Committee for The Executive Office
OFFICIAL REPORT (Hansard)
Briefing by Executive Office Ministers
8 June 2016 NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY
Committee for The Executive Office
Briefing by Executive Office Ministers
8 June 2016
Members present for all or part of the proceedings: Mr Mike Nesbitt (Chairperson) Mr Danny Kennedy (Deputy Chairperson) Mr Cathal Boylan Mrs Pam Cameron Mr William Irwin Mr Phillip Logan Mr Seán Lynch Mr Richie McPhillips Mr Ian Milne Mr Christopher Stalford
Witnesses: Mr McGuinness Deputy First Minister Mrs Foster First Minister Ms Fearon Junior Minister Mr Ross Junior Minister
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): We have with us whatever the collective noun for the full panoply of Ministers from the Executive Office (TEO) is. We welcome Arlene Foster, Martin McGuinness, Alastair Ross and Megan Fearon. Megan, of course, was a long-standing member of the legacy Committee. Ministers, we take your presence here as a positive sign of your willingness to engage with us and thank you for that. I hope that during the session we will prove our willingness to engage critically and constructively with your Department over the mandate. Mrs Foster, I hand over to you for your opening remarks.
Mrs Foster (The First Minister): Thank you very much. We welcome the opportunity to come along with the full team, as you rightly say, on this early occasion. I look forward to a positive and ongoing relationship with you, Chair, and the Committee. I will make a few brief general remarks about the new mandate and the landscape shaped by the decision of the people on 5 May.
I indicated during the election campaign that I was seeking a mandate based on my five-point plan to get things done for the people of Northern Ireland. I have been given a mandate to do that, along with the deputy First Minister, and we are determined to govern in a way that delivers for all our people. The new Executive, comprising my party, the deputy First Minister's party and the new Minister of Justice, Claire Sugden, will seek to build on the progress of the last years. For my part, I welcome the fact that only those who are enthusiastic about being in government have taken their place. I believe that it is the right approach, given the will of the people as expressed on 5 May, and that it will
1 strengthen the democratic process. I look forward to working with opposition parties when it is in the collective interest of the people.
As Ministers, we want to drive an Executive agenda that is reform-driven and people-centred. You will all be aware that the previous Programme for Government tended to focus on commitments that were typically expressed in terms of inputs and outputs: amounts of money to be invested or numbers of projects to be run. That approach, however, constrained the focus on assessing actual need and impact or whether the actions of government were making any real difference, and we intend that the new Programme for Government will be different. We also intend that it will have a relevance stretching beyond this Assembly mandate.
The intended outcomes-based Programme for Government is designed to be, as the name suggests, focused on outcomes, not on activities or, indeed, processes. "Outcomes-focused" is synonymous with "citizen-focused" and "evidence-based". It will require a collective approach that draws in all the contributions from within government and beyond to have the impact that we want. We believe that this approach makes a real statement of shared purpose at a political, administrative and societal level as well. Outcomes express societal impacts and situations of well-being, enabling us to target the things that make a real difference to our quality of life and to identify the route that we should take to get there. They point us towards actions that will reduce poverty, address inequality, boost the economy and enliven our culture.
A key feature of the Programme for Government will be its dependence on collaborative working across the public, voluntary and private sectors. It is a programme in which individuals and communities can and, we hope, will play an active part. We will work collectively to deliver the programme and drive work across departmental and sectoral boundaries. I was, Chair, rather amused to read the comment that, by talking a lot about silos, Arlene Foster gives away her Fermanagh background; in any event, it is long past the time that we should work outside our departmental silos and across sectoral boundaries. Individual Ministers will, of course, play their part by overseeing their Department's contribution and ensuring that it is part of a joined-up effort in which the focus is very much on outcome and not simply on what their Department is doing.
We have identified 14 strategic outcomes in the framework. They impact on every aspect of government and are designed to bring about the societal well-being that we want to see. We touched on this on Monday during the debate in the Assembly. We very much hope that those 14 strategic outcomes will lead us on to the 42 indicators, which are clear statements for change. The measures accompanying each indicator will show how we are performing and where, if required, we need to take corrective actions. Departments are working to identify key stakeholders and partners. Even as we consult on the framework, we are putting together draft action plans that will detail the programmes, projects, actions and any legislative proposals needed to progress the achievement of the outcomes.
The full Programme for Government that will include the detailed actions will be put to the Executive for agreement after a further public consultation and finally debated by the Assembly before the end of 2016. We know that we will have challenges along the way, not least in coordinating the Programme for Government with the Budget process and the need to be conjoined with a refreshed economic strategy, a new investment strategy and a social policy that will clearly set out how we deal with poverty. For the new approach to be successful, it will require much greater focus on corporateness, on the whole government working and on a whole-system approach, taking into account the contribution that other sectors such as local government, the private sector and the third sector will make. That is it on the Programme for Government.
As regards the rest of the Executive Office, we are, of course, committed to a number of other work areas: Delivering Social Change, with which the legacy Committee was very familiar, as, I am sure, this Committee soon will be; the social investment fund; the historical institutional abuse (HIA) inquiry, which is on target to report in January 2017, having recently commenced its final module; the whole area of victims and survivors and the difficult issues associated with dealing with the past is very much one of our priority areas as well; and the full implementation of Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) through the provision of £60 million over the next five years as outlined in the Fresh Start Agreement.
We look forward to working with the Assembly. As you rightly said just before I started my remarks, we published yesterday the report by the three-person panel that we appointed last December to bring forward recommendations for a strategy to disband paramilitