate, however, without that primary legislation, there is no way to include people who are on tax credits. That is really unfortunate, but we exhausted all avenues.
Ms Armstrong (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): Minister, your announcement is very welcome. We had an idea that the payment was going to be made to people in mid-March, and you have delivered on that.
With the Bryson scheme, oil companies, in particular, are charging beneficiaries £20 on top of their fuel costs just for a delivery. That will also happen with the energy payment scheme. Can you do anything to address that misuse of public money?
Ms Hargey: We have tried to engage. The Department has had regular meetings with the Utility Regulator and the Consumer Council about trying to have an engagement with energy companies about their social responsibilities. Energy companies contributed to the administrative costs of the Bryson scheme, which meant that the £2 million that came from the Department went directly to households and people who needed it.
I can continually raise the delivery charge with the Utility Regulator. All that money should be spent on meeting people's needs in relation to fuel prices. I will take that away and come back to you.
Mr Frew: Given the moves that have been made in GB, particularly in England, to provide rate relief so that more people can be caught in schemes and given support, has the Minister had any discussions with the Finance Minister about giving rate relief for energy costs?
Ms Hargey: We looked at a number of other schemes. The energy support scheme that was brought forward last November was based on the people on the lowest incomes: those in receipt of means-tested benefits. The difficulty with extending the scheme now is having the money to do it and having an Executive to approve any change to the scheme. Luckily, I was able to get the scheme signed off before the Executive fell — in fact, at the last minute, on the day that the Assembly came down. There are limitations on what else we can do without a functioning Executive. The scheme, as it stands, is for those who are in receipt of the means-tested benefits that have been listed.
There is other help through the Bryson Care scheme. That is still in operation and will be in operation until the end of this month. The resource is still there. There were issues at the start of that scheme, but it has started to become embedded, and there is a 24-hour turnaround between people approaching it and receiving direct assistance. If anyone is in financial crisis or at the point of being disconnected, I encourage them to contact Bryson Care.
Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for her statement, although it is pretty underwhelming. In fact, worse than that, it is hugely disappointing. It tells us only what the Minister had told us in a written statement on 13 January, after she had told the media, and people still have not seen a penny. The benefit of the payment to households has been greatly reduced by a subsequent price hike. Of course, we welcome the fact that the payments are finally going out, but have the Minister and her ministerial colleagues given any consideration to how working families or those who are not on benefits can be protected? We know how much you care about protecting people, Minister, but the situation is so bad that everyone needs protection.
Ms Hargey: I do not think that there is anything underwhelming about £55 million going out to over 280,000 individuals. There were queries about when the payments were coming, and it was important for me to set out the date for when they will hit people's bank accounts, which will be next Thursday and Friday. That will be good news for those who are waiting for the payments. We are in the midst of a global fuel and cost-of-living crisis. Obviously, the situation in and around Ukraine and Russia adds further instability, which will, no doubt, have a knock-on effect on people's cost of living and fuel costs.
I have stepped in with this scheme. I wanted the scheme to hit people's pockets earlier, but the failure to have it put on the Executive agenda for two months meant that we are getting the money out to people only now, rather than in January, which is when I would have liked it to have been given out. On top of that, we are doing the £2 million Bryson Care scheme, which has been working really well. Over 11,000 people receive support from that. Of course, that is on top of all the other schemes that the Department is working on. The affordable warmth scheme, the cold weather payment scheme, the boiler replacement scheme, the winter fuel payment scheme that I touched on, the Bryson Care scheme and discretionary support are all services and supports that the Department runs.
There is a responsibility on other Departments. I do not hold responsibility for energy, and, obviously, the Department for the Economy has to address issues there as well. That said, my Department has met the Utility Regulator regularly, and we continue to see what we can do to address those problems. The Finance Minister has written to Westminster about VAT costs on energy bills and calling for a windfall tax. More moves are needed there.
The reality is that, if any additional moneys come, we need a functioning Executive in order to make decisions and allocate those resources. In the absence of that, I do not know where that leaves us when it comes to any additional resource that may come. How will that money be allocated? There is a concern there. I can do all that I can in the Department, but I need others working with me and a functioning Executive up and running again. I am hopeful that that can happen sooner rather than later.
Mr Allen: Rightly, the Minister pointed out that the cost-of-living crisis will not end any time soon. It is apparent from the Minister's remarks and from the fact that individuals have been excluded from the energy support scheme and the emergency fuel payment scheme that many households in Northern Ireland will be pushed beyond the brink.
I implore the Minister to do all that she can, working with her officials, to bring forward a scheme to support the people who are excluded.
Ms Hargey: There would need to be a change in the legislation for there to be an additional scheme and to make emergency payments, and that takes a functioning Executive. I continue to exhaust all avenues to see how I can support people on the ground. There are limitations, as I have said, around tax credits, for example. I recognise that in-work poorer people just do not have enough income to sustain their outgoings. Unfortunately, there were legal barriers. HMRC said that it needed primary legislation in order to progress.
We do not have the three-year Budget that we wanted. We cannot get a Budget signed off. We need a functioning Executive, so that, if any additional money becomes available, we can allocate it to the cost-of-living crisis. I implore everyone around the Chamber to focus on getting the Executive up and running again so that we can start to deal with the challenges collectively.
There is also a push for Westminster to look at the issue in a serious way, just as we approached the pandemic. The energy and the cost-of-living crises will not go away. They are huge crises, and they are growing across all our communities. Therefore, there need to be solutions at the level at which tax powers and other powers are held. Westminster needs to make an intervention. Before the Executive folded, the Finance Minister wrote on their behalf about those interventions, but we are still waiting for them to come across. I will continue to do all that I can to represent communities on the ground, but we need a functioning Executive in order to allocate any additional resources that come forward.
Miss Reilly: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a ráitis. I thank the Minister for her statement this afternoon. Minister, given that British Government policies, such as Brexit and years of austerity cuts, have contributed massively to the cost-of-living crisis, which, we know, will not go away any time soon, do you agree that the British Government need to step up to the plate and act to take pressure off struggling families and workers on low incomes?
Ms Hargey: Definitely. As I have just said, the Executive, through the Finance Minister, wrote about reducing VAT costs on household energy bills or removing the VAT. We also looked at the windfall tax and other measures that could be put in place. We wait to hear a response from them about measures that they were going to introduce. I attended the British-Irish Council meeting recently on energy, at which Minister Lyons was the lead Minister. The cost of living and rising energy bills were not on the agenda, so I asked for a discussion about it. I used that as an opportunity to raise serious concerns and to say that those matters needed to be elevated to Westminster level. I am hopeful that, even through those engagements, we will start to see things.
The payments for this scheme, for example, are made under the Financial Assistance Act 2009, and we need the signature of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Again, if any new additional resource or funding comes forward, we will need a functioning Executive to allocate the money and to sign off on the regulations to allow the money to get to the people who need it. That is where the focus needs to be.
Mr Dunne: The payment date is 10 March, which is 10 days before the official start of spring. It is disappointing that winter will almost have passed before payments will be in bank accounts. What more will the Minister do to support working families to meet the rising costs of energy? What engagement has she had with the Housing Executive to improve energy-efficiency measures?
Ms Hargey: Unfortunately, my proposal was held up in the Executive for two months. We could have seen the payment in January, not March. That was out of my control. It was not allowed on the agenda for discussion until January, when it was finally approved at the Executive, even though the Finance Minister had written to the Executive in November last year. That was unfortunate.
The scheme is not responding to the winter fuel pressures — we have already paid out over £51 million over the last couple of months — it is responding to the cost-of-living crisis and the global fuel crisis that we face and will probably face for the foreseeable future. I am glad that payments will go out directly to all of those households. Next Thursday and Friday, the bulk of the payments will be made to 280,000 individuals across the North. I continue to keep options open to see what more we can do, but, without a Budget for next year being agreed, we have to look at our baseline budgets and can only function on a three-month basis. To do anything of scale, we need a functioning Executive.
There is a big focus on the revitalisation of the Housing Executive to get it on to a firm financial footing and look at the cavity wall insulation issues. The Housing Executive has action plans for that. Over the past year, we have put additional moneys into the reserves of the Housing Executive to allow it to do more works. It will come forward with additional measures and schemes to address some of the challenges.
Ms Á Murphy: Minister, in the statement and in an answer to a Member across the way, you mentioned the difficulty that you had in getting this on to the Executive agenda. Can you confirm that the delay in getting the desperately needed support to families facing the cost-of-living crisis was because of the DUP's refusal to agree the necessary allocation of funding?
Ms Hargey: From the Chancellor's announcement last year, £13·8 million was to come forward as a Barnett consequential. When that money was announced last year, I indicated that I would like it to go towards a fuel support scheme, but I also recognised that £13·8 million would never be enough. When I wrote to the Finance Minister last November, I requested the £13·8 million and for him to see what other resources were available. Right away and automatically, he contacted other Ministers asking for projections of any in-year underspends in advance of the January monitoring round and saying that those would go towards a fuel support scheme. He got an announcement.
The Finance Minister then wrote to the Executive in November, suggesting that the £55 million be allocated. The proposal in his paper did not make it on to the Executive agenda until January of this year. That two-month delay in the decision being made meant a two-month delay in getting the scheme up and running. Members will know that, for an item to get on to the Executive agenda, it takes the two Ministers in the Executive Office to sign off on it. Unfortunately, we could not get sign-off until January of this year, yet the proposal was ready and put to the Executive in November of last year.
Mr Humphrey: I thank the Minister for her statement to the House. Are households that are on contribution-based employment and support allowance (ESA) included in the scheme?
Ms Hargey: Those who will receive the payments directly are those in receipt of income-based jobseeker's allowance, income-related employment allowance, universal credit, pension credit or income support.
Ms S Bradley: Minister, thank you for your statement. I seek some clarity. You explained that you wanted to extend the scheme to working tax credits and put on record the barriers that were in place to prevent you doing that. Had you costed extending the scheme to working tax credits? If you had, have you secured that money? If not, where is it?
Ms Hargey: We could have used the £55 million to spread the scheme across all. There are about 55,000 people in receipt of tax credits. We take 45% off that number for those on tax credits who would get the payment because they are on one of the other means-tested benefits. We were told that primary legislation would be needed and therefore that HMRC could not move on that in this mandate. We were willing to make the payment and to use HMRC's payment details, but it said that, because of data-sharing limitations, it was not able to provide them.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): That ends questions to the Minister for Communities on her statement. I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments.
That the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Related to Courts, Tribunals and Inquests) Order (Northern Ireland) 2022 be approved.
Mrs Long: I seek the Assembly's approval for the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Related to Courts, Tribunals and Inquests) Order (Northern Ireland) 2022. The order extends two main provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 that are due to expire on 24 March 2022. I welcome the support expressed by the Justice Committee at its meeting on 17 February, when, in considering the order, it was content to recommend that it be approved by the Assembly.
The provisions include, first, the power in section 32 that allows a coroner to deviate from the normal requirement in the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 for a jury inquest into deaths in custody. The deviation is restricted to deaths in custody due to natural illness. In addition, the coroner retains discretion, having considered the individual circumstances of a case, not to utilise the permission provided under section 32 but to conduct the inquest with a jury. That is not intended to be a permanent measure, but it is still needed at this time to facilitate the listing of inquests, owing to ongoing pressures on the availability of COVID-compliant juries and accommodation across the court estate.
Secondly, article 3 of the order extends the provisions that allow courts and statutory tribunals in Northern Ireland to receive evidence wholly or in part through the use of audio or video live links. The issue of the use of live links is cross-cutting, and, last year, the relevant Ministers, as well as the other members of the Executive, were consulted. They expressed support for the extension and for proposed additional extensions required while work takes place on shaping some form of permanent legislative provision for the wider use of live links than existed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Although it may now appear that the need for social distancing and other requirements instituted to protect our health and minimise our exposure to the risk of COVID-related infection have diminished, as Minister of Justice, my focus is on ensuring that the justice system can respond quickly and effectively should further COVID-19 variants arrive.
In my view, this extension, and a small number of additional extensions, will be essential to the planned recovery of the justice system from the impact of COVID-19. They will also empower courts and tribunals to continue to use live links as required, so long as the judge in charge is satisfied that evidence given remotely is in the interests of justice. Currently, remote, hybrid and physical attendance at hearings are all being deployed on judicial direction as the situation or circumstances of a case demand. An engagement exercise, conducted in November with the main users of our courts and tribunals, had all 25 stakeholders who responded expressing support for extension while the justice system recovery is outstanding. An overwhelming majority also expressed support for some form of permanent provision for the use of live links in the future.
As with our counterparts across the Irish Sea, the benefits to be gained from the wider use of live links within the justice system here are recognised. Greater use of live videoconferencing or TV links can reduce distress for some participants and can be more convenient for witnesses, police, lawyers and courts. It can substantially reduce our carbon footprint and assist in speeding up our justice system.
While it will be for the next Assembly to contribute to the legislation, my Department has committed to pre-consultation engagement with stakeholders as to the form and shape of such provision in advance of a public consultation later this year.
I hope that the Assembly, like me, will see this order as an important element in the justice recovery strategy and the multiple strands of ongoing work for improving, modernising and building resilience in the justice system. The support and recognition for the proposed two-stage legislative approach to retaining the use of live links for courts and tribunals by Executive colleagues last year was welcome. Policy and operational personnel are engaged with stakeholders to achieve an innovative, collaborative and responsive and 21st-century courts and tribunals system. The increased use of technology for court and tribunal business will provide the opportunity to redesign and optimise service delivery models to transform the way Courts and Tribunals Service users access services.
It will make a significant contribution to improving and speeding up access to justice. It is about increasing access without creating barriers for those who are unable to utilise digital channels. Access to justice should reflect not only the requirements of the court but also the wishes of participants and the utilisation of modern technology. It is accompanied by a recognition of the equal importance of maintaining existing safeguards, such as the principle of open justice and the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
I therefore commend the approval of this order to the Assembly.
Mr Storey (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): As Chair of the Justice Committee, I will make a few comments, and my colleague Peter Weir will speak on behalf of the DUP.
The Minister has already outlined the statutory rule before us. It extends the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 that allow courts and statutory tribunals to receive evidence through audio or visual links beyond March 2022, when they are set to expire. The rule will also enable a coroner to hold an inquest into a death in prison caused by natural causes without a jury, although an inquest can still be heard with a jury if the coroner considers that desirable.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McGlone] in the Chair)
The Committee had initially been advised, during its consideration of the legislative consent motion on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, that the Department was considering the inclusion of the live links provision in the Bill in the LCM. However, as the timescales within which this needed to be done proved challenging, a two-stage legislative approach was approved by the Executive, whereby the provisions would initially be extended by the subordinate legislation that is before us today, with an Assembly Bill to be introduced in the next mandate to make permanent provision for the use of audio and visual links.
On 30 November 2021, the Committee considered the information provided by the Department of Justice, advising of a four-week targeted consultation on proposals to extend the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020, permitting remote hearings by live or audio links beyond the current sunset clause of March 2022. The Committee sought further information on this exercise and the details of any data collected on the use and impact of audio and visual links in the courts.
In its response, the Department stated that the targeted consultation was not a consultation in the sense that the decision by the Executive to extend the provisions beyond March was open to change. Rather, its intention was to alert those justice stakeholders that had been identified as the main users of the provision to the decision that had been taken and to ascertain their views on the possible future introduction of legislative provision for similar facilities to be made permanently available for use in courts and tribunals. Stakeholders were also invited to provide user feedback on current practice or experience of the facilities.
The report on the exercise was provided along with the proposal for the statutory rule, which was considered by the Committee on 13 January 2022. The Department advised that only one of the 25 respondents was not supportive of the live links provisions being made permanent, but that all respondents supported their immediate extension as part of the recovery of the justice system. Some of those who supported permanent provision noted specific reservations or issues needing improvement. The Department has advised that it will reflect on the responses and engage further with the stakeholders in the development of a Bill to put provisions permanently in place.
As well as extending the audio and visual links, the proposal for the statutory rule outlined the extension of provisions in the Coronavirus Act that allow a coroner to hold, without a jury, an inquest into a death in prison caused by natural injury. The coroner will consider the circumstances in each case and apply discretion on the utilisation of the provisions. The Department advised that the proposed extension of these provisions is not cross-cutting or controversial and that there is no intention that they be made permanent in the future.
On 13 January, the Committee agreed that it was content with the proposal of the statutory rule. The statutory rule was subsequently considered at the meeting of 17 February, where the Committee noted that the Examiner of Statutory Rules had no comments to make by way of technical scrutiny and agreed to recommend that the statutory rule be approved by the Assembly. Enabling the use of remote hearings through the use of live video or audio links enabled courts and tribunals to continue to operate during the pandemic, and continued provision is the issue that is before the House.
Ms Ennis: I welcome the opportunity to add some comments to those of the Minister and the Chair of the Committee on the extension of the provisions related to the courts, tribunals and inquests. The Coronavirus Act 2020 provided a number of temporary emergency provisions in response to the public health crisis that was emerging in early 2020. The Act introduced a number of provisions to enable the justice system to continue to operate, while providing access to justice and maintaining a COVID-compliant system of operation.
As we know, the Act included a sunset clause, meaning that the provisions would expire by 31 March 2022. Whilst the provisions in the Act were temporary, and whilst the pandemic has changed dramatically since March 2020, it is clear that some measures are still necessary. An extension of some of those provisions is therefore necessary.
The extension of the provisions that allow for live links to be used in courts and tribunals is vital to the recovery of the justice system. It has probably progressed the pace of a change that was needed anyway. There is clearly a role for live links as we try to speed up justice and address significant delays in the justice system.
Sinn Féin supports the Department's approach of temporarily extending the provisions whilst working on primary legislation for their later permanent introduction. We support extending the provisions that allow a coroner to conduct an inquest into a death from natural illness in prison for a short period of time, given the ongoing requirements arising from the pandemic and for the purposes of the recovery of the justice system.
Ms S Bradley: I will not reiterate all the reasons outlined by the Minister and the Chair of the Committee, because I am very conscious of the time constraints on the Chamber today. I rise only to say that the SDLP agrees with this statutory rule and the temporary extension of provisions, as well as with the Minister's approach to finding a longer-term solution.
Ms Armstrong: On behalf of the Alliance Party, I support the Minister and agree to her request for the approval of the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Related to Courts, Tribunals and Inquests) Order (Northern Ireland) 2022 — that is a mouthful — which deals with live links and inquests. As the Minister highlighted, section 32 of the Act gives the power to allow a coroner to deviate from normal requirements. It is not intended to be permanent, and the coroner retains discretion to conduct an inquest with a jury where they believe that it is appropriate in the circumstances.
The article 3 provisions on live links are part of a wider programme of modernisation in our courts. Keeping people safe during COVID has accelerated the use of technology. In the long term, it would be great to make such technology available permanently when other legislation is brought forward. Given the fact that the extension will come to an end, I ask the Minister what it will mean if there is no Executive or Assembly at that time. We all know that live links are an important tool to make courts' business faster and more efficient and to reduce our carbon footprint. We will always be cognisant of the need for open justice and, indeed, of any barriers to the use of technology. Therefore, I am satisfied that court users who cannot or do not wish to use live links will not be made to do so.
As I said, on behalf of Alliance, I will support the legislation. I ask others to do so.
Mr Weir: At the outset, I should declare a non-pecuniary interest as a non-practising member of the Bar. Obviously, "non-practising" means that I will not get any fees as the result of any court case, so it is non-pecuniary in nature.
To be a bit like the little boy who points out that the emperor has no clothes, on behalf of the DUP, I indicate that we will oppose the motion. It is the case, I think, that we all — or, at least, the vast bulk of us — accept that, during the pandemic, there has been, at times, a need for restrictions to be put in place for the point of public safety. It is, undoubtedly, the case that, sometimes, those restrictions have been put in place across different sectors to enable things to carry on as best as possible. That has largely been the case in the justice system. However, no matter how well restrictions work in the particular sectors in which the provision is delivered, they come with a level of constraint to the delivery of services. Nowhere is that more important than in the justice system.
Mr Weir: I am really just getting started, but I will give way briefly.
Mrs Long: I appreciate the Member's giving way and that he is only getting started, but, perhaps, before he goes down a cul-de-sac from which he will find it difficult to return, can I disabuse him of the notion that the restrictions that we are dealing with, in themselves, have a negative impact on the throughput of the courts? In fact, across the justice system, including the courts, PPS and PSNI, in terms of prosecutions on the criminal side, all agencies are operating at 115% of the level at which they were operating prior to the pandemic, and the use of live links is part of speeding up justice.
Mr Weir: I thank the Minister for her intervention. However, had she listened to what I was saying, she would know that I did not suggest that it was impacting on the throughput of the courts. I am not making that particular point. I am making a different point about the quality of the delivery of justice. The reality is that the restraints and some of the restrictions that are there do have an impact on the quality of the delivery of justice. I am sure that the Minister would agree that to ensure the delivery of that quality of justice is one of the most important aspects that faces society. Whether you are a defendant or plaintiff, indeed, on a whole range of things, ensuring that you get the best possible delivery of justice is critical in society.
To that end, there is a good argument that justice should actually be put at the forefront of removal of restrictions in order to enable it to resume the best possible delivery of service. At the very least, we should not be in a situation where restrictions are removed from virtually every other aspect of life and, in effect, the delivery of justice is put to the back of the queue and restrictions are maintained when they are being removed from life.
A Member: Will the Member give way?
Mr Weir: I am going to carry on. I am sure that there will be opportunities later for the Member to make her point.
The position should be that justice is not at the back of the queue. Unfortunately, I think that that is where this measure leaves it. I do not take particular exception to what has been outlined with regard to the coroner's position.
However, when it comes to witnesses and the delivery of evidence, it creates constraints. How is that the case? Anyone who has practised law will know that, when you are taking evidence in a case, the opportunity to be directly face to face with a witness is highly important in order to convey the full meaning of any evidence session. In delivering decisions, it is often about seeing the nuance of how a witness performs and how they deliver their evidence. To an extent, that is masked by video delivery. It is not the same quality.
There can also be problems in the courts when they depend on technology that may or may not be working absolutely perfectly, which creates a barrier between the lawyer and their client. Again, it affects the quality of justice, which might sometimes be quite minor, but we have to take it seriously.
The current provision is for hubs to Zoom in and Zoom out of video links. That acts as a barrier and has an impact on younger members of the legal profession. Those who are involved and have a long-standing practice can use video links much more effectively and do a range of remote cases, but it effectively acts as a barrier to entry into the profession and for people to succeed in that.
There is a concern already —
Mr Weir: I will give way in a moment. The Committee received evidence a number of weeks ago about some of the potential restrictions, which, I freely admit, are not of the Minister's making, around the provision of legal aid, which could act as a barrier to younger members of the profession. There is a danger that senior members are hoovering up that work.
Ms Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way. I just want to clarify that, over the past couple of years, with COVID, those young members entering the profession have lived on Zoom and other online platforms, including throughout their university careers.
Will the Member outline how many appeals have been taken because of court systems happening through online provisions?
Mr Weir: I am not aware of the figures, but it is about the quality of the justice. It is about the opportunity to have direct interaction in court between the lawyer and the client. It will mean that the potential quality of that detailed level of discussion and interaction that all of us get from a one-to-one, face-to-face meeting with someone is reduced. That is the experience that has been relayed to me by a range of lawyers. We need to take the issue seriously.
Thankfully, as we move away from the situation that we were in even in November when the consultation took place, there was, by definition, limited action on the consultation, as has been highlighted. We are not in the same position that we were in in November or January, and, in the last number of weeks, the Health Minister has effectively removed all the restrictions that were in place.
The reality is that we are already creating anomalies. I can think of one particular courthouse in Northern Ireland — I am sure that the Committee Chair will be very familiar with it — where it has been custom and practice that, whatever happens in the courthouse, members of the legal profession and clients will quite often decant to a hotel right beside the courthouse. It is bizarre to say that you can have as many people as you want gathered round the table of a cafe or restaurant to discuss issues, but, once you cross the threshold of the courts of justice, that is prevented. That seems to me to be nonsense. It has been said about many cases that solicitors' firms encourage the solicitor and the client to huddle around the same Zoom call in the solicitor's office.
Mrs Long: With respect, I am struggling to see where that is relevant to what is before us today. Frankly, whether or not lawyers and barristers go for coffee in a nearby hotel or anywhere else is not relevant to the practice of justice. There is accommodation in every courthouse to make sure that people can consult their clients in a COVID-safe and COVID-compliant manner. That has been sustained throughout the COVID pandemic and will be sustained for the foreseeable future. There is no suggestion here that what people choose to do in their own time should necessarily dictate what people must do, such as attending court at the demand of the state.
Mr Weir: I appreciate that the Minister is struggling, and maybe I can help her with that. The point is this: why are we putting in courts artificial barriers that do not apply in any other part of life? We are in a situation where those restrictions have been removed, and we need to see a full resumption of the quality of justice. This is a retrograde step that creates barriers and does not provide the best opportunity to deliver that full quality of justice. Therefore, it is the wrong step at the wrong time. We have moved on, and it is time for the courts to move on and go back to the provision that has been put in place, so that we can ensure that everyone can get full access to and, indeed, the fullest quality of our justice system.
Mrs Long: I had hoped that this would be a short debate, given that the motion was recommended by the Justice Committee, and no one on that Committee dissented. However, it seems that we might have to take slightly longer to explain the motion to some members of the Committee. I reassure the Member for North Down that I am not struggling at all, other than to be able to —
Mr Weir: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I assume that the Minister is referring to me. I am a Member for Strangford, not North Down.
Mrs Long: Apologies. I get lost when people start moving around.
I am certainly not struggling, other than to understand the point that the Member for Strangford is trying to make. The near-universal consensus in the Committee, and from other Members in the House today, mirrors the support given to date by the Justice Committee to the policy since the former Lord Chief Justice, Sir Declan Morgan QC, raised it in June 2021, and it shows what can be achieved when we work together towards a common purpose.
My colleague Kellie Armstrong specifically asked how long this particular extension would last. The answer is six months. The extensions run in six-month cycles, and this extension will therefore expire in September. The provision will require at least one further extension of the coronavirus legislation so that we can put in place primary legislation that introduces the long-term provision of live links. I make it clear — I hope that Mr Weir is paying attention — that the motion is not about restrictions continuing in the courts. In fact, the courts are operating at 115% of their previous capacity because we can operate and use live links. The purpose of introducing them is not to keep people out of the courts. Even when we return to business as normal, we will still require the use of live links to speed up justice, and that has always been the intention.
I want to deal with some of the issues that the Member raised. On the protection of access to justice, a number of protections are included in the parent legislation, the Coronavirus Act 2020, to prevent any detriment arising for any party or witness providing evidence to a court or tribunal, including their right to a fair hearing. In Part 1 of schedule 27, any risk of discrimination against any person with a protected characteristic arising from the expanded use of live links is negated through the safeguards in the legislation. Those include the judicial post holder having to be satisfied that the use of life links is in the interests of justice. The practice direction of the Lord Chief Justice in January 2020, as revised with effect from 29 January 2021, requires every remote hearing to be planned and conducted in a manner designed to secure every party's right to a fair hearing.
In making that decision, the parties have an opportunity to make representations and the court or tribunal is required to consider all the circumstances of the case, including the views of the person who would be using the live link, the suitability of the facilities where they would be taking part and whether they can take part effectively. Completion of the relevant listing forms ensures that any issues that a person may face in engaging remotely or using technology are addressed by the court at the earliest opportunity. Various practice directions, instructions and guidance have issued for different tiers of the court and a variety of users. Throughout this period, they have been updated and published by the Lady Chief Justice's office. It is considered that the safeguards that are provided by requiring the judiciary to be satisfied in any case that receiving evidence by live link is in the interests of justice means that any indirect impact relating to those powers is minor and temporary while ensuring that no less favourable treatment for access to justice occurs. At this stage, it is not considered that the extension of the legislation will have a significant differential effect on the needs, experiences and priorities of people who are in any of the section 75 categories or on rural inhabitants.
I want to turn to open justice, which the Member referred to. A number of protections also exist in the parent legislation to ensure that the principle that is enshrined in article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights that justice be conducted in a public place is maintained. Without the provisions that were created in the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 by Part 2 of schedule 27 to the Coronavirus Act 2020, the pre-existing statutes that prohibit photography, including video, in courts other than the Supreme Court and the making of unauthorised sound recordings would limit the courts' inherent ability to ensure public participation in proceedings. The extension of those provisions in Part 2 allows the court to direct that members of the public have real-time access to any virtual hearing and that a video or telephone hearing should be live-streamed to enable observers to see or hear proceedings. Remote access has been predominately facilitated by Sightlink technology, and data shows that the monthly usage of that has increased from just over 100 user connections pre-COVID to over 70,000 user connections in January 2022.
Ms Ennis: I thank the Minister for giving way. Like the Minister, I am slightly bemused by the arguments that Peter Weir put against the proposal. Does the Minister agree that the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages for live links and virtual sessions, not least because they free up more police officers to return to front-line duties instead of waiting around in courthouses all day for the first hearings of cases?
Mrs Long: Absolutely. It also frees up our prison custody officers, who normally escort prisoners, often disrupting the prisoner on remand because they are being trekked across the countryside to appear in front of a judge for perhaps fewer than 10 minutes after a two-hour journey. To me, eliminating that by the use of live links is an entirely appropriate thing to make permanent in the future. In order to get to that point, we need these temporary extensions, not to restrict access to the courts but to enable access to the courts via digital technology.
A number of methods are utilised by the Department and the Courts and Tribunals Service for the collection of data or assessments on the use and impact of the use of audio and visual links in the courts. Those include the cross-justice recovery group, which meets every month. That group is chaired by the head of the justice performance team, with representatives from the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service, the Public Prosecution Service, the Lady Chief Justice's office (LCJO) and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. A meeting with the Law Society and the Bar Council is also held monthly, and that is chaired by the director of the access to justice directorate. Other attendees include representatives from the JPT, NICS, PPS, PSNI and the LCJO. Generally, both bodies are represented by their chief executive officer or a deputy. Throughout the pandemic, PPS, NICS, PSNI and the LCJO have held regular meetings at an operational level to monitor and address a wide range of operational issues, including those arising from the process that was established for communicating with the relevant judge about how and from whom evidence will be required during a court hearing — that is known as forms HR1 and HR2 — as well as the use of Sightlink. It is not considered that the extension of the legislation will have an adverse or differential impact. We anticipate that the review and extension of the legislation will be accessible and apply equally to all groups.
The Department conducted a targeted engagement with the main users of live links in November 2021. The 25 responses received indicated that most respondents considered the remote hearing facilities to work well. The majority, including those who work regularly and specifically with children or victims engaged in court proceedings, were positive about the process, and expressed a desire for increased integration of the facilities into court procedures. Most, if not all, respondents recognised that there is a time, cost and ecological benefit to the reception of evidence remotely.
Whilst concerns were expressed about vulnerable adults, any potential less favourable impact of the provisions appears to be minor and temporary, as I said. Due to the requirement to satisfy the safeguard provided by the judiciary — that, in any case, the receipt of evidence by live link is in the interest of justice — that less favourable impact is mitigated. That safeguard includes ensuring that all parties to a case can fully participate in any hearing. It is not considered that there will be an adverse impact on the equality of opportunity for any category of user. It is also not considered that the requirement to participate in a hearing by telephone or video represents a disadvantage to a person with a protected characteristic compared to someone who does not share that characteristic.
There are safeguards in place to ensure that digital channels are used only in appropriate circumstances, and that assisted digital provision is available to support users of digital channels. If or when an issue is raised, it is addressed. We liaise regularly with those from, for example, disability charities, who engage with the Department and the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service to ensure that we use the right technology for particular defendants or people who come before the courts. The Department is alive to the concern, but the legislation contains the required safeguards, including that any direction for the use of live links can be rescinded if it appears to the court or tribunal to be in the interests of justice to do so.
The live links engagement exercise that we undertook preceded COVID-19 and omicron. We are moving as quickly as we can to reopen the courts in the normal way. However, the idea that that will mean returning to "business as usual", as it has been referred to, is simply not realistic. We will want to capture the benefits of hybrid working that we have gained through the pandemic. I was in Laganside Courts only a week ago talking to members of the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service. They have been hybrid working, which allows us to increase our staff without increasing our footprint. That is quite significant in turning justice around and catching up with the pandemic backlog.
The use of live links has enabled the courts and tribunals to continue to operate throughout the pandemic, but it will be a critical tool in addressing the COVID backlog in the court system. As I said, at the moment, it is an important part of our overall strategy on court recovery. Without it, we will not be able to make that recovery. My colleague Kellie Armstrong asked what would happen if there were no Assembly in September, at the point when the legislation needs to be renewed for a further six months in order that we are able to take forward primary legislation. The truth is that, if we do not get this extension today and do not get the one in September, that would be catastrophic to the recovery of the justice system. I say it again: it would be catastrophic to the recovery of the justice system.
The degree to which we are reliant on digital technology in the courts now far exceeds what was the case before, but it is good that we are using that digital technology. It has always been the position of the Justice Committee that we should accelerate the use of digital technology where possible. I am disappointed that, with no concern about the extension having been raised, we now get blindsided by the DUP in the Chamber. Whilst I understand that the Member declared an interest, the wider interests of justice are not served if people are not open about their concerns with the legislation at a time when we can respond to those concerns in a proper fashion and when the Committee can give them full consideration.
This is an important piece of technical legislation. It sets the foundation for us to recover the courts system. I can assure Mr Weir that, if we do not recover the courts system, we will be in a significantly more difficult situation on access to justice. If people cannot get their cases heard in a timely fashion, that, too, will breach their human rights and that, too, will be contrary to their expectations to have timely hearings in public.
Before the vote is taken, I appeal again to the DUP to reconsider its position. This is not about extending restrictions but about allowing a bridge to be built from where we are now, with live links and technology, to where we want to be and always intended to be in the future with technology.
There is insufficient time left in this mandate to bring forward the primary legislation that would build that bridge. We cannot legislate to do that in the next four weeks. We can, however, extend these provisions now, and again in September. By that time, my Department will be in a position to bring forward the underpinning legislation that is required so that we can provide a modern, effective and efficient justice system that serves the needs of the public and of justice by using all the technological power that we have.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): OK. If you insist.
I remind Members that they should continue to uphold social distancing and that those who have proxy voting arrangements in place should not come to the Chamber.
Members, before I put the Question, I again remind you that, if possible, it would be preferable if we could avoid a Division.
Question put a second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Again, I will use this form of wording, but, if Members insist on a Division, we will have a Division. If the DUP wishes to record its opposition, that opposition can be placed on record. I believe that the Ayes have it and that that will probably be confirmed.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): OK. We have Tellers.
Before the Assembly divides, I remind you that, as per Standing Order 112, the Assembly currently has proxy voting arrangements in place. Members who have authorised another Member to vote on their behalf are not entitled to vote in person and should not enter the Lobbies. I remind all Members of the requirement for social distancing while the Division takes place, and I ask you to ensure that you retain at least a 2-metre gap between yourselves and others while moving around the Chamber, the Rotunda and, especially, in the Lobbies. I ask Members to be patient, observe the signage and follow the instructions.
Ayes 57; Noes 28
AYES
Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Dr Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Ms Bailey, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr Beggs, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms S Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Ms Brogan, Mr Butler, Mr Catney, Mr Chambers, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mrs D Kelly, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr Lyttle, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Mr Muir, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Mr Nesbitt, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Stewart, Ms Sugden, Mr Swann, Miss Woods
Tellers for the Ayes: Ms Armstrong, Mr Muir
NOES
Mr Allister, Mr Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Storey, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
Tellers for the Noes: Mr Bradley, Mr Weir
The following Members’ votes were cast by their notified proxy in this Division:
Mrs S Bradley voted for Mr Catney, Mr Durkan, Ms Hunter, Mrs D Kelly, Ms Mallon, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty and Mr O’Toole.
Mr Butler voted for Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr Beggs, Mr Chambers, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Stewart and Mr Swann.
Mr Clarke voted for Mr M Bradley [Teller, Noes], Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Storey, Mr Weir [Teller, Noes] and Mr Wells.
Mr Dickson voted for Ms Armstrong [Teller, Ayes], Mr Blair, Ms Bradshaw, Mrs Long, Mr Lyttle and Mr Muir [Teller, Ayes].
Mr O’Dowd voted for Dr Archibald, Mr Boylan, Ms Brogan, Mr Delargy, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Mr Kearney, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms A Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mrs O’Neill, Ms Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan and Ms Sheerin.
Miss Woods voted for Ms Bailey and Ms Sugden.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Related to Courts, Tribunals and Inquests) Order (Northern Ireland) 2022 be approved.
That the Rates (Regional Rates) Order (Northern Ireland) 2022 be affirmed.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate. Glaoim ar an Aire leis an díospóireacht ar an rún a fhoscailt. I call the Minister to open the debate on the motion.
Mr C Murphy: As Members will be aware, the order is brought forward annually and normally stems from the Executive's agreed Budget. Although the Executive have not agreed the draft Budget, they agreed in December the approach to be taken on regional rates, with freezes in domestic and non-domestic rates. Therefore, in order to provide certainty for households and businesses, I have brought forward the regional rates order to implement the poundage freeze and retain the regional rates at their current level.
For the third year in a row, I seek the Assembly's approval of a freeze in the domestic regional rate to help households cope with the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and inflation. For the second year in a row, I seek the Assembly's approval of a freeze in the non-domestic regional rate, consolidating the 18% reduction implemented in 2020. This year, the order takes its place alongside a £50 million rates holiday provision agreed by the Executive in December. That measure will start by providing a one-month rates support to all businesses with a few exceptions, such as utilities. It will also apply a further two-month targeted rates holiday to the sectors of the economy that were most impacted by the pandemic. As I stated, today's order serves to hold the existing regional rate multipliers by freezing the current poundages.
In the 2019 business rates review, many consultees highlighted the high level of business rates here as a major issue. The crucial 18% reduction in the regional rate in April 2020 was the Executive's first step to dealing with that. For all commercial ratepayers, today's order will continue with that important policy direction into the 2022-23 rates year, as we head towards revaluation in April 2023. Likewise, the freeze in domestic poundage will be vital to domestic ratepayers, many of whom have seen a considerable squeeze on their household budgets as a result of the pandemic and the current surge in inflation. The measure will supplement steps taken in recent weeks by my Executive colleagues, such as the £55 million energy payment support scheme for vulnerable people who are struggling to meet energy costs.
The revenue raised from the regional rate supplements the Executive's block grant. It is added to that funding to facilitate expenditure on our health, roads, schools and other essential public services. The rating system contributes over £1·3 billion each year to Executive and district council funding. The contribution to the Executive comes to approximately £690 million.
I will move on to more technical matters covered in the draft order. Its main purpose is to specify the regional rate poundages for 2022-23. It will do that by fixing two regional rates in the pound for 2022-23: one for households and one for business ratepayers. The rates in the pound will remain exactly the same as last year for households and businesses to continue my commitment to ensuring that household and commercial budgets are protected, given the continuing economic difficulties being faced across the board.
Article 1 sets out the title of the order and gives the operational date as the day after it is affirmed by the Assembly. Article 2 provides that the order will apply for the 2022-23 rating year through to 31 March 2023. Article 3 specifies 27·9p in the pound as the non-domestic regional poundage and 0·4574p in the pound as the domestic regional rate poundage.
I look forward to hearing Members' comments, and I commend the order to the Assembly.
Mr K Buchanan (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I thank the Minister for setting out the purpose of and the background to the statutory rule (SR) before us.
The Committee considered the proposed rule on 5 January and again on 23 February 2022. Members noted that the rule sets the amount of the domestic and non-domestic regional rates for the year ending 31 March 2023. The Committee welcomed the fact that the Executive had elected to freeze regional rates for another year and that they will continue other COVID-19 support measures, including a rates holiday designed to help hard-pressed businesses as we emerge from the pandemic.
I advise the House that the Committee agreed to recommend that SR 2022/50, the Rates (Regional Rates) Order (Northern Ireland) 2022, be affirmed by the Assembly.
Mr McHugh: Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Aire as a ráiteas. Ba mhaith liom fosta cúpla focal a rá; ní bheidh mé ró-fhada.
A freeze in the regional rate for the upcoming financial year is to be welcomed. Businesses and families have suffered two long years of financial hardship because of the pandemic, and they now face the extra challenge of a cost-of-living crisis. Inflation is at its highest level in 30 years. We have seen the cost of gas and electricity soar. The cost of fuel to run a car has soared, and there have been steep increases in the price of essential goods. All that has had a devastating impact on workers and families. Let me say, too, that the current rate of inflation is not the result of a cost push — that is, a rise in workers' wages. Other factors have influenced it.
Businesses are also struggling. Just at the time when we seem finally to be emerging from a long and damaging pandemic and all the restrictions have been removed, people do not have the disposable income to support our businesses. We have seen with dismay the shocking figures that show a rapid rise in the levels of poverty and destitution in our society. We have heard the pleas from vulnerable people who need assistance. It is a global problem, and we need large-scale solutions.
The British Government have made the situation worse with their cut to universal credit and their hike in National Insurance, which will impact on every worker in the North of Ireland. They have refused the Minister's request to cut VAT on energy bills. Stormont's lack of financial powers means that we are limited in what we can do to help the situation. I welcome the action taken by the Communities Minister in the House just a short time ago. She reminded us that those people will receive that extra payment —.
Mr McHugh: Yes. She has provided the £200 fuel grant that they will now receive as part of their benefit support. Unfortunately, without a functioning Executive or an agreed Budget, it will be challenging to deliver any further schemes to support those in need. The regional rate is the only substantial tax over which the Executive have control.
Mr K Buchanan: On the point about a lack of money from the British Government, to be fair, they gave over £3 billion to this country to help it through the pandemic. They made different contributions, whether through the Department of Finance or other Departments. Is that not to be welcomed?
Mr McHugh: All moneys are to be welcomed, but the British Government have not responded to initiatives that have been recommended to them around assisting us to ensure that we maintain the regional rate at the level suggested by our Minister.
As I pointed out, the regional rate is the only substantial tax over which the Executive have control. It has been at a reduced rate for the previous two years to support businesses throughout the pandemic. A freeze in the regional rate will provide a small but significant mitigation for families and businesses that are struggling at this time. The Minister proposed a three-year freeze in his draft Budget, and, unfortunately, because of the actions of the DUP, the freeze for years 2 and 3 is now in doubt. Businesses need certainty for the future, and they want to see a three-year freeze in place as soon as possible.
Mr O'Toole: I support the regional rates order. As the Deputy Chair of the Committee said, we discussed it in Committee a couple of times. The Minister and other Members have noted that our rates have been frozen effectively since the outbreak of the pandemic. We also had £50 million worth of relief, which is, in and of itself, welcome. We support the order and a freeze for 2022-23.
It is worth putting it on the record that, as the previous contributor said, the regional rate, domestic and non-domestic, is the only substantive revenue-raising tool that the Executive and the Finance Minister have. It would therefore be helpful to understand where it goes in the long term. We have applied reliefs for a number of years that have been essential in the midst of a pandemic. However, given that we agree broadly, certainly on this side of the House, I think, that we want more powers in this space and a greater ability to raise revenue and to use creatively the fiscal tools that we have and that we might want in the future, it would be helpful to understand how exactly the Finance Minister might seek to use those.
We have a Fiscal Commission reporting at the minute. It has looked at those tools and will bring forward another report. I hope that, the next time that we debate a regional rates order, we will be able to discuss with a Finance Minister — it might be this one; it might be his successor — how we might use the regional rates tool slightly more effectively. While it is welcome that we are using it and have used it to support businesses at a time of extreme stress, we need to understand how we will use it in the long term and what the future might be, particularly given that large parts of commercial property will remain under extreme stress and that major economic changes may come about owing to changes in economic behaviour after the end of the pandemic. We support today's regional rates order, but, the next time that we debate these things, we want to have a slightly longer-term vision about how we might use the rates tools at our disposal.
Mr Muir: On behalf of the Alliance Party, I support the order. I do so in the context of the Executive being unable to meet as a result of the resignation of the First Minister. I am thankful that the order was agreed in the dying days of the Executive, because the impact previously, when we were not able to make the order, was that bills could not be sent out to collect the regional rate and the district rate. That had a significant impact on people's ability to plan financially and, because there was an inability to collect revenue, on council finances. I welcome the fact that we are able to make the order today.
I also welcome freezing the regional rate in the context of Northern Ireland having what I understand to be the highest business rates in the whole of the UK and of the cost-of-living crisis that families and households across Northern Ireland are facing.
We are making the order in the context of Reval2023. It is important that that is undertaken and brought into effect. Whilst there have been reliefs over the last two years and reliefs are planned in the next financial year, it is important that we re-evaluate the net annual values (NAVs) for our non-domestic properties.
We are also making the order in the context of there being no agreed three-year Budget. I am very conscious of the impact that that will have, particularly on district councils, which collect the majority of their revenue through the district rate. They also rely on grants and revenue streams from central government, and, obviously, there will be uncertainty in that context. It is important that we agree the order to give certainty to our finances. It is also important that we freeze the regional rate and give those well-deserved reliefs to people across Northern Ireland.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Glaoim ar an Aire Airgeadais le críoch a chur leis an díospóireacht ar an rún. I call the Minister of Finance, Conor Murphy, to conclude and wind up the debate on the motion.
Mr C Murphy: I thank all the Members who have spoken in the debate. I thank the Committee Deputy Chair, the Chair, the Committee members and staff for their work on the order and in the debate.
As I stated, the order aims to strike a balance between the needs of the ratepayers during what remain challenging economic times and ensuring that the public finances are sufficient to cover the priorities of an incoming Executive. That speaks to the point that Matthew O'Toole raised; I know that he had to leave. In the longer term, for as long as that is the only fiscal lever that we have, an Executive, or, indeed, a Finance Minister, will always have to strike the balance between getting enough revenue to support overstretched public services, which have been subject to austerity policies for over 10 years, and ensuring that we target whatever reliefs that we have and supports that we can to make sure that the businesses and households that need support the most can get it. That is why the work of the Fiscal Commission is a very long overdue exercise in this part of the world. It has happened on a number of occasions in Scotland and Wales by looking at what other financial levers could be available. We could have a different rates debate in the years ahead; one that measures what we do against some other potential fiscal levers that may be of use to us.
Mr Muir mentioned the Reval exercise. Of course, that is ongoing. I know that he does not sit on the Finance Committee, but I would be very happy for the team to engage with him, if he wishes, in the future.
I thank Members for their contributions. The order is a necessary step. It will be a welcome step for businesses and households. I trust that Members will show the necessary support for the order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
That the Rates (Regional Rates) Order (Northern Ireland) 2022 be affirmed.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): As there are Ayes from all sides of the House and no dissenting voices, I am satisfied that cross-community support has been demonstrated.
Members should take their ease before we move to the next item of business.
Mr O'Dowd: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was absent from the Chamber yesterday for topical question 6 to the Minister of Justice. I was on Assembly business in England. I offer my apologies to the House for that.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Thank you for that, Mr O'Dowd. I am sure that that will be duly noted and passed on to the Speaker.
Members, take your ease, please.
That the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2022 be approved.
Mr Poots: I am grateful for the opportunity to move the motion. The UK emissions trading scheme (ETS) was established, under the Climate Change Act 2008 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020, as a UK-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme to encourage cost-effective emissions reductions. It will contribute to the UK emissions reduction targets and net zero goal. The scheme replaced the UK's participation in the EU emissions trading scheme and came into force on 1 January 2021.
I obtained the agreement of Executive colleagues to the policy positions established in the UK ETS in May 2020, following a UK-wide consultation on the future of UK carbon pricing, which sought views on the post-EU exit carbon pricing proposals. Members will recall that the Assembly approved the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020, which I shall hereafter refer to as the 2020 order, in November 2020. I am grateful for Members' support on that occasion.
At this point, it may be helpful to provide a brief summary of the operation of the UK ETS. It is based on a "cap and trade" principle, requiring participants to purchase a carbon allowance for each ton of carbon dioxide that they emit. The more carbon dioxide emitted, the more allowances required. There are penalties for failure to obtain the requisite amount of allowances. A cap is set on the total amount of allowances available under the scheme and is gradually reduced over time. The aim is to encourage reductions in emissions. Scheme participants, with the exception of electricity generators, receive free allowances, which cover a portion of their emissions. That is to prevent carbon leakage, which is industry moving away to relocate to other parts of the world that either do not have costs for carbon emissions or have costs that are lower.
As Members may recall, in the Northern Ireland context, there is an important exclusion from the scope of the UK ETS. It arises as a result of article 9 in annex 4 to the Northern Ireland protocol, which requires Northern Ireland electricity generators to remain in the EU ETS. That is to preserve the functioning of the single electricity market on the island of Ireland. If generators North and South were in different emissions trading schemes, there could be a carbon price divergence, which could distort the operation of the single electricity market. To avoid that, Northern Ireland's five electricity generating installations have remained as participants in the EU ETS.
To give some context, there are around 1,000 UK participants in the scheme and 16 in Northern Ireland. Those 16 installations, along with the five electricity generators that I mentioned, account for approximately one fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions in Northern Ireland. Only 18% of that figure is attributable to emissions from the UK ETS. The majority, around 82%, arises from the electricity generators.
The main 2020 order establishing the scheme has been amended and supplemented through further instruments to ensure that it is fully functional. The order before us carries that process forward by making technical and operational amendments to the 2020 order. The proposals contained in the order before us were subject to joint UK-wide consultation between July and September last year. There were only seven responses. Those did not identify significant concerns about the order, and there were no specific Northern Ireland comments.
The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2022 was laid in draft in the Northern Ireland Assembly on 16 December 2021 under the Climate Change Act 2008, which requires that order to be laid in draft and debated in each of the four UK legislatures. So far, the order has been approved by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Parliament.
The order, if approved, will make the following changes to the UK ETS. It will introduce a civil penalty to enforce an existing obligation to return over-allocated allowances. It will create an offence of intentionally obstructing scheme regulators who are exercising enforcement powers. It will clarify some enforcement powers previously introduced.
Specifically, it will clarify that the power to inspect premises to ensure compliance with scheme rules may be exercised by an authorised person, which is a person authorised by the regulator as well the regulator itself. That corrects an omission in the original order. It creates an offence for a person to intentionally obstruct a regulator or an authorised person in the exercise of enforcement powers. Under the existing order, a regulator can give a notice to an operator, requiring the return of any free carbon allowances to which the operator was not entitled; for example, owing to an over-allocation. A new penalty is created by the amending order, allowing the regulator to issue a civil penalty to require allowances to which an operator is not entitled to be returned.
A further amendment allows the UK Emissions Trading Registry administrator to issue enforcement and information notices for suspected permit contraventions. The registry administrator manages the registry of UK carbon allowances, and its function is currently carried out by the English Environment Agency on behalf of all UK Administrations.
Articles 7, 11, 12 and 14 restate some earlier amendments made to the 2020 order, for entirely technical reasons, to remove doubt about the power of the registry administrator to issue such notices.
Finally, where an installation's ETS permit is surrendered or revoked, further amendments made by the instrument require the operator of the installation to surrender any deficit of allowances from previous scheme years that has not already been surrendered.
Those are the main elements of the draft order. As I have stated, the amendments in it are of a technical and operational nature. They do not introduce any substantive policy changes, and they do not alter the scheme's existing climate targets. Aligning the design of the UK ETS with net zero objectives will be the subject of an upcoming consultation.
There will be no overall impact on costs or benefits to business as a result of the proposed amendments, as the existing supply of carbon allowances will not be affected, and there are no additional substantive administrative requirements. Members may recall that a local impacts paper was prepared by the Department to accompany the 2020 order, and the conclusions of that paper are unaffected by the proposed amendment.
In conclusion, the order will help improve the effective operation of the UK ETS. In turn, that will help ensure that the scheme continues to play its part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Northern Ireland and across the UK. Accordingly, I commend the draft order to the House.
Mr McGuigan (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I welcome the opportunity to share briefly the views of the Committee on the draft order that we are considering. It will make technical changes to the emissions trading scheme to facilitate consistent and effective enforcement of some rules and clarification of provisions relating to the powers of entry and enforcement.
The Committee was notified on 16 December 2021 that the Department intended to lay the draft order to ensure that the emissions trading scheme operates here as it does in Britain. The Committee considered the draft order at its meeting on 10 February 2022, including the technical and supporting documents that were made available by the Department. The Committee noted that the changes that will be made via the order are not contentious and will not lead to any substantive policy changes, and it therefore recommended that the draft order be approved by the Assembly.
The Committee understands the importance of the emissions trading scheme here and in other jurisdictions to the wider moves to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the decades ahead. It is therefore vital that the scheme's operation be reviewed constantly and updated as required. The Committee did not identify any issues of concern with the implementation of the order and therefore recommends that it proceed.
Mr Irwin: This is technical legislation that is required to be laid before devolved legislatures, including the Northern Ireland Assembly. It makes amendments to the main 2020 order to allow the United Kingdom emissions trading scheme to continue to function effectively. The amendments in the draft order come from a consultation involving the UK regional Governments and are aimed at fixing technical points that were identified during the scheme's early stages.
In the light of the fact that a consultation was held on the amendments in the draft order, I do not intend to dwell on it longer than is necessary. A trading scheme is obviously important as we move ahead with various actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The amendments will ensure that the UK emissions trading scheme continues to operate effectively and that it contributes to the UK's emissions reduction targets and the net zero goal.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Thank you. That concludes the list of Members who were down to speak. The Question is that the draft — Sorry. Excuse me. I have yet to call the Minister. Pardon me, Minister, for that.
I call the Minister to conclude and wind up the debate.
Mr Poots: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Members who contributed to the debate.
To summarise, the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2022 will make various technical operational amendments to the UK Emissions Trading Scheme. They will not impact on Northern Ireland's electricity generating installations, which continue to participate in the EU scheme under the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol.
The order will not change the current climate ambition of the UK ETS. It does not introduce substantive changes in policy. There will be no overall impact on business or additional administrative burdens. Substantive amendments to the design of the UK ETS, to align the UK and devolved net zero climate objectives, will be the subject of a separate upcoming consultation on the development of the scheme.
The UK Government remain open to the possibility of linking the UK ETS and the EU scheme. Under the UK/EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement, both parties have agreed to give serious consideration to linking their respective carbon pricing systems. The UK Government have advised that they will work with their EU counterparts to give this matter due consideration.
In order that Northern Ireland, along with the rest of the UK, can continue with efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the effective implementation of the UK ETS, we need to pass this order.
I commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2022 be approved. — [Mr Poots (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).]
Moved. — [Ms Hargey (The Minister for Communities).]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): As no amendments have been tabled, there is no opportunity to discuss the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Bill today. Members will, of course, be able to have a full debate at Final Stage. The Further Consideration Stage is therefore concluded, and the Bill stands referred to the Speaker.
That the Welfare Supplementary Payments (Amendment) Bill [NIA 50/17-22] do now pass.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): I have had an approach, so, at the end of this item of business, we may take a recess to allow Members to take a comfort break and to get something to eat and the likes.
Some Members: Hear, hear.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): OK. The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on this debate. I call the Minister for Communities to open the debate. Glaoim ar an Aire Pobal leis an díospóireacht a fhoscailt, le do thoil.
Ms Hargey: I am pleased to be able to move the Final Stage of the Welfare Supplementary Payments (Amendment) Bill today. I take this opportunity to thank Members and Committee members from across the political spectrum who have given their support for this important Bill and its speedy progression through the Assembly within such a short period of time.
I also take this opportunity to thank all the organisations and groups — the Cliff Edge Coalition, Advice NI, the Human Rights Commission and others — that worked with me to get the Bill to this point. I welcome the positive responses to the Bill from organisations that were at the forefront of the campaign to extend welfare mitigation payments and ensure that we did not introduce a new cliff edge for people who have been dependent on those payments. I intended to do that from the outset when I took up office.
I will summarise the main purpose of the legislation. Once enacted, this Bill will remove the end date for qualifying for welfare mitigation payments for those impacted by the bedroom tax policy. That will provide for the continuation of much-needed support for some of the most vulnerable in our communities by shielding them from the financial impact of the bedroom tax.
The Bill will also require my Department to monitor and report on the operation of welfare mitigation schemes, with a report to be laid in the Assembly no later than 31 March 2025. I am committed to keeping welfare mitigations under review to ensure that they meet the continuing need and support the people who need them most. The report will also provide a basis for a future assessment of that continuing need and of whether we need additional welfare mitigation schemes. That will include, in particular, a view to be taken on the provision of statutory extension beyond 31 March 2025 for mitigation schemes other than the bedroom tax.
The Bill represents a vitally important step to deliver meaningful change before the end of this mandate and provide long-term assurances to around 37,000 households that they will not be penalised by the bedroom tax. Subject to the Assembly's passing the Bill today and its receiving Royal Assent in the coming weeks, it will come into operation the next day. We will then be able to say, hopefully as a united House, that we have binned the bedroom tax. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.
Ms Ferguson: I welcome the Welfare Supplementary Payments (Amendment) Bill's reaching its Final Stage. It is a really important piece of legislation for households affected by this unjust and unfair Tory tax. It not only extends the current mitigation scheme relating to the bedroom tax, but also removes the end date and provides reassurance to so many of our people — our working families and our most vulnerable — who are currently in receipt of the payment. It is great to see consensus across the Chamber for extending this mitigation, protecting our families and our people from further hardship.
I also acknowledge the support that I received for the amendment that I tabled at Further Consideration Stage to ensure that many vulnerable people and families, and the organisations that support them, do not have to continue to worry about the bedroom tax. With the amendment, there is no more uncertainty. There is no more cliff edge. People who are on low incomes and depend on that support will now have the security of knowing that they will continue to be protected from a Tory tax. We can finally reduce the worries of many of the most vulnerable households. We can keep the focus on the health and well-being of people and families, not on how many bedrooms they have.
I commend the Minister. From the start, she has been committed to supporting the people who are most in need where it has been possible to do so. The legislation is an example of that. Today's announcement on the energy payment support scheme is another example of where the Minister's heart is when it comes to protecting people.
In addition to extending the mitigation payments, she has brought forward regulations to close the loopholes with the benefit cap and bedroom tax, which will mean that more people benefit from that financial support. She has appointed an independent advisory panel to review all current mitigation measures. I commend all those, such as the Cliff Edge Coalition and the range of partner and voluntary organisations, who have campaigned tirelessly on the issue.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): My apologies: I should have called Kellie Armstrong to speak on behalf of the Committee first. Kellie, the Floor is now yours.
Ms Armstrong (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As was stated at Second Stage, the Committee has taken a consistent interest in welfare reform mitigations. It has been a long and, at times, frustrating road. However, on behalf of the Committee for Communities, I welcome the Bill's Final Stage.
You will be glad that I will keep my comments to a minimum, Mr Deputy Speaker, as the Committee's thoughts at Second Stage highlighted the many times that the Committee discussed the issues, wrote to the Minister and wrote to the Executive in support of the Minister. We welcome the fact that the Bill now has no new end date for the social sector size criteria mitigation payments, as that will ensure that we do not reach a cliff edge again for those payments and should provide reassurance to the most vulnerable people in society.
The Committee also welcomes the fact that the Bill will require the Department to monitor and report on the operation of the mitigation schemes in order that we can evaluate the ongoing need for the schemes or the need for new schemes in the future. It is also good that that will include a view on the provision of extension beyond March 2025 of those schemes other than the social sector size criteria. The Committee will include those matters in its legacy report for a new Committee to scrutinise and will highlight the need to consider the report of the independent advisory panel.
The Bill will have a direct impact on around 36,000 households. It is, therefore, welcome that the legislation has reached this stage in such a swift manner, as it will ensure that there is no negative impact on those households. The Chair mentioned in her Second Stage speech that we were briefed by the Cliff Edge Coalition on welfare reform mitigations and the difficulties that families were facing. I hope that the fact that the Bill has progressed quickly will bring that group and the families who are affected some comfort and reassurance. I look forward to its implementation.
As Alliance's spokesperson on communities, I will add quickly that my party absolutely supports the Bill. At Second Stage, I certainly raised concern about a cliff edge being created by an end date. I am delighted that the amendments that were made will see an end to that. I am also acutely aware that the advisory panel has still not brought forward its recommendations. That advisory panel may well bring forward recommendations to further improve the support that families across Northern Ireland need. For now, we have done a good deed here. I thank the Minister and all the people in the background who have worked on the Bill, whether they were in the Department or the Bill Office. It has been a long time coming, but the Minister is absolutely right: we have ended the bedroom tax.
Mr Durkan: The protections that are provided in the Bill are very welcome and extremely necessary. I am glad that the rescue operation on the bedroom tax is near its end and that efforts have, at long last, come to fruition to clear up the remnants of the damage that was imposed on vulnerable people here at the hands of their Executive.
We warned of the incalculable harm that welfare reform would inflict on people right across the North, yet, despite those warnings, parties here voted for that disastrous legislation. I cannot be the only one who views the self-congratulation around this important and good legislation with a degree of cynicism. The bedroom tax should never have come to pass; in fact, Members of the Minister's party gave categorical assurances that it would never reach our shores. It seems that the policy was so bad that they binned it twice.
I find some of the grandstanding today on the delivery for vulnerable people difficult to comprehend. The Minister's party voted for the bedroom tax and welfare reform and, in doing so, subjected households here to the worst of Tory austerity. Those households were not protected by the original, well-meaning, well-intentioned and welcome mitigations package. However, political stalemate — we were not here for three years — delayed the progress of vital welfare mitigation legislation.
Just hours ago, we listened to a statement from the Minister on the energy support payment scheme, which was announced in January and was promised to be paid by the middle of March, not to start in the middle of March. Meanwhile, people are left to suffer, and, despite the Minister issuing the same copy and paste response, support, or lack of support, especially for families not in receipt of benefits, simply is not cutting it. I understand that those are not all the responsibility of the Minister for Communities.
Earlier, discretionary support was lauded as a coverall support mechanism. However, a few families have contacted me just this week who are sitting with no heat in their homes and have been refused even one penny of support from the crisis support scheme. Efforts to support those most in need must be immediate to maximise their impact. While the eventual action to banish the bedroom tax and to close loopholes is welcome, it comes as a wee bit "Too little, too late". The dither and delay in the interim has resulted in millions of pounds in unspent funds that could have, would have and should have provided assistance to people caught in a pandemic and now in the grip of a cost-of-living crisis.
The matter has been put to bed for now, but, regrettably, we cannot undo the damage that it has already caused for countless people here or rule out a future Minister here or, possibly, elsewhere trying to remove the protections. It remains on the statute. Given the full support for the Bill across the Chamber, which is welcome, it is important that we all commit or recommit to making sure that those cruel measures do not rear their ugly head again. The Bill will undoubtedly help those who need it. However, I lament the fact that it has taken so long to reach this point. Prioritising the needs of vulnerable households should have been treated with greater urgency. It is vital that we continue to work together to ensure delivery for everyone struggling to make ends meet at this extremely difficult time. We support the Bill.
Miss Reilly: Ní labharfaidh mé ró-fhada. I will not speak too long or go on too much of a politicking speech. This is my first opportunity to speak on the Bill, and I welcome it. I am delighted that we are at the Final Stage of the Welfare Supplementary Payments (Amendment) Bill. It is important legislation that not only extends the existing mitigations scheme for the bedroom tax but removes the end date completely.
Binning the bedroom tax will give reassurance and protect people, particularly now as the cost of living continues to climb and energy costs soar. The Bill will give certainty and relief to people in my constituency of West Belfast, as it will across the North. I thank the Minister for setting out her position and for her commitment throughout in supporting those who need it most, where it was possible for her to do so. I also acknowledge the House for agreeing collectively to extend the mitigations. As we all know, it will really make a difference to people. Finally, I thank everyone who campaigned on the issue and, in particular, the Cliff Edge Coalition. I support the Final Stage of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): Glaoim ar an Aire Pobal, Deirdre Hargey, le críoch a chur leis an Chéim Dheiridh. I call the Minister for Communities, Deirdre Hargey, to conclude the Final Stage.
Ms Hargey: I thank the Deputy Chair, the Chair, in her absence, and the Communities Committee for working with me over the past two and a half years to progress the legislation. This is a good day. The Bill is at Final Stage, and we are in the final stages of binning the bedroom tax. When I came into post, it was one of my first priorities; indeed, if I had been given the support that we have now, it would have been done two years ago. It is important to point that out. There was no dithering by me. I put the proposal to the Executive within a few weeks of taking up office. Again, I set out the reasons for the delay. They were unfortunate, but that was then, and this is now. We are now at a point where we are binning the bedroom tax. I am delighted that I am the Minister bringing that forward.
As I said, I commend the Committee and the Chamber for working with me to get the Bill to this point, including the amendments that have been made. I thank the staff behind the scenes in the Department, the Committee and the Bill Office. Importantly, I thank the housing associations and the Housing Executive. The Bill will be a huge relief to the tenants who live in their properties. Also importantly, I thank those who have campaigned as part of the Cliff Edge Coalition, which is made up of over a hundred organisations from across our society and communities. They have long campaigned about the cliff edge that was being presented. The legislation removes the cliff edge of the bedroom tax. I thank them for putting their trust in me and working with me for over two years, particularly on getting the Bill through the stages of the legislative process. I am glad that we are at the point of binning the bedroom tax and getting the legislation done in this mandate.
This is a good day for those on the ground who have been impacted. Of course, there is much more to be done, but the Bill shows that it is possible to address the issue of mitigations. Hopefully, in the next mandate, with an operating Executive, we can do that. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Welfare Supplementary Payments (Amendment) Bill [NIA 50/17-22] do now pass.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr McGlone): The Speaker is coming into the Chamber to take over the Chair for the next item of business. I ask Members to bear with us while we change the top Table.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
Mr Speaker: I call the Minister for Communities, Deirdre Hargey, to move Consideration Stage of the Bill.
Moved. — [Ms Hargey (The Minister for Communities).]
Mr Speaker: No amendments have been tabled. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to group the Bill's two clauses for the Question on stand part, followed by the Question to agree the long title. If there are no objections, we will proceed.
Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Speaker: That concludes Consideration Stage of the Support for Mortgage Interest etc. (Security for Loans) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. I thank the Minister.
I ask Members to take their ease for a moment, please.
That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 25 March 2022, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Employment (Zero Hours Workers and Banded Weekly Working Hours) Bill.
Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate.
Mr Dickson: I am representing the Economy Committee in the debate due to the ill health of the Chair and the Deputy Chair having other duties this afternoon.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Economy Committee to seek an extension to the Committee Stage of the Employment (Zero Hours Workers and Banded Weekly Working Hours) Bill. The Bill was referred to the Committee for the Economy on 1 February 2022 for Committee Stage. The Bill should, under Standing Order 33(2), complete its Committee Stage by 14 March. The main objective of the Bill is to end the use of zero-hours contracts in the labour market and to replace them with banded-hours contracts. It also seeks to make exclusivity terms unenforceable.
The Committee acknowledges the commitment in the New Decade, New Approach agreement to ban zero-hours contracts, and that aim has been widely supported. The Committee is aware that a significant number of workers in Northern Ireland are on zero-hours contracts, which leaves them in a vulnerable position with no guaranteed hours or stable income, and they are often on lower rates of pay. The Committee therefore recognises that legislation to address the issue is long overdue.
The Committee received a pre-introductory briefing from the Bill sponsor at its meeting on 8 December, when she outlined the detailed policy proposals in the Bill. The Committee agreed to publish a call for evidence and a survey and to write to key stakeholders inviting written submissions on the Bill. In doing so, the Committee fully acknowledged the limited time frame for consultation on the Bill before the end of the mandate and recognised that the evidence provided would be on the high-level principles of the Bill. The Committee agreed to hear oral evidence from a limited number of stakeholders, given the time constraints, and acknowledges that, while the evidence to date indicates general support for the Bill, there are detailed and complex issues that the Committee cannot explore in any detail within the time frame. The Committee also sought legal advice on a specific issue to do with the types of contracts that would be covered by the Bill.
The Committee completed taking oral evidence and will close its survey at the end of this week. It requests the extension to ensure that it can complete its consultation and the Bill report highlighting the issues that require to be considered in more detail by any successor Committee.
On behalf of the Economy Committee, I ask that the Assembly support the motion to extend the Committee Stage of the Bill to 25 March 2022.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 25 March 2022, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Employment (Zero Hours Workers and Banded Weekly Working Hours) Bill.
Mr Speaker: The next items of business are motions from the Committee on Procedures to amend a number of Standing Orders. There will be a single debate on the motions. I will ask the Clerk to read the first motion, then call on the Chair of the Committee on Procedures to move it. The Chair of the Committee will then commence the debate on all the motions. At the end of the debate, I shall put the Question on the first motion. The second motion will then be read into the record, and I will call on the Member to move it. The Question will then be put on that motion. That process will be repeated for all the other motions. However, the motion to amend Standing Order 20B is consequential to the motion to amend Standing Order 20. Therefore, if the amendment to Standing Order 20 is not made, I shall not put the Question on the amendment to Standing Order 20B. If that is clear, I will proceed.
In Standing Order 12—
In paragraph (1), leave out "both Executive Committee and private members’ business" and insert—
"Executive Committee, opposition and private members’ business."; and
After paragraph (4), insert:
"(4A) Where there is an opposition, in each session of the Assembly ten days shall be allotted for opposition business."
The following motions stood in the Order Paper:
In Standing Order 18A, after paragraph (5), insert:
"(5A) Where there is an opposition, the first question on the statement shall be asked by a member of the opposition."
In Standing Order 20—
In paragraph (7), leave out "The Speaker shall determine, by means of a random selection, the order in which questions are taken," and insert—
"Subject to paragraph 7A, the Speaker shall determine, by means of a random selection, the order in which questions are taken.";
After paragraph (7), insert:
"(7A) Where there is an opposition, the first question to the Minister shall be asked by a member of the opposition. Otherwise, the first question may not be asked by a member of the same party as the Minister (unless all the questions are from members of that party).";
Leave out paragraph (8), and insert:
"(8) Answers to oral questions may not be debated, but supplementary questions may be asked in accordance with paragraph (8A).";
Leave out paragraph (8A) and insert:
"(8A) This paragraph makes further provision about supplementary questions.
(a) A supplementary question shall contain no more than one enquiry.
(b) The Speaker shall ensure that—
(i) the first supplementary question may be asked by the member who submitted the question for oral answer.
(ii) The second supplementary question may be asked by a member of the opposition (where there is an opposition).
(c) Paragraph (b)(ii) applies only to the first three questions for oral answer taken by each Minister.
(d) Additional supplementary questions may be asked at the discretion of the Speaker."; and
After paragraph (8A), insert:
"(8B) Subject to the discretion of the Speaker to allow additional time, answers to oral questions (including answers to supplementary questions) shall last no more than two minutes."
In Standing Order (20A) —
In paragraph (5), leave out "paragraphs 6-8" and insert "paragraphs (6)–(7)";
Leave out paragraphs (6), (7) and (8) and insert:
"(6) Where there is an opposition—
(a) if the Minister taking questions for oral answer is the First Minister or deputy First Minister, the first and second topical questions to that Minister shall be asked by the [Leader of the Opposition] and (if any) the [Deputy Leader of the Opposition]; and
(b) if the Minister taking questions for oral answer is not the First Minister or deputy First Minister, the first topical question shall be asked by a member of the opposition who has submitted his or her name to the Speaker under paragraph (3) (and if there is more than one such member, the Speaker shall determine by which member the question shall be asked).
(7) When paragraph (6) has been applied, the Speaker shall determine, by means of a random selection, the members from whom subsequent questions shall be taken.";
Leave out paragraph (8);
Renumber paragraph (9) as paragraph (8);
Renumber paragraph (10) as paragraph (9);
Renumber paragraph (11) as paragraph (10);
Renumber paragraph (12) as paragraph (11);
Renumber paragraph (13) as paragraph (12); and
In the renumbered paragraph (12), after 'paragraphs (2), (8A),', insert "(8B),".
In Standing Order 20B(4), after "Paragraphs (8) ", insert ", (8A)".
Leave out Standing Order 45A, and insert:
"45A. The Opposition
(1) A party may choose to be recognised as the opposition, or part of the opposition, if no member of that party holds a Ministerial office and it satisfies any of the following conditions—
(a) the party was entitled to nominate a person to hold Ministerial office under section 18(2) to (6) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and declined to do so;
(b) during the relevant period, the party was entitled to nominate a person to hold a Ministerial office under section 18(10) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and declined to do so; or
(c) the party’s members comprise 8% or more of the total number of members of the Assembly at the end of the day on which the Assembly first meets.
(2) Where only one party is recognised as the opposition in accordance with paragraph 1, the nominating officer of that party must nominate a person who is a member of the Assembly and that party to be the Leader of the Opposition.
(3) Where two or more parties form the opposition, then—
(a) the nominating officer of the largest party must nominate a person who is a member of the Assembly and that party to be the Leader of the Opposition
(b) the nominating officer of the second largest party must nominate a person who is a member of the Assembly and that party to be the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
(4) The opposition is dissolved if either of the following conditions are met—
(a) The Assembly is dissolved; or
(b) all Ministers cease to hold office in accordance with section 18(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
(5) In this order 'relevant period' means the period of two years beginning with the date on which the Ministerial offices are filled under section 16A(3)(b) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998."
In Standing Order 49(2)—
After paragraph (b), insert:
"(c) that, where there is an opposition, and so far as practicable, at least one seat on each statutory committee is allocated to a member of the opposition;";
Renumber paragraph (c) as paragraph (d);
Renumber paragraph (d) as paragraph (e);
Renumber paragraph (e) as paragraph (f);
In the renumbered paragraph (e), leave out 'subject to paragraphs (b) and (c) above' and insert 'subject to paragraphs (b) to (d)'; and
In the renumbered paragraph (f), leave out 'subject to paragraphs (b) and (d) above' and insert 'subject to paragraphs (b), (c) and (d)'.
In Standing Order 55(6), at end insert:
"Where there is an opposition, at least one member of the Business Committee must be a member of the opposition."
In Standing Order 56, after paragraph (3), insert:
"(4) Where there is an opposition—
(a) The chairperson of the committee is to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition.
(b) The deputy chairperson of the committee is to be nominated by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (if any)."
In Standing Order 81, after the definition of "Guide to the Rules", insert:
"'member of the opposition' means a member who is a member of political party which forms or forms part of the opposition in accordance with standing order 45A."
Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.
Ms Ní Chuilín: The motions propose changes to a number of Standing Orders and are the culmination of a number of decisions and agreements from as far back as 2016.
Members may remember that, on 9 November last year, we debated and agreed the Assembly and Executive Review Committee's (AERC) report on the outcome of the independent review of the adequacy and effectiveness of the statement of entitlements for an official Opposition. That review and the AERC report arose directly from New Decade, New Approach.
In the debate, I spoke as Committee Chair and confirmed that, as far as we were concerned, there were no procedural barriers to making the relevant changes. In the week following that debate, the Committee on Procedures immediately started its consideration of how the changes could be implemented and what options we had. We completed that work very recently, and the motions reflect the necessary changes that the Committee considers would be needed to give effect to those recommendations.
Members will hopefully recall that the independent review recommendations involved a number of procedural enhancements that required changes to Standing Orders. Although the AERC report recommendations refer to changes being needed to Standing Orders in a number of areas, the Committee agreed that changes were not actually needed to bring about all the recommendations.
Recommendations 7, 8 and 10 are where the work on Standing Orders was required. I will deal with the changes that relate to recommendations 7 and 10 first as they were more straightforward from the Committee's perspective. Recommendation 5 was that all recommendations should be implemented in a timely manner, and that all Standing Orders should, ideally, be in place before the end of the current Assembly mandate. Recommendation 6 was that provisions for enhanced speaking rights should continue as set out in the statement of entitlements. That was an important consideration for the Committee. The Committee clearly understood the importance and urgency of the work on making changes to Standing Orders.
Recommendation 7 was that an additional facility to strengthen the questioning of the Executive should be provided to the official Opposition by amending Standing Order 20(7) to provide that the first question for oral answer to Ministers should come from the official Opposition. The Committee agreed that that amendment should be made, and Standing Order 20 addresses that.
Recommendation 10 was that an official Opposition, when it is operational, should have the opportunity to be represented on all Statutory Committees. The Committee noted that, as a consequence of the proportional representation formula that is applied to the allocation of seats on Statutory Committees, it was already likely that any official Opposition would have the opportunity to be represented on all Statutory Committees. However, it agreed to bring forward the proposed amendment to Standing Order 49(2) to provide procedural certainty.
Recommendation 8 required more detailed consideration by the Committee. To remind Members, recommendation 8 was:
"That all the Standing Orders required under the Assembly and Executive Reform (Assembly Opposition) Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 be ... implemented."
For clarity, the 2016 Act provided for changes to Standing Orders to include the formation of the Opposition, including qualification; timing of the formation of the Opposition; dissolution of the Opposition; leadership of the Opposition; topical questions for oral answer from the leadership of the Opposition; speaking rights in the Assembly; enhanced speaking rights for the Opposition; and the Opposition's right to chair the Public Accounts Committee.
I will go through the proposed changes and explain what they are and what exactly they will provide for. The first proposed changes are to Standing Orders 12 and 18A. They provide for Opposition Business in the Assembly and for the Opposition to ask the first question when a Minister makes a ministerial statement.
The next set of motions revise Standing Orders 20, 20A and 20B. In addition to providing for the Opposition to ask the first listed question for oral answer, amended Standing Order 20 provides that the Opposition should ask the second supplementary question for the first three listed questions for oral answer. That entitlement was originally set out in the statement of entitlements. Amended Standing Order 20A provides that the first and second questions asked of the First Minister and deputy First Minister during topical questions for oral answer should come from the leadership of the Opposition. In addition, the Committee was satisfied, as per the agreed recommendation, that the statement of entitlements speaking rights should continue and that the Opposition should continue to ask the first topical question for oral answer to other Ministers. For that reason, the Committee has not proposed amendments to provide that Chairpersons of the relevant Statutory Committee should ask the first topical question for oral answer.
The next proposed change is to Standing Order 45A, which addresses the formation of the Opposition, including qualification, and provides that the titles of the officeholders of the leadership of the Opposition should be "Leader of the Opposition" and "Deputy Leader of the Opposition". As I said earlier, when an official Opposition is operational, Standing Order 49A will provide procedural certainty that it should have the opportunity to be represented on all Statutory Committees.
The next proposed change is to Standing Order 55, which will provide for membership of the Opposition on the Business Committee. The proposed changes to Standing Order 56 provide for the Opposition to nominate the Chair and Deputy Chair, where appropriate, of the Public Accounts Committee. Finally, the motion to change Standing Order 81 is a technical consequential amendment.
I have tried to summarise the extent of the changes that are proposed in the motions to revise the Standing Orders. As I mentioned earlier, there were aspects of the recommendations of the independent review that the Committee was satisfied did not require changes to be made to Standing Orders. In the case of speaking rights, following consideration of legal advice, the Committee agreed that existing Standing Orders 17(4) and 17(5) were sufficient to give effect to section 7 of the 2016 Act. Over a number of meetings, the Committee considered carefully all options for amendments and how some of the proposals would work in practice. It also sought further papers, including a worked example of how the proposed changes to questions for oral answer would work should an Opposition be in place.
The Committee is extremely busy, as most Committees are, but it took its role of implementing the recommendations of the AERC report very seriously. It did so in a timely manner and worked to ensure that all the necessary changes to Standing Orders could be in place before the end of the current Assembly mandate. I finish by thanking the Committee staff and all other Assembly officials for their work and support in helping the Committee to bring the motion to the House today.
Ms S Bradley: I thank the Chair of the Procedures Committee for outlining the work that was carried out by the Committee. It is worth noting that our Committee was tasked with making sure that the procedures in this place reflect the AERC report and New Decade, New Approach. It was not within our remit or gift to decide whether those documents go far enough; that was far outside the Committee's scope. However, we listened intently to the advice that was brought to us about mirroring those two documents and to the legal advice that was presented.
Given the time that we had to drill down into whether we were satisfied that the amendments are fully reflective, we have come to a reasonable place. I am not sure that it is the final place when it comes to formalising the provisions for an Opposition here, but it is significant work that should be commended, and I welcome it on behalf of the SDLP. We will support each of the motions to amend. As the Speaker outlined, one debate will cover all the proposed changes.
Mrs Barton: The revisions to Standing Orders before the Assembly today are being brought in the event of an official Opposition being formed in a future Assembly mandate. First, the various revisions to Standing Orders would permit provision for enhanced speaking rights for the Opposition in Standing Orders 12, 18A, 20, 20A and 20B. Secondly, the revisions to Standing Orders 45A, 49(2), 55, 56 and 81 are to amend procedural details to include the possibility of an Opposition.
The proposed amendment to create a new Standing Order 12(4A) states that a minimum of 10 days in each yearly session of the Assembly shall be allotted for Opposition business. Paragraphs (6), (7) and (8) of Standing Order 20A are to be excluded, and an amendment is to be made. That would allow the First Minister, when taking questions for oral answer, to permit that the first and second topical questions be asked by the leader and the deputy leader of the Opposition. If another Minister is answering questions for oral answer, only the first topical question would be asked by the Opposition, and the Speaker would determine who asks the questions thereafter.
The proposed amendment to Standing Order 49(2) would allow the Opposition to be facilitated with at least one seat on each of the Statutory Committees, and the change to Standing Order 45A sets out the parameters for a party to be recognised as the Opposition. It must satisfy various conditions, including that, if a party has declined the opportunity to nominate a person to ministerial office during the relevant period and that party comprises 8% or more of the total Assembly membership, it is entitled to be in opposition and to nominate a person to be the leader of the Opposition. If more than one party is forming an Opposition, the largest party may nominate the leader of the Opposition and the second-largest party can nominate the deputy leader. The Opposition will be dissolved if the Assembly is dissolved or if all Ministers cease to hold office.
Under the change to Standing Order 55, it is recommended that provision be made for one member of the Opposition to be appointed to the Business Committee. Under the change to Standing Order 56, it is proposed that the Opposition has the right to nominate the Chair or the Deputy Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. Given the previous amendments, there is a consequential need to amend Standing Order 81 accordingly.
The Ulster Unionist Party will support all the motions to amend Standing Orders.
Ms Armstrong: I will not repeat some of the points that Rosemary Barton made, because she summarised very well the motions to amend before us this evening.
As we know, on 9 November 2021, the Assembly noted the outcome of the independent review of the adequacy and effectiveness of the statement of entitlements for an official Opposition. That was brought by the AERC, of which I am a member. The proposed amendments to Standing Orders are part of the outworkings of that report and have been brought today by the Committee on Procedures. I thank the Committee very much for doing such quick work. As the Committee Chair said, that Committee is dealing with an awful lot of business, as most Committees are, so I thank the Committee on Procedures for its timely work on the amendments.
As Mrs Barton spelled out, there are a number of proposed amendments on when the Opposition will be able to speak. There will be Opposition days and so on. I point out that the AERC, under recommendation 3 in its report, said that the process should be reviewed after two years to ensure that it is working appropriately.
I am delighted to say, Mr Speaker, that this is a huge step forward to having an effective Opposition in this place. As you will know — I have spoken about it before — the Alliance Party position is that we do not require mandatory coalition and should be looking at voluntary coalition, and one of the effective ways in which we can hold the Government to account is through having an effective Opposition. The motions to amend Standing Orders before us certainly represent a way forward.
There is not much more to say on this, other than that the Alliance Party will be supporting the motions that have been tabled this evening.
Mr Allister: It is a commentary in itself that, more than two decades after these institutions came into existence, we are making some rudimentary provisions in respect of opposition. Where in the world is there a credible Government and legislature that does not have an official Opposition? Stormont is the ringing answer to that question, and therein is the illustration of just how deficient this place is in terms of democratic accountability.
That is no surprise, of course, because the very system of mandatory coalition is so inherently absurd that it does not sit comfortably with opposition. Under mandatory coalition, the primary antithesis of democracy is on full display, namely that you cannot vote a party out of government and you cannot change your Government. That, of course, does not sit comfortably with the fundamental purpose of having an Opposition. At last, however, there is going to be some provision of a diffident nature made in respect of that.
After all this time, those baby steps are welcome so far as they go, but they will never address the fundamental absurdity and denial of democracy that is mandatory coalition. Unless and until mandatory coalition is swept aside and the people of this Province are given the right to change their Government and vote a party out of government, then we are only tinkering around the edges.
Even when it comes to tinkering around the edges, however, I note in the proposed amendment to Standing Order 45A that continuing holding back. In Standing Order 45A(5), we find that you are only allowed to be in opposition if you take that step within two years of the election. What are people afraid of, that they are scared of parties in the latter stage of an Assembly daring to take on the mantle of opposition? What are those mandatory coalition parties afraid of, that they have to so hamstring the very existence of an Opposition, that it is only allowed if it is established within the first two years? There is a tell-tale sign of the fact that the mandatory coalition parties of this House are but paying lip service to the ethos and need for an Opposition. When they think that there could be any threat to their credibility running up to an election, then they gather together to say, "Ah, but you cannot form an Opposition in the latter half of an Assembly". That is a telling insight into the mentality that drives these diffident steps.
I repeat: they are small steps, and they are useful in that sense, but they do not address the core issue. As long as these institutions are built on that absurdity and on the sand of mandatory coalition, then they continue to live on borrowed time.
Mr Speaker: I call Tom Buchanan, the Deputy Chair of the Committee on Procedures, to make his winding-up speech on the debate. The Member has 10 minutes.
Mr T Buchanan (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures): I will speak first as Deputy Chair of the Committee on Procedures, and following what I have to say about the work that the Committee did, I will speak briefly as a DUP representative.
First, I thank the Committee Chairperson for opening the debate, as well as Members who have made contributions. It has been interesting to hear the views of Members on the Committee on Procedures' motion to make enhanced provision for an official Opposition in this House. As we all know, we are debating these motions today because on 9 November 2021, the House agreed to implement the recommendations from the Assembly and Executive Review Committee's 'Report on the outcome of the independent Review of the adequacy and effectiveness of the Statement of Entitlements for an Official Opposition at the Northern Ireland Assembly'.
I can attest that the Committee has carefully considered the recommendations and narrowed down the areas where it considered procedural changes were needed in order to give effect to the intent of the report. The motions before the House, therefore, fulfil the Committee on Procedures' aspects of the job regarding improvements for an official Opposition to operate in the House. The Committee has carefully considered the impacts that they will have, as outlined by the Chair. It even sought additional information on how questions would be handled under the proposed new arrangements. Today's motions are a result of months of detailed work undertaken by the Committee. I am confident that the majority of them are appropriate and will suffice in their objectives.
The main objectives of the motions, as Members will know, have been highlighted in the debate today, and are to improve on the provisions in the House for an official Opposition, from qualification and formation to titles, provision to ask questions, representation on Statutory Committees and the Business Committee, and chairing the Public Accounts Committee. Those are important changes to support more effective working arrangements should there be an official Opposition in the House.
As the Chairperson highlighted at the beginning of the debate, it has taken a number of years, an independent review and much Committee deliberation to reach this point. These motions fulfil the Committee on Procedures' role in delivering the changes to Standing Orders that are needed to underpin improved arrangements for an Opposition to be in place.
I listened to some of the Members around the House today. Sinéad Bradley mentioned the advice, including legal advice, that the Committee took. She felt that we came to a reasonable place with that. Rosemary Barton outlined the various Standing Orders and the benefits that they would be to an official Opposition. Kellie Armstrong talked about the huge step forward for the provision of an official Opposition in the House. I hope that the Alliance Party will be happy to come forward and support us on the issue of voluntary coalition in the House. Of course, Jim Allister mentioned the mandatory coalition and said that it did not lend itself to an official Opposition and that an official Opposition would not sit comfortably with it.
Today's motions are sufficient to properly implement the entitlements that were agreed by the Assembly when it debated and agreed the AERC report on the independent review.
The DUP has concerns with Standing Orders 20 and 20A, and, of course, Standing Order 20B is tied into Standing Order 20. I will make some comment on that. My colleague Joanne Bunting made reference to those concerns at the Committee on different occasions as we were looking at these particular Standing Orders. We support the provision for an Opposition, but that support is in accordance with the overarching principle that such provision must be fair and equitable to all in the House. We consider that the new provisions proposed for Standing Order 20 on questions for oral answer and Standing Order 20A on topical questions swing the pendulum too far and, in doing so, disproportionately discriminate against Back-Benchers from the larger parties.
Under these Standing Orders, it will be extremely difficult for a Back-Bencher to be called at Question Time. Only one MLA per party will be selected on any given subject, with the result that MLAs will be competing with their party colleagues and will not be called at all if the Member who asked the original question is from the same party. Furthermore, the larger the party, the more the problem will manifest itself in the House. Question Time should be open and fair to allow all MLAs to scrutinise Ministers on policy and constituency issues. The fact that an MLA is from a larger party should not diminish their right to raise issues at Question Time with a Minister on behalf of their constituents. That is exactly what these two Standing Orders do. To do so is not making provision for an Opposition; it is a denial of democracy.
When we consider the current situation, which is that some Ministers barely make it past question 3 or 4 at Question Time, we see that the opportunity to be called is further depleted. Furthermore, given that a supplementary question may not be taken from a party colleague of the original questioner, that, combined with the Opposition's automatically being given the second supplementary question, even in circumstances where the original question is from one of their Members, affords extremely limited opportunities for the Back-Bench Members of the larger parties to exercise their rights of scrutiny at Question Time.
All MLAs should be afforded reasonable and fair opportunities to ask questions on issues affecting their constituents. Precluding some from doing so because a colleague holds office denies those MLAs an opportunity to fully represent their constituents and constituencies and prevents them from being as effective as they could be. As a result of the proposals in the two Standing Orders on Question Time, Back-Benchers from the larger parties will be penalised because their colleagues are Ministers. That cannot be right; it cannot be the way forward. Provision for an Opposition, yes, but not in this fashion, which sidelines Back-Benchers and is therefore discriminatory.
Mr Allister: Does the Member get the idea of an Opposition? The idea of having one is to oppose. If one looks at any system across the world where there is an Opposition, primacy in Question Time is given to the Opposition. Back-Benchers of the Government parties do not oppose; they ask convenient questions. Opposition Members ask pressing questions. The Member may not want that, but that is the reality of how opposition works.
Mr T Buchanan: I thank the Member for his intervention.
That is why we will oppose Standing Order 20 and Standing Order 20A this evening.
Mr Speaker: No further Members wish to speak. Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
In Standing Order 12—
In paragraph (1), leave out "both Executive Committee and private members’ business" and insert—
"Executive Committee, opposition and private members’ business."; and
After paragraph (4), insert:
"(4A) Where there is an opposition, in each session of the Assembly ten days shall be allotted for opposition business."
Resolved (with cross-community support):
In Standing Order 18A, after paragraph (5), insert:
"(5A) Where there is an opposition, the first question on the statement shall be asked by a member of the opposition." — [Ms Ní Chuilín (The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures).]
In Standing Order 20—
In paragraph (7), leave out "The Speaker shall determine, by means of a random selection, the order in which questions are taken," and insert—
"Subject to paragraph 7A, the Speaker shall determine, by means of a random selection, the order in which questions are taken.";
After paragraph (7), insert:
"(7A) Where there is an opposition, the first question to the Minister shall be asked by a member of the opposition. Otherwise, the first question may not be asked by a member of the same party as the Minister (unless all the questions are from members of that party).";
Leave out paragraph (8), and insert:
"(8) Answers to oral questions may not be debated, but supplementary questions may be asked in accordance with paragraph (8A).";
Leave out paragraph (8A) and insert:
"(8A) This paragraph makes further provision about supplementary questions.
(a) A supplementary question shall contain no more than one enquiry.
(b) The Speaker shall ensure that—
(i) the first supplementary question may be asked by the member who submitted the question for oral answer.
(ii) The second supplementary question may be asked by a member of the opposition (where there is an opposition).
(c) Paragraph (b)(ii) applies only to the first three questions for oral answer taken by each Minister.
(d) Additional supplementary questions may be asked at the discretion of the Speaker."; and
After paragraph (8A), insert:
"(8B) Subject to the discretion of the Speaker to allow additional time, answers to oral questions (including answers to supplementary questions) shall last no more than two minutes." — [Ms Ní Chuilín (The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures).]
Mr Speaker: Before I put the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.
Mr Speaker: I remind Members of the requirement to continue to uphold social distancing while they are roaming in the Chamber.
Ayes 57; Noes 27
AYES
NATIONALIST:
Dr Archibald, Mr Boylan, Ms S Bradley, Ms Brogan, Mr Catney, Mr Delargy, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mrs D Kelly, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin
UNIONIST:
Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Allister, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr Beggs, Mr Butler, Mr Chambers, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Stewart, Mr Swann
OTHER:
Ms Armstrong, Mr Blair, Ms Bradshaw, Mr Carroll, Mr Dickson, Mrs Long, Mr Lyttle, Mr Muir
Tellers for the Ayes: Ms Armstrong, Ms Brogan
NOES
UNIONIST:
Mr Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Storey, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
Tellers for the Noes: Mr T Buchanan, Mr Frew
| Total Votes | 84 | Total Ayes | 57 | [67.9%] |
| Nationalist Votes | 38 | Nationalist Ayes | 38 | [100.0%] |
| Unionist Votes | 38 | Unionist Ayes | 11 | [28.9%] |
| Other Votes | 8 | Other Ayes | 8 | [100.0%] |
The following Members’ votes were cast by their notified proxy in this Division:
Mrs S Bradley voted for Mr Catney, Mr Durkan, Ms Hunter, Mrs D Kelly, Ms Mallon, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty and Mr O’Toole.
Mrs Barton voted for Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Beattie, Mr Beggs, Mr Butler, Mr Chambers, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Stewart and Mr Swann.
Mr Clarke voted for Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan [Teller, Noes], Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew [Teller, Noes], Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Storey, Mr Weir and Mr Wells.
Mr Dickson voted for Ms Armstrong [Teller, Ayes], Mr Blair, Ms Bradshaw, Mrs Long, Mr Lyttle and Mr Muir.
Mr O’Dowd voted for Dr Archibald, Mr Boylan, Ms Brogan [Teller, Ayes], Mr Delargy, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Mr Kearney, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms A Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mrs O’Neill, Ms Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan and Ms Sheerin.
Question accordingly negatived (cross-community vote).
In Standing Order (20A) —
In paragraph (5), leave out "paragraphs 6-8" and insert "paragraphs (6)–(7)";
Leave out paragraphs (6), (7) and (8) and insert:
"(6) Where there is an opposition—
(a) if the Minister taking questions for oral answer is the First Minister or deputy First Minister, the first and second topical questions to that Minister shall be asked by the [Leader of the Opposition] and (if any) the [Deputy Leader of the Opposition]; and
(b) if the Minister taking questions for oral answer is not the First Minister or deputy First Minister, the first topical question shall be asked by a member of the opposition who has submitted his or her name to the Speaker under paragraph (3) (and if there is more than one such member, the Speaker shall determine by which member the question shall be asked).
(7) When paragraph (6) has been applied, the Speaker shall determine, by means of a random selection, the members from whom subsequent questions shall be taken.";
Leave out paragraph (8);
Renumber paragraph (9) as paragraph (8);
Renumber paragraph (10) as paragraph (9);
Renumber paragraph (11) as paragraph (10);
Renumber paragraph (12) as paragraph (11);
Renumber paragraph (13) as paragraph (12); and
In the renumbered paragraph (12), after 'paragraphs (2), (8A),', insert "(8B),". — [Ms Ní Chuilín (The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures).]
Mr Speaker: Before I put the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.
Mr Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 113(5)(b), there is agreement to dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division.
Ayes 57; Noes 27
AYES
NATIONALIST:
Dr Archibald, Mr Boylan, Ms S Bradley, Ms Brogan, Mr Catney, Mr Delargy, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mrs D Kelly, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin
UNIONIST:
Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Allister, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr Beggs, Mr Butler, Mr Chambers, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Stewart, Mr Swann
OTHER:
Ms Armstrong, Mr Blair, Ms Bradshaw, Mr Carroll, Mr Dickson, Mrs Long, Mr Lyttle, Mr Muir
Tellers for the Ayes: Ms Armstrong, Ms Brogan
NOES
UNIONIST:
Mr Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Storey, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
Tellers for the Noes: Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley
| Total Votes | 84 | Total Ayes | 57 | [67.9%] |
| Nationalist Votes | 38 | Nationalist Ayes | 38 | [100.0%] |
| Unionist Votes | 38 | Unionist Ayes | 11 | [28.9%] |
| Other Votes | 8 | Other Ayes | 8 | [100.0%] |
The following Members’ votes were cast by their notified proxy in this Division:
Mrs S Bradley voted for Mr Catney, Mr Durkan, Ms Hunter, Mrs D Kelly, Ms Mallon, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty and Mr O’Toole.
Mr Butler voted for Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr Beggs, Mr Chambers, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Stewart and Mr Swann.
Mr Clarke voted for Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan [Teller, Noes], Mr Buckley [Teller, Noes], Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Storey, Mr Weir and Mr Wells.
Mr Dickson voted for Ms Armstrong [Teller, Ayes], Mr Blair, Ms Bradshaw, Mrs Long, Mr Lyttle and Mr Muir.
Mr O’Dowd voted for Dr Archibald, Mr Boylan, Ms Brogan [Teller, Ayes], Mr Delargy, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Mr Kearney, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms A Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mrs O’Neill, Ms Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan and Ms Sheerin.
Question accordingly negatived (cross-community vote).
Mr Speaker: The motion to amend Standing Order 20B is consequential to the motion to amend Standing Order 20, which has not been agreed, so I will not call the Chair of the Committee to move the motion.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
Leave out Standing Order 45A, and insert:
"45A. The Opposition
(1) A party may choose to be recognised as the opposition, or part of the opposition, if no member of that party holds a Ministerial office and it satisfies any of the following conditions—
(a) the party was entitled to nominate a person to hold Ministerial office under section 18(2) to (6) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and declined to do so;
(b) during the relevant period, the party was entitled to nominate a person to hold a Ministerial office under section 18(10) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and declined to do so; or
(c) the party’s members comprise 8% or more of the total number of members of the Assembly at the end of the day on which the Assembly first meets.
(2) Where only one party is recognised as the opposition in accordance with paragraph 1, the nominating officer of that party must nominate a person who is a member of the Assembly and that party to be the Leader of the Opposition.
(3) Where two or more parties form the opposition, then—
(a) the nominating officer of the largest party must nominate a person who is a member of the Assembly and that party to be the Leader of the Opposition
(b) the nominating officer of the second largest party must nominate a person who is a member of the Assembly and that party to be the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
(4) The opposition is dissolved if either of the following conditions are met—
(a) The Assembly is dissolved; or
(b) all Ministers cease to hold office in accordance with section 18(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
(5) In this order 'relevant period' means the period of two years beginning with the date on which the Ministerial offices are filled under section 16A(3)(b) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998." — [Ms Ní Chuilín (The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
In Standing Order 49(2)—
After paragraph (b), insert:
"(c) that, where there is an opposition, and so far as practicable, at least one seat on each statutory committee is allocated to a member of the opposition;";
Renumber paragraph (c) as paragraph (d);
Renumber paragraph (d) as paragraph (e);
Renumber paragraph (e) as paragraph (f);
In the renumbered paragraph (e), leave out 'subject to paragraphs (b) and (c) above' and insert 'subject to paragraphs (b) to (d)'; and
In the renumbered paragraph (f), leave out 'subject to paragraphs (b) and (d) above' and insert 'subject to paragraphs (b), (c) and (d)'. — [Ms Ní Chuilín (The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
In Standing Order 55(6), at end insert:
"Where there is an opposition, at least one member of the Business Committee must be a member of the opposition." — [Ms Ní Chuilín (The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
In Standing Order 56, after paragraph (3), insert:
"(4) Where there is an opposition—
(a) The chairperson of the committee is to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition.
(b) The deputy chairperson of the committee is to be nominated by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (if any)." — [Ms Ní Chuilín (The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures).]
Resolved (with cross-community support):
In Standing Order 81, after the definition of "Guide to the Rules", insert:
"'member of the opposition' means a member who is a member of political party which forms or forms part of the opposition in accordance with standing order 45A." — [Ms Ní Chuilín (The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures).]
Mr Speaker: Members, please take your ease for a moment before we move on to the next item of business.
That the Second Stage of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill [NIA 49/17-22] be agreed.
Mr Speaker: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated any time limit for the overall debate, but has agreed a limit on individual contributions. The Bill sponsor will have up to 30 minutes to move the Bill and 15 minutes to make a winding-up speech. The Minister will have up to 20 minutes to contribute. The Committee Chair will have 15 minutes. All other Members who are called to speak will have 10 minutes. I call Gerry Carroll to open the debate on the Bill.
Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am privileged to open the debate tonight on the principles of this trade union freedom Bill on behalf of the many trade unions and workers who have helped to shape it and have supported it over the past number of years. I want to begin by thanking the trade union movement, which has supported and shaped it, and those who joined us on the steps of Parliament Buildings today to issue a clear call to MLAs to get behind the Bill. I also want to thank Eamonn McCann, a former colleague on this side of the House and tireless socialist activist and trade unionist, who originally proposed the Bill in 2016. I am proud to have taken up the mantle since then to see it through.
The Bill's aim is simple. Recognising that the root of much current trade union legislation is anti-worker, in a context where workers face increasingly offensive pay offers and conditions and a cost-of-living crisis, the Bill will redress the imbalance in workplaces, re-empowering workers and the trade union movement to fight back for better. Given the period that we are in, it is not an understatement to say that the changes in the Bill would be groundbreaking for workers and trade unions, or that it is imperative for politicians to put their money where their mouth is and back the workers whom they applauded and praised for carrying us through the pandemic.
It has been proven beyond doubt that workers make the world go round. Imagine how much worse our pandemic experience would have been without the healthcare staff, food workers, street cleaners, bin workers, lorry drivers, shop workers stacking shelves, and many more. Such is the society that we live in that many of those workers face crippling conditions at work, pay cuts as their workloads increase, pension cuts and precarious low-paid contracts, which leave them scraping to put food on the table or heat their home.
At the same time, according to the results of a survey by the Derry Trades Union Council, 35% — more than one third — of workers in the area do not earn more than the minimum wage; 67% receive only statutory sick pay, and 73% struggle with bills. Of those workers, some 45% are on part-time or zero-hours contracts, face harassment at work and do not have trade union representation. While there are acute issues that point to long-term neglect in the north-west, the trend is the same in communities right across the North. The cost of living is rising and wages are not matching it. Add to that the shameless attacks on welfare that leave even those who are in full-time work relying on benefits to pay for food, and we have a picture of rising poverty and destitution, which is felt most sharply by those who are at the bottom of society.
Many of the promises that were made in New Decade, New Approach (NDNA), such as commitments to better workers' rights, have not been implemented two years on. They are obviously unlikely to be passed in this mandate at this stage. It is clear that workers will have to lead the fight themselves for better pay and conditions. In my view, politicians should not stand in their way; rather, the Assembly should actively seek to make that process easier, as is the aim of this Bill. History has proved that the most effective way to beat back attacks on workers and working-class communities is through collective action. Indeed, that is why Margaret Thatcher was so keen to go after workers and trade union rights, seeking to destroy the enemy at home, as she referred to them.
We live in a divided society, which will come as no surprise to those who have been responsible for sharpening division and whipping up sectarian tensions. Collective action across the divide is the greatest way to combat such division. We can look to the trade union movement here to see how workers come together and win. Water charges were challenged on our streets by trade unions, and that is the reason why we are not paying twice for an essential resource. On recent successful strike actions, we have seen workers from different workplaces standing in solidarity with each other in a powerful bolster to the dedication found on pickets. Indeed, we have seen a recent spate of industrial action because of the rise in unfit conditions. Healthcare staff are considering additional industrial action, three years on since nurses stood on freezing pickets asking for basic pay parity. The Hovis workers had to fight for the same parity, and now University and College Union (UCU) workers are fighting for their pensions. Educational welfare officers in NIPSA are out for fair pay as well.
This is not an easy process, because of laws that were never voted for locally and never endorsed by our trade union movement and which set out to dismantle the power of the trade union movement across the water following a historic strike by miners and nurses. It is not easy for trade unions to recruit workers to fight for better conditions or to engage in industrial action for themselves or in solidarity with other workers, but that is exactly what we need in this period: emboldened trade unions and workers equipped with the tools to fight for better pay and conditions.
There is an onus on the Assembly to hear the appeal of workers and to overhaul legislation that has been shamefully left largely untouched for over 20 years. This Bill will be a mammoth first step in that endeavour and one that I hope will be followed by more Bills that will reverse the trend of decades of attacks on trade unions that have rolled back on much-needed rights. This decade should really be one in which workers' rights are protected and strengthened after 40 years of outright assault.
To focus now on the specifics of the Bill, I reiterate that it will only scratch the surface, but I believe that the five main changes that this Bill, commonly known as the trade union freedom Bill, will deliver will go to the heart of many of the problems facing workers in trade unions and those who cannot join a trade union today. The Bill seeks to amend the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.
The first clause of the Bill seeks to repeal article 102 of the 1995 Order. It would legalise secondary, or what is usually referred to as solidarity, strike action. It would unpick one of the cornerstones of Thatcher's assault on trade unions and allow trade unions to strike in solidarity with others engaged in industrial action. In most other countries across the world, there is no law prohibiting workers from striking in support of another group of workers, yet such a ban, which was never endorsed politically or by the trade unions here, remains on our books. If workers in countries like Belgium and Denmark can do it, what justification is there for so severely limiting the agency of workers here? I have no doubt that it may evoke cries of anarchy from some in the House, but the fact of the matter is that no Government or employer has anything to fear from strike action, never mind solidarity action, if they treat their workers with basic respect and pay them what they deserve. This is about rectifying an imbalance in workplaces that was purposefully skewed away from workers and unions.
We have also seen the power of solidarity in recent months as a mini strike wave hit the North, which inspired solidarity from one picket to the next. Those workers should be able to decide to withhold their labour in solidarity with each other. The result will undoubtedly bolster the outcome of industrial action for pay and benefits. Again, in my view, that is where politicians need to put their money where their mouths are and stand with workers in these struggles. It is not enough to turn up to picket lines for photos. We need to make tangible changes to benefit those fighting back.
The ban prevents workers in the same workplace and building from taking action in support of one another if they are employed by different bodies. We can see that in this Building, where some workers are employed by the Commission and some are employed by the Civil Service. In my engagement with the NIPSA branch that represents workers in the Building, they told me about Civil Service workers taking strike action, but their Assembly Commission colleagues who wanted to strike in solidarity with them and not to cross the picket line were prevented from doing so by the current laws. In the Chamber, thanks are often heaped on Assembly staff — rightly so for the work that they do — but Members should listen to what they say, particularly on this issue.
In 1982, miners in Britain went on a solidarity strike in support of nurses' pay claims and used their industrial muscle to support under-pressure hospital staff. Train drivers refused to cross picket lines to avoid moving coal during the 1984-85 miners' strike. Shortly after that, all solidarity action was made illegal. That is the historical context underpinning the attack on workers, and, for that reason alone, Members should do away with it.
The second clause relates to the notice of ballot for employers and would simplify the information that trade unions must supply to employers about which workers are taking action and reduce the notice period for industrial action from seven days to two days. The rationale for that clause is, again, to make it easier, less onerous and financially penalising for unions to act and to keep them out of the courts when nefarious action threatens to upend strike action.
When formulating the Bill, we heard in discussions with trade unions about how costly it was to ensure that meticulous records are maintained. Moreover, the ability to render strike action illegal because of an overlooked employee address change is unreasonable, and the Assembly needs to address that, as it represents an untenable barrier to successful strike action. The reduction of the ballot notice period from seven days to two days will remove another needless barrier to action. Those measures are designed to hinder industrial action, which is an inherently political move against workers.
We heard from unions that a week is a long time in industrial relation and employers can and have used that period to pressure, intimidate and bully workers not to take action, despite their democratic decision to do just that. The Bill proposes to reduce the notice period from seven days to two days and remove barriers to striking while the iron is hot. However, trade unions may choose to provide more than two days' notice if that would aid negotiations with the employer to find resolution before strike action is taken. Where that is not seen to be possible, workers should not be forced to wait.
Clause 3 relates to the conduct of a ballot. The clause extends the arenas in which voting in a ballot can take place and seeks to bring balloting into the 21st century. That will have one of the greatest impacts for unions in organising for industrial action and was overwhelmingly endorsed by the trade union movement. Currently, trade unions must ballot for strike action in internal elections via a postal vote. That not only costs a substantial amount of money — hundreds of thousands of pounds for some unions — but, according to the Trades Union Congress (TUC), is responsible for diminished participation in balloting. People move house, ballots can be lost or undelivered, and it is more time-consuming to respond. Giving unions the option of online workplace balloting will be likely to increase voter turnout and member participation: a clear benefit for all and a boost for the democratic process in trade unions.
In the 21st century, particularly during the pandemic, much legislative and political activity was forced online. There is no excuse for forbidding unions from balloting by email, app or even in person with protections in place. Technology exists to ensure that ballots can be protected, whilst making the balloting process much more convenient and cost-effective. Sir Ken Knight, a former head of the fire service in England, conducted an independent review of online balloting for industrial action. He agreed and recommended that a pilot scheme be introduced for online balloting for trade unions engaged in industrial action. In that review, people testified that the postal ballot system can be subject to abuse.
During the last two years —
Mr Carroll: I will make progress and give way in a second.
During the last two years, we also had examples of workers voting online to accept offers made by employers, which worked well, by all accounts. If it is OK to have online balloting to accept pay offers, why not have online voting to reject pay offers and thus take industrial action? As the TUC states:
"Personal computers have been around for 45 years. The first home broadband was installed 20 years ago. And online video calling has surged during the coronavirus pandemic. But the law governing trade union ballots remains stuck firmly in the pre-digital era."
Clause 4 relates to giving workers who engage in official industrial action greater protection in the workplace. To be honest, I was unaware and shocked that this legislation and practice existed. I was glad to try to change it when trade unionists raised the issue with me during the consultation phase of the Bill. Workers dismissed unfairly because of participation in industrial action have the right to challenge their dismissal. However, that right is time-limited. The clause will make the dismissal of workers for whom engaging in industrial action was the primary reason for dismissal automatically unfair. As the law stands, if you are dismissed for taking part in a strike or other industrial action that is called officially and is otherwise lawful, the dismissal will be unfair, if it takes place less than 12 weeks after the person started to take part in the action. Depending on circumstances, it may be unfair if it takes place later. However, here comes the rub, as included in Members' packs on the Bill:
"If you continue to take part in protected industrial action for more than 12 weeks your rights are different. If you are dismissed for taking part after the end of the 12 weeks your dismissal will only be unfair if, at the time of your dismissal, your employer has not followed reasonable steps to settle the dispute with the trade union."
That leaves too many workers unprotected and subject to the whim of interpretation of what are or are not "reasonable steps". The blunt truth is that no workers should be dismissed or threatened with action for taking part in industrial action. More than 4,000 workers here have brought unfair dismissal claims against their employers in the past five years. There is an unfortunate precedent of workers being dismissed too easily, and that needs to end. The clause will assist with that.
Clause 5 relates to collective bargaining and would be a significant improvement for hundreds of thousands of workers. Consultees overwhelmingly appreciated the provision. Currently, workplaces, for some arbitrary reason, need to have over 21 workers before those workers can mandate recognition of a trade union by their employer to enable them to avail themselves of collective bargaining rights. Across the North, 93% of workplaces have fewer than 21 employees, meaning that they have no power to force an unwilling employer to the negotiation table. Workers who are in a trade union in a workplace with fewer than 21 employees are effectively second-rate union members and are prevented from having the rights of workers in bigger workplaces. The Bill will reduce the mandatory minimum number of employees from 21 to five. That change has the potential to see hundreds of thousands of predominantly private-sector workers join a trade union and fight for better conditions in the workplace. That would be of huge benefit to workers in hospitality, where 89% of businesses have fewer than 21 workers.
The change would also dramatically bolster the ranks of trade unions and be a step change from the decline in membership of many unions for decades. The clause will also expand the range of issues that can be negotiated by unions and employers. At the moment, trade unions are limited to negotiating with employers on matters limited to pay, hours and holidays, resulting in many issues that arise for workers being off limits for trade unions. The clause would lift those limitations, allowing unionised workers to be represented on all issues relating to pay and terms and conditions, as well as the obvious result for workers battling unfair conditions. I hope that that will kick-start a renewed conversation in communities and workplaces about the merits of joining a union and expand the size of our trade union movement.
Mr Weir: I thank the Member for giving way. Mr Carroll has moved on from the point on which I wanted clarification. Earlier, he said that one of the impacts of clause 2 — it is stated in the memorandum as well — is that it would remove the requirement, before industrial action, for a sample ballot paper to be provided to the employer. I appreciate the point that the Member made about wanting to remove steps that are seen to be too onerous for a trade union. I understand the logic in that. However, if there were to be such a situation, clearly there would have to be some form of ballot, and, depending on the size of the workforce, that could involve hundreds or thousands of ballot papers. I am not sure of the logic that producing an additional ballot paper that can be given to an employer as a sample is too onerous for unions. I would be interested to hear whether there is any further logic or explanation that the Member could give in relation to that requirement.
Mr Carroll: I thank the Member. Most of the trade unions that we spoke to and engaged with during the consultation process felt that there was no rationale or need for providing a sample ballot paper. The Member spoke about wider issues with the clause, which, obviously, are relevant as well. However, it was made clear to us that there was no rationale or need to have the requirement to provide a sample ballot paper in legislation. If unions decide to show an employer a ballot paper, that is up to them, but they felt that a requirement in law was unnecessary.
What is before the Assembly is the opportunity to uproot laws that were implemented with the intention of undermining the trade union movement. If we take the opportunity, it will represent a groundbreaking and historic move for workers and their trade unions, which represent people from all backgrounds, creeds and communities and bring them together to challenge unfit conditions and low pay. Tonight, we can empower trade unions and equip workers with the tools to challenge conditions that actively add to poverty and destitution. I urge all parties to support the Bill.
Finally, I want to say a few quick thanks to all the staff members who helped me to bring the Bill to this stage. Thanks to Aoibhinn, formerly of the Bill Office, James, Phil and Frank and to my party team of Fiona Ferguson, Matt Collins and Shaun Harkin. I am sure that I have forgotten a few names; apologies if I have.
I urge Members to support the Bill.
Ms Dolan: As Sinn Féin spokesperson on workers' rights, I say from the outset that we support legislation that advances workers' rights and strengthens trade unions. Therefore, we broadly support the principles of the trade union freedom Bill and its passage through Second Stage. The Bill ties in well with our legislation to ban zero-hours contracts and create a better work-life balance for workers and with our policies to give workers a real living wage. While there is insufficient time in this mandate to advance this legislation, we hope that, in a new mandate, a landmark employment Bill can be introduced to strengthen the rights of workers and trade unions and deliver on many of the aims in the private Members' Bills.
Trade unions play an important role in standing up for workers and protecting their rights. During the pandemic, trade unions ensured that workers were given adequate sick pay and leave when they had to isolate. They ensured that workplaces complied with public health guidance, and they stood up for workers who faced being made redundant or having their furlough cut.
Trade unions and collective bargaining have a crucial role in helping to create good jobs that are secure and pay fair wages. Research by the Nevin Economic Research Institute found that collective bargaining led to higher wages and that firms that engaged with collective bargaining benefited from higher productivity.
The role of trade unions in helping workers to increase their wages is particularly important in the current cost of living crisis, in which workers struggle to pay energy bills. Low wages remain a problem, with around 20% of the workforce still earning wages that are below the real living wage. Collective bargaining can help to address that.
It is regrettable that we have had three DUP Economy Ministers throughout the mandate and little legislation has come forward to improve workers' rights or trade union rights, notwithstanding the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill. We are also concerned that trade unions —
Ms Dolan: No, sorry. I am nearly finished. We are also concerned that trade unions have regularly been left out of policymaking and that trade unionists are not directly involved in shaping the review of Invest NI.
We generally support the trade union freedom Bill and its aims, and I thank the Bill sponsor for briefing my party colleagues and me earlier last month. However, we also acknowledge that some in the trade union movement see the Bill as putting the cart before the horse and not addressing the priorities of trade unions, which are accessing workplaces and increasing membership, rather than what happens during strike action. I am sure, however, that Committee scrutiny of the Bill can strengthen it and that those concerns can be addressed. I support the Bill's move to Committee Stage.
Mr Weir: I will keep my remarks relatively short. I appreciate the passion that Mr Carroll has brought to the Bill, and I know that he has a strong commitment to it. However, given where we are in the mandate — we are at Second Stage at the beginning of March — there is a slightly moot quality to some of the debate, because everyone in the House knows that the Bill will not reach the statute books or become law.
Down the years, many important achievements have been brought about by trade unionists for their workers and, broadly, for society as a whole. However, looking at the Bill, I think that there is a grave danger that, if it were to proceed, it would drag us back retrospectively to the 1970s. I appreciate that Mr Carroll would certainly self-identify as a Connollyite, but there is a touch of Scargillism about the Bill.
When I say that the Bill has a retro feel that would bring us back to the 1970s, I mean that, looking at it, I feel a bit like a character in 'Life on Mars' and have suddenly woken up in the mid-1970s. To be fair to Mr Carroll, he is entirely honest about his intentions and the time frame that he sees in rolling back any changes to trade union legislation to a pre-1979 level. To his credit, he is absolutely clear-cut and honest about that, and I give him credit for it. However, I am old enough to remember the 1970s. It was a period of poor industrial relations, when people suffered greatly because of a level of disharmony in society that, in many ways, made some of the changes inevitable. There may be an argument that, historically, some of the events of the 1970s played into the hands of a Conservative Government or a Margaret Thatcher. Nevertheless, it was a dark period in industrial relations, and it is not one that I would like to see us dragged back to. There is very much a retro feel to the Bill.
There are some aspects of the Bill that I do not have a problem with. For example, I do not have an ideological view about what the trigger point for collective bargaining should be or whether it should be 21, five or a different figure. I do not have a doctrinaire view of where that should be set. Similarly, although I am sure that the Member probably has greater knowledge of this than me, I am not aware of whether there is a major problem with unfair dismissal cases being taken as a result of involvement in strikes. I am happy to keep an open mind about that. From the point of view of industrial relations, however, there is enough in the Bill that makes it dangerous enough for the House to reject, and I can think of three or four aspects that I want to highlight briefly.
The first of those is the secondary action in clause 1, which is one of its central cruxes. There is a good reason why secondary action is outlawed. The right way for industrial action to take place is that it should be about the rights of the workers who are directly affected by their industrial situation. By their nature, strikes should be about pay and conditions. Whether they are in the public or the private sector, they should be about what directly impacts on those workers. They should not be political. At times and not necessarily with the support of members, we have seen attempts to pile pressure on government or employers, and workers have taken action that was unconnected with their conditions. We should not go back to the days of political strikes. It is right that there is the right to take industrial action, but we should not widen that to political strikes.
On clause 2, perhaps the more minor aspect is the issue of an employer getting a sample ballot paper. That seems to be a reasonably sensible approach that is simply about giving assurance that everything is very much on the level. It provides a direct safeguard regarding any industrial action. Surely that level of communication is a good thing. I can understand how, for some trade unions, that might be an irritation, but it stretches things beyond credibility to say that supplying an employer with a sample ballot paper creates such an onerous burden on any workforce or trade union that it renders a change in the law necessary.
The more substantial element is, perhaps, the period of notice, and there are a couple of reasons why. If ballots are to be properly organised and fair and if discussion is to take place ahead of any ballot, cutting the period of notice down from seven days to two days is a retrograde step. It is also a retrograde step for other reasons. We know that industrial disputes in the public sector and, sometimes, in the private sector have a strong knock-on effect on other people. For example, if a strike involves a group of transport workers, it will impact on how some people get to and from their work, as they may want to make alternative arrangements. To have a strike that simply appears within a matter of days is unfair to those people as well.
Most importantly, though, if we are to have good industrial relations, seven days is an appropriate period because it gives space to the trade unions, the workforce and the employers and gives them a certain period within which notice has been given. That provides an opportunity for focused discussions to resolve the issue and provides a cooling-off period in which those detailed discussions can take place. Surely, we should aim for a situation in which there is harmony and compromise on both sides to reach agreement. Therefore, it strikes me that a two-day notice period will cut out any realistic prospect of discussions or negotiations ahead of a ballot taking place.
Moving away from a secret vote that is done by way of postal ballot to, for instance, some form of workplace vote is also a retrograde step. Everybody should be on a level playing field, and a postal ballot — a secret ballot of members — is the appropriate way to do things. I do not believe that what is proposed necessarily follows this, but we saw the big workplace votes in the 1970s with a mass gathering of the workforce, a show of hands and a result being declared. At times, that left some workers with a strong feeling of intimidation or a feeling that they could not be seen to take an opposite view from that of their fellow workers. It strikes me that all workers should be treated similarly. Therefore, it is right that we have a standardised method by which decisions are taken on industrial action.
I appreciate that it is probably unusual to reject a Bill at Second Stage, but, fundamentally, by the Bill sponsor's own admission, the Bill is designed to take us back in time to the 1970s. Instead of looking backwards on industrial relations, we should look towards an era of much more harmonious relations. We should look forward not backwards. If the House endorses Mr Carroll's Bill today, we will take a damaging retrograde step and move back in time rather than forward.
Mr O'Toole: I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill. Unfortunately, I am not in the Chamber tonight. I had intended to be, but business moved rather more quickly than we had anticipated.
First, given the nature of the discussion and what we are debating, I express solidarity with the industrial action by the University and College Union (UCU), particularly in relation to our two universities: Ulster University and Queen's University Belfast. Part of what it is striking about is the broader agenda of the commercialisation of higher education and the casualisation of their work, so it is relevant to tonight's discussion.
All the signatories to the New Decade, New Approach agreement committed to protecting workers' rights. That document said:
"good jobs, where workers have a voice that provides a level of autonomy, a decent income, security of tenure, satisfying work in the right quantities and decent working conditions, should be integral to public policy given how this contributes to better health and wellbeing by tackling inequalities, building self-efficacy and combating poverty".
That was extremely well put, but, sadly, over the past two years, we have made little progress towards it. It is only now, in the dying weeks of the mandate, that we are debating this Bill, which, we know, has little to zero chance of becoming law.
I and my party will support the Bill proceeding through Second Stage in the hope that we can send a message of the Assembly's support for positive legislation to improve workers' rights and for the broader trade union movement. I should, however, make it clear that the Bill is not our ideal Bill. It is not necessarily one that we would want to see enacted. Nevertheless, we welcome the fact that Mr Carroll has moved a Bill to improve the ability of the trade union movement to deliver for its members and, indeed, to strengthen the trade union movement more broadly.
Given that we are debating the broad principles of the Bill rather than the detail of each clause, we are happy for it to proceed. However, I will talk about the individual clauses and provisions that we welcome, those that we have real concerns about and those on which we want to see more scrutiny. Our support today does not mean that we would support the Bill in its entirety were it to proceed; our support is for the Bill's broad principles.
My party has long stood by the trade union movement. We are proud to be the Social Democratic and Labour Party. The trade union movement has a more than century-long history of delivering for working people here and around the world. It is clear that members of trade unions in the private and public sectors earn more than non-union members. That is most pronounced among women union members, who earn on average up to 30% more than non-union equivalents, and among young people, where the differential is almost 40%. I agree with Mr Carroll that the hollowing-out of the trade union movement through successive legislation in the Thatcher era is something that we should want to roll back on. We want to revitalise and strengthen our trade union movement because it offers so much to workers and to our economy more broadly. We want an economy where employers and workers work together in partnership to improve wages, productivity and work-life balance, advance skills, underpin job security and ensure staff and job retention.
I would make the broader point that the absence of the trade union movement from a social partnership model and from detailed discussion of our economic policy over the last decade and a half under successive DUP Economy Ministers, who have to a greater or lesser extent — mostly to a lesser extent — not engaged with the trade union movement, has been a real drawback. I am afraid that that is clearly linked to the fact that we have poor skills outcomes in Northern Ireland relative to the rest of these islands. Frankly, we have some of the lowest productivity rates in western Europe.
I will be candid: while we welcome the Bill proceeding, it does not achieve everything that we would want. Indeed, it is clear that, were certain parts of the union movement to design a Bill to improve how they work, it would not necessarily be this Bill. We are, however, happy to see it proceed.
I will turn to some of the specific measures. One of the aspects that we welcome and want to hear more about — hopefully in the next mandate — is the potential for union voting to be carried out in office or virtually.
As the Bill sponsor said, it seems bizarre, in the digital age, that we cannot make provision for online and virtual ballots. Clearly, we would want to see more scrutiny done on that.
In relation to collective bargaining [Interruption.]
I am going to have to close soon, Mr Speaker, because I am doing some parenting, and there is something going in the background that requires parenting. Collective bargaining is something that we would want to see scrutiny of, because there are a number of small businesses in Northern Ireland. We are heavily skewed towards small businesses, so that is something that we need to be careful about.
Secondary, or solidarity, picketing is something that could be moved towards. Again, we would want to see more detailed scrutiny done, however. I was intrigued to hear Mr Weir call out what he called "political strikes". I presume that that means that he was completely opposed to the Ulster Workers' Council strike in the early 1970s, but I will not dwell on that point. There are a range of measures in the Bill, and many things are absent from it, but, in broad terms, we welcome the fact that there is a trade union Bill before us. It is not the Bill that we would have introduced, and, if it were to proceed, we would want to see much more scrutiny done, but we are happy to see it proceed beyond Second Stage.
Mr Dickson: I thank Mr Carroll for bringing the Bill to the House. I have been a trade union member for my entire working life. I started out in 1976 as a member of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs (ASTMS), and I organised the first trade union branch in what was then the Ulster Polytechnic, now the Jordanstown campus of Ulster University. That gave me a taste for my trade union career. Subsequently, I moved to work for the Labour Relations Agency, an agency that recruited staff from a worker and an employer background. I was pleased to join from the worker background. That did not diminish my role as a trade union activist, because, there, I immediately joined branch 28 of NIPSA and, in fact, was branch chair for many, many years in the organisation.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Beggs] in the Chair)
I can tell you, Mr Speaker and Mr Carroll, that it was by no means easy to fulfil the role of chair of a trade union branch in an organisation in which the entire ethos was to provide support and conciliation to trade unions and employers in times of difficulty and dispute. The reality was that we had our own disputes, and we had strikes. We had strikes against our own management. In fact, I proudly say to this day that we held the longest-running industrial dispute in Northern Ireland. It was over recognition. Nevertheless, that did not deter me or the management of the Labour Relations Agency from the roles that we had to provide conciliation and support to trade unions and businesses across Northern Ireland.
I also appreciate that, back in the 1970s, as Mr Weir said, lots of changes were taking place to trade union regulations and laws. Some were of necessity, because of the way in which industrial relations had been deteriorating at that time in the United Kingdom, and many, depending on the flavour of the Government of the day, may well have gone too far, and, indeed, many did go too far. Shamefully, many of the changes to regulations were brought into Northern Ireland by direct rule Ministers. Matthew O'Toole made a political point about the Ulster Workers' Council strike. If we had not had direct rule, perhaps we would have had the ability to make some of the changes ourselves.
When Northern Ireland moved to a situation in which we had our own Ministers, we were in a position to take control of employment law. Thankfully, employment law is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, unlike in Scotland and Wales, for example, so we have that freedom. With that freedom comes responsibility, however.
Although I welcome the Bill, it is being moved late in the mandate and — regrettably, from Mr Carroll's perspective — it is not going to make it onto the legislative book. Moreover, it does not leave a legacy or set the right tone for what will happen in the future. I have heard the Minister say to the Committee and in the House that there is an intention to take forward a more broadly encompassing reform of employment law in Northern Ireland in the next mandate. I hope that that will happen. We have seen some changes, a number of which we are working through at the moment, that have made a difference to, for example, zero-hours contracts, but there is a need to reform trade union legislation. There are lots of reasons why we have not got to that point, but there is no point in crying over spilt milk; we are where we are.
It is important that we seek to make that change, and it is vital that that is done in consultation with the widest group of people. The trade union movement, through its collective voice in the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the employers' organisations, of which there are several, and civic society need to be involved. They all need to be engaged in a broad-based consultation about the topics and areas that any change in the law needs to bring about. One of my concerns about the Bill that Mr Carroll has brought to us tonight is that the consultation on it did not quite achieve that reach.
One of the earliest Ministers who had responsibility for employment and learning was my colleague Stephen Farry, now an MP. He blocked much of the draconian Tory trade union legislation brought forward by Westminster. As I said, we had the opportunity to deal with employment law, as it was devolved to us in Northern Ireland. In my view, he took the right route by consulting widely. He undertook to make changes to employment legislation here. Some of the things that he said at the time were:
"The underlying issues go to the heart of employment law. We need to find that balance between employment rights and the burden that those rights will place on business."
That is why it is important that we go out and widely consult on this type of change.
"Getting the right balance will always be challenging and will require partnership and a degree of flexibility if we are to create an employment relations system that enhances competitiveness and also offers employees" —
"the right working environment."
That can only be achieved by bringing together those who have the right voice to deliver that type of change. What we should be creating in our employment law is a collaborative, consultative process that will deliver high-quality employment relations.
We should draw upon some of the European models for workers' councils. Those are for very large organisations. I take the point that Mr Carroll makes in his Bill. I agree, for example, with Mr Weir on the concerns about secondary action. It is important that the workers who are affected by a particular issue are the ones at the core and centre of the dispute. I do not want to see disputes in employment. What I want to see are high-quality mechanisms that allow people to resolve disputes before they take place. Having spoken to representatives of the trade union movement, I know that that is the direction in which they want to move. They want to move away from the type of environment that, perhaps, Mr Carroll harks back to.
I understand some of the concerns about ballots. I have no particular concerns about, for example, moving to online balloting, provided that it is appropriately secured. I know that the Electoral Reform Society has been conducting postal ballots for trade unions for many years. I have never seen any difficulty in that. I do not believe that, in all my years at the Labour Relations Agency, there was a single dispute around either a ballot paper being presented to an employer or that ballot paper being distributed to members of the trade union, because that was being done independently on behalf of the trade union.
I passionately believe that there needs to be time and space for people to sit down, negotiate and go through the mechanisms that have been agreed between the parties. A lot of my time was spent working on procedures that were written down but rarely adhered to. It is about bringing people into that space, sitting them down in a neutral environment, inviting them to look at what they agreed to, and encouraging and persuading them to work their way through that. There will, of course, always be disputes that flare up and which there is no process or procedure for dealing with. That is the role for an organisation like the Labour Relations Agency: to be immediately in touch with those organisations, to invite them and to encourage them to come and sit down. I remember —.
Mr Weir: I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate the point that he made about that level of reconciliation and conciliation, where possible. Does the Member agree that there is a danger in moving, for instance, from a seven-day notice period to a two-day notice period, because that is much more likely to promote a spirit of confrontation rather than giving space for problems to be worked out between employer and employees?
Mr Dickson: I agree with Mr Weir. It is vital that that space is there to allow for cooling-off periods and to allow people to give consideration. There will be times when people simply down tools and walk out. That is a fact of life, but it is then for those who are skilled in dealing with those situations to make contact with the parties to the dispute and bring them round the table.
I remember a strike by Translink workers that took place in Belfast. It was not an official strike; it was a group of workers who had a particular grievance at the time. The buses stopped at 6.30 am. I remember standing in the car park at the Labour Relations Agency, before the door was open, making phone calls to the relevant trade unions and the employer to get them in to start the talks, because it was on the news that morning that school buses had not been running. That type of intervention from an organisation that has respect from the trade union movement and employers means that it can sit down and work its way through all of those things.
Mr Dickson: Apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will sum up briefly. The view of the Alliance Party is that this conversation is coming too late in this mandate. It is regrettable that the Minister has said that he is keen for legislation, that it can and should be brought forward, but not in this mandate, and —
Mr Delargy: My colleague Jemma Dolan has put on record very clearly our party position. I will elaborate on a few points to clarify them, and I will also bring in a few of my own points that I have raised previously.
Obviously, we support any Bill that advances workers' rights and enshrines them in legislation. Over the past number of months, I have been very pleased to stand alongside Jemma Dolan in backing and taking forward a number of things. There was Jemma's Bill on zero-hours contracts and putting banded hours in place; the Finance Minister, Conor Murphy, bringing in equal sick pay for agency workers; and, obviously, one that has been debated a lot in the Assembly about procurement processes and ensuring that employers pay the living wage. My own Bill on work-life balance, the right to disconnect and statutory pay for carers is due to come before the Assembly.
We hope that, in the new mandate, a landmark employment Bill can be introduced to strengthen the rights of workers. In the past number of weeks, I have met representatives from different sectors who have been on strike in my constituency: university lecturers, dockers and, in particular, education welfare officers, with whom we have worked closely. That emphasises the need for trade unions and the protection that they offer to workers.
One of the things that came up quite regularly in those discussions is that those employees feel let down, particularly by successive Economy Ministers. They feel that the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill represents an aberration, and that, in the grand scheme of things, their rights have not really been advanced in legislation. Additionally, we oppose any attempts by Edwin Poots to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board, which has put in place sectoral bargaining and higher starting pay rates for workers in that sector.
There are a few gaps in the Bill that have been mentioned, Mr Carroll. There is nothing in it that looks at giving existing trade unions the right to enter workplaces and unionise staff. A possible amendment could be considered to give trade unions a set number of days each year on which they can enter the workforce and provide information on joining the union. I hope that that is something that you will look at. It is a bigger problem for trade unions. Trade union membership in the private sector is around 15%. They see growing their membership as a bigger priority than perhaps what is contained in the Bill.
Mr Lyons (The Minister for the Economy): I very much value the essential role that trade unions play in supporting employment rights and maintaining good industrial relations. The right to peaceful and legitimate industrial action is a tenet of any free and fair society. Northern Ireland employment law is already more favourable to the promotion of trade union rights than equivalent legislation in England, Scotland and Wales. I will give some examples.
In Great Britain, in order for industrial action to be lawful, as well as requiring the majority of those who vote to vote in favour of industrial action, a minimum of 50% of all eligible voters must vote in a ballot. The minimum of eligible voters is not required in Northern Ireland. Further, here, employers must be given one week's notice of lawful industrial action. In GB, it is two weeks' notice. I will comment on the Bill's proposal to reduce that notice period further in due course. Finally, GB legislation ensures that employers cannot make an offer to workers for the sole or main purpose of inducing them not to become, or seek to become, a trade union member. In Northern Ireland, that provision is strengthened by article 77A of the Employment Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, which makes it unlawful for an employer to induce workers not to belong to a trade union, not to participate in a union's activities at an appropriate time and not to use a union's services at an appropriate time. I do not intend to roll back any of those important rights. However, it is always good to examine existing legislation to ensure that it still achieves the purposes for which it was intended. For that reason alone, I welcome the debate.
As good lawmakers, we are all required to be mindful of both parties in the employment relationship, to support the maintenance of that relationship by balancing the needs of our businesses with those of workers, and to consider the impact on wider society and the economy. As such, the Bill gives me cause for concern. I am particularly concerned about the proposal to remove the restrictions on secondary action. Clause 1 seeks to repeal article 102 of the 1995 Order, but I see very little information in the explanatory and financial memorandum on how that article has been problematic or unfair.
Of course, the Member and I are too young to remember the dark days of the 1970s, when, as a result of widespread industrial action, the lights went out and rubbish piled up on the streets. However, there may be one or two Members present whose memories stretch back that far. Does the House really want to roll back the years and return to an era of unregulated industrial action? In addition to the detrimental impact on the economy and society of widespread disruption and increased strike action, the proposal raises serious concerns about human rights. Vulnerable members of society could be deprived of essential goods and services if industrial action were to become more frequent and unpredictable. Workers could come under increased pressure to take action, and so lose wages and, possibly, pension rights, even thought they may not be directly involved in the dispute in question. Businesses that are unrelated to a dispute but whose workers take part in secondary action could be deprived of their employees' labour and, possibly, their livelihood. I respectfully ask the Member to set out the steps that he has taken to reassure himself and the Assembly that those concerns will be addressed in full.
The Member has advised that he shared his legislative proposal with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, and I wonder whether he has received any comment from those bodies.
The principle behind clause 2 purports to make taking industrial action more efficient by reducing the information to be provided to employers and reducing notice periods for industrial action from seven to two days. That is a strange usage of "efficient" in the context of building a 10X Economy. Such a disproportionately short notice period and the dearth of information to be provided under the proposed amendments is more likely to disadvantage employers and employees. It could well thwart attempts to reach a negotiated settlement, leading to unnecessary industrial action, with all the consequent loss of income on both sides of the dispute. Surely that is in no one's best interests. While the Member's intention may be to promote the right to take legitimate industrial action, an unnecessarily short notice period may also prevent employers from exercising their legitimate right to seek a court injunction to halt illegal industrial action. The removal of the requirement to provide essential information to an employer is likely to impact negatively on that employer's ability to fulfil their responsibilities, potentially in important areas such as health and safety in the workplace, and to ensure at least a basic service to the vulnerable. In the absence of evidence of any difficulties faced due to the current provisions, I am concerned that the only reason for such a short notice period is to cause maximum disruption in the workplace, to the economy and to the public, all at a time when we can least afford it.
I note that, under clause 3, the Bill introduces new options to allow union members to obtain voting papers and to vote, including workplace voting and electronic balloting. That complements article 111(2)(b) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which allows voting papers to be sent to members by means other than post where required for reasons of personal safety. Of course, the Member will be familiar with the findings of the 2017 independent review by Sir Ken Knight regarding the introduction of electronic voting in GB. In his report, Sir Ken recommended that any decision to bring e-balloting permanently into legislation should be based on the outcome of a pilot scheme to test e-balloting for a few select non-statutory ballots in England, Scotland and Wales. Sir Ken recommended that this pilot scheme, led by an expert advisory panel and quality assured by independent auditors, should provide the necessary assurances that e-balloting fully complies with the requirements in section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004. The equivalent requirements in Northern Ireland are found in article 28 of the Employment Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, and those include ensuring that those who are entitled to vote have had an opportunity to do so, that all votes cast remain secret and that risk of unfairness or malpractice is minimised. In addition to that, Sir Ken argued that the expert quality assurance of the pilot scheme would allow trade unions to demonstrate that e-balloting was cyber-secure and included an effective system for voter verification. To move straight to the introduction of electronic balloting for industrial action in Northern Ireland without those assurances would seem ambitious, to say the least.
Finally, the Member believes that the Bill will not give rise to any significant increase in direct cost to the public purse, and he is silent on the costs to business. Yet, under clause 5, the Bill seeks to reduce the mandatory minimum number of employees required for a request for recognition to be entitled to conduct collective bargaining. Surely reducing those minimum levels from 21 to five workers will bring many more businesses within the scope of this legislation, leading to an increased workload and, potentially, financial and administrative repercussions for the Industrial Court, the small specialist body that adjudicates on the recognition and derecognition of trade unions. Therefore, I would be grateful for an indication from the Member of how many additional businesses would come into the scope of the legislation should minimum levels be reduced, as he proposes. More significantly, the Bill seeks to abolish the time limit for claiming unfair dismissal in relation to protected industrial action while bringing secondary action under the definition of protected action and broadening the definition of "former worker" under clause 6(11). The potential increase in numbers eligible to claim unfair dismissal would surely affect an already stretched industrial tribunal system. Again, I ask the Member for his estimate of the likely number of additional claims for unfair dismissal stemming from the proposed abolition of the time limit and from other proposed amendments.
I note that the Bill will redefine collective bargaining so that it encompasses pay and terms and conditions of employment rather than pay, hours and holidays. Those amendments could result in an increased administrative burden on smaller businesses that are already struggling to recover from the impact of the pandemic. I look forward to the Member detailing the legal and practical impact of that proposal, should the Bill proceed any further.
In closing, I cannot find any reference in the Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum to the parties consulted when drafting the Bill or to the outcome of that consultation. As I said in my opening remarks, good lawmakers must be mindful of both parties in the employment relationship. To that end, I wonder whether the Member made specific efforts to seek views from employers and from employer representative bodies such as the CBI and the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB). I would be most interested to learn the outcome of those discussions.
It is essential for any proposal to introduce or amend legislation to be based on clear evidence of the financial and operational impact on the economy, yet there is no breakdown of the potential cost to the wider economy or to employers. That is particularly important for the small and medium-sized businesses that comprise much of Northern Ireland's economy and that, along with their employees, have been so impacted by the effects of the pandemic.
As we move to the end of the mandate, my priority remains to ensure that workers have high-quality jobs. My Department's economic recovery action plan and 10X Economy strategy will help to protect those jobs and, importantly, generate more. While I am conscious that the Bill is unable to move to Committee Stage because of time constraints, I ask the Member to consider the issues that I have raised, should he wish to introduce similar legislation in the next mandate. That will help to inform any future consideration of these matters, particularly the need to balance the needs of workers with those of businesses and with the wider impact on society and the Northern Ireland economy.
In seeking to protect workers, we need to create an environment in which we support and enable employers to be what we all want them to be: good employers. All legislation must be based on evidence from all those affected by any proposed measures, including workers, businesses and industry representatives, so that the real-life impacts can be fully understood. Disproportionate and ineffective regulatory burdens do not achieve the objective of making all our employers good employers; indeed, they present a risk of wasting time that employers could otherwise spend on being just that.
I want to refer to some of the comments that were made during the debate. I will pick up on a comment made by Mr O'Toole, who said that he wants to see employees and employers working together. I do not think that the Bill is conducive to employer-employee relationships. In particular, the fact that the Bill tries to reduce the time limit for notification of industrial action from seven days to two days takes away the opportunity to have better relations. It is a point that Mr Dickson was getting at and one that I wholeheartedly agree with, not only on how we need consultation with trade unions, employees and employers but on how we want to leave as much time as possible for resolution. Mr Dickson mentioned the Labour Relations Agency in particular.
My fear is that the Bill is trying to make it as easy as possible to get to that industrial action. The goal here should not be to make it as easy as possible to take industrial action. The goal that we all want to achieve is, surely, the outcome that works for employees and employers and that is achieved by agreement, rather than trying to move straight to what could be considered the nuclear option.
I will also pick up on a comment that Jemma Dolan made, because she would not let me intervene. I have already committed to an employment Bill — my Department will take it forward, and I hope that the next Minister will too — in the next mandate. There are so many issues that we want to make sure that we can address.
We took forward the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill because we recognised the short time that was left and we wanted to address what I and Diane Dodds thought was the most pressing issue. We were already left behind by the rest of the UK on leave and pay for parental bereavement. As we all became aware, that process was much more difficult than we thought it would be. Employment law is difficult. It was not going to be possible for us, in the short time that we had, to bring forward an employment Bill and to do credit to the issues that need to be addressed.
Not only did we bring forward that Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill but we have been very busy in the Department providing immediate financial support of over £600 million, through 50 schemes, to help sustain jobs and businesses in Northern Ireland. We brought forward the economic recovery action plan, which helped to sustain businesses, especially those on the high street. We also brought forward our 10X economic vision and the supporting strategies, such as the energy strategy and the action plan, the 10X trade and investment plan and all the other strategies that have been put in place to deliver the type of economy that we want to see in Northern Ireland in order to increase opportunities for workers and make sure that they have them in the future. In addition, we brought forward Project Stratum, and the Member will be delighted that, in her constituency, we have ensured that 13,572 premises now have access to high-speed broadband. Therefore, we have not been sitting on our hands in the Department. We have brought forward legislation where we can.
In closing, I will say to Mr Carroll that I do not believe that this is an appropriate Bill at this time, that sufficient consultation has been carried out or that all the questions have been answered. I do not believe that the Bill will ultimately achieve what we want, which is improved outcomes for employees or employers. We can do much better than what we have in the Bill, and I urge Members to reject it.
Mr Carroll: I thank the Members who contributed and the Minister for his response and the discussion. I will try to run through the contributions and respond to them as best I can.
Jemma Dolan started on behalf of Sinn Féin, and she rightly highlighted the role of workers and the need for collective bargaining, as well as the need to raise wages during a cost-of-living crisis. I wholeheartedly agree. I welcome that she met me several weeks ago, and I thank her for it. I also thank her party for supporting the Bill. However, I must respond to her comments about the Bill:
"putting the cart before the horse"
with regard to unions. If I heard her correctly, she talked about unions getting access to the workplace. Obviously, I invite her to look again at the details of the Bill, and I am happy to meet her or her party colleagues again. The Bill will increase the ability of hundreds of thousands of workers in the private sector to engage in collective bargaining, which they cannot do at the minute.
We got more than 800 responses to the consultation that we conducted, and we received input from many trade unions that helped shape the Bill, including NIC-ICTU, Unite, the Public and Commercial Services Union, GMB, Derry Trades Council, Belfast Trades Council, NIPSA, the UCU, Aegis and the bakers' union. I apologise to the one or two unions whose names I have forgotten.
The overwhelming feedback from that consultation was that those unions considered that the Bill will help them to recruit workers on a big scale. Those workers will see the worth of being in a union, and we will get trade unions into hundreds of small, predominantly private-sector workplaces. Again, that will be a huge boost to trade union membership and will give them access to workplaces. Those are not just my words but the words and sentiments of the unions that we worked with on the Bill.
To be frank, it has not been conveyed to me that the Bill is:
"putting the cart before the horse"
despite that extensive consultation and real, tangible, input from most of the trade union movement, although it is possible that a small part of it may not have been able to respond to the consultation.
I hope that the point that Jemma made about the Bill being improved at Committee Stage will happen. Obviously, I am open to amending it. As I have said, it is not the finished article, and it has evolved from 2016. I have been quite open about that. However, I hope that we can have the strongest Bill possible to enhance and protect workers' rights, which is its aim. I look forward to engaging with Jemma and her colleagues further on the Bill.
Peter Weir said that the Bill would take us back in time and that we should instead look forward. I predicted that there would be some scaremongering responses from Members on the Benches opposite. I am not surprised by that, but it is remarkable to hear the Member talking about bringing us back to the 1970s when he wants to bring us back to the 16th century. It beggars belief that he would raise that sentiment.
My party and I absolutely and unashamedly want to remove some of the more recent changes to trade union legislation that sought to attack workers' rights and trade union power. To pick up on Mr Weir's point about balloting, there is nothing in the Bill that strips away secret balloting. That is a misreading on his part. Workers will be able to vote in the workplace in private, which is something that was endorsed by everyone we met. All it will do is bring the process into the 21st century, which is what he claimed he wants to see, with more modern methods of balloting that will save time and energy and increase participation.
He talked about bringing this piece of legislation to the Assembly being a moot move, but I think that it is very important to do so because the House has not had a say or a vote on the laws that have dictated what trade unions do for 20-plus years. There was an obsession with the 1970s in the Member's contribution. After the attack that Thatcher launched on trade unions in 1979, there was an automatic decline in the standard of living. The high participation in, and scale of, the trade union movement before that led to an increased standard of living. From memory, 1977 was the time of the highest standard of living for workers, with high wages and so on and so forth.
Mr Weir also attacked the idea of a political strike, but he had nothing to say about his First Minister, who has taken a form of political strike by pulling out of office. It is OK for him, but not for anybody else.
I thank Mr O'Toole for giving his party's endorsement to the Bill passing to the next stage. As I said to Jemma, I encourage him and his colleagues in the SDLP to get involved in future stages of this Bill, at which they will have the opportunity to strengthen and, as he suggested, amend it. He reiterated his support for workers and trade unionists, commending the UCU in particular and expressing solidarity with them for taking strike action.
Mr Dickson talked about some of his experience as a lifelong trade union member. If I heard him correctly, he organised in the Ulster Polytechnic, which is currently the Ulster University's Jordanstown campus. I should have declared an interest at the start of the debate. I joined Unite when I was at the Jordanstown campus — that was after the university changed its name — and I have been a trade union member since my late teens. I should have declared that interest at the start, although I doubt that anybody will accuse me of being biased towards unions.
Mr Dickson talked about being engaged in the longest industrial dispute. I do not know whether it was the longest dispute ever or the longest at the time but fair play to him for that. He also talked about it being late in the mandate. It is, but, to repeat myself, my party first proposed the legislation in 2016. Since then, there has been a collapse of the Assembly and delays that were not down to us with a pandemic and other situations. There should be emergency provision to ensure that the legislation passes before the mandate comes to an end. That is urgent: it is a priority that this Bill sees the full light of day.
The matter of the consultation was raised by Mr Dickson and the Minister. There was a consultation on the Bill, which was wide-ranging, with approximately 800 responses. That was done through a survey that I conducted online, which was publicly available. Minister, you could have responded: I do not think you did, but you might have. The consultation received more responses than the average number of responses that your Department receives to its consultations. On average, your Department receives 321 responses to its consultations. The consultation on the Bill, which was conducted by a single MLA, received over 800 responses. My maths is not great, but, by my calculation, that means that my consultation received more than double the number of responses received by the average consultation conducted by your Department and by previous Ministers in your the Department.
Mr Lyons: I am delighted to hear about the responses. My query was not about the number of responses; I genuinely wanted to know whether there had been engagement with business organisations. When will we see the results of the consultation? Have you published them so that we can see what people said?
Mr Carroll: I am happy to share the results with you. We met business organisations to discuss the Bill, but, frankly, we did not meet with the CBI. The problem in the House, and in your Department in particular, has been an over-reliance on operating in the interests of big private businesses over the interests of workers.
Mr Carroll: It is not rubbish. You can consult with the CBI if you want to; we did not, and we have no interest in doing so. The CBI can publish its response to or view on the Bill if it wants to do so, but we did not seek its view.
The Minister talked about imbalance, but fails to recognise the imbalance that already exists against workers, which prohibits them taking action and makes it harder for them to organise. He referenced some of the restrictions in Scotland and England. I do not want a race to the bottom; I want the best trade union laws and rights in place for workers here, and in those places as well.
I will try to respond to some of the comments. The only reason that the Bill has been introduced is because the Department, the Minister and previous Ministers have failed to do anything meaningful to make it easier for workers to get organised. I note the exception of the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill.
Mr Lyons: I appreciate the Member's giving way. I have addressed that issue a number of times. I will summarise the issues that I have with the Bill. First, there is the issue of solidarity industrial action. Does the Member believe that it is fair that employment disputes between a separate employer and employee should require an employer in another organisation to face the consequences of that? Secondly, does he not agree that, rather than creating an atmosphere in which to get a resolution to problems, reducing the notice period from seven to two days just intensifies the issue and takes away the space in which to try to actually deal with the issue?
Mr Carroll: I do not agree. I believe that solidarity secondary action should be legalised. It is a disgrace that, while we live in a so-called democratic society, withdrawing your labour power is illegal in certain circumstances. I do not see how the Minister can stand over that.
On his second point about notice periods, we heard from trade unions and workers about how the current system actually inhibits and puts pressure on workers to not take strike action in that seven-day period. Countless examples were shared with us. I am happy to share them with the Minister. I will give way briefly.
Mr Dickson: I am interested. We obviously have not seen the list of consultees, Mr Carroll. You read a list of trade unions. Trade unions do, however, have a collective voice: the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Was it included in that consultation process?
Mr Carroll: I thank the Member. Yes, I met NIC-ICTU four times, I think. Some suggestions from the president and members of that organisation made it into the final draft of the Bill. I met NIC-ICTU and consulted it robustly.
I ask Members to support the Bill. I thank them for their comments.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I remind Members that they should not come into the Chamber if they have proxy voting arrangements in place. I also urge Members to maintain social distancing during this process.
Ayes 38; Noes 43
AYES
Dr Archibald, Mr Boylan, Ms S Bradley, Ms Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Catney, Mr Delargy, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mrs D Kelly, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Carroll, Mr Sheehan
NOES
Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms Armstrong, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr Blair, Mr Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mrs Long, Mr Lyons, Mr Lyttle, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Muir, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Mr Storey, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
Tellers for the Noes: Mr K Buchanan, Mr Weir
The following Members’ votes were cast by their notified proxy in this Division:
Mrs S Bradley voted for Mr Catney, Mr Durkan, Ms Hunter, Mrs D Kelly, Ms Mallon, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty and Mr O’Toole.
Mrs Barton voted for Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Beattie, Mr Butler, Mr Chambers, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Stewart and Mr Swann.
Mr Clarke voted for Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan [Teller, Noes], Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Storey, Mr Weir [Teller, Noes] and Mr Wells.
Mr Dickson voted for Ms Armstrong, Mr Blair, Ms Bradshaw, Mrs Long, Mr Lyttle and Mr Muir.
Mr O’Dowd voted for Dr Archibald, Mr Boylan, Ms Brogan, Mr Delargy, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Mr Kearney, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms A Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mrs O’Neill, Ms Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan [Teller, Ayes] and Ms Sheerin.
Question accordingly negatived.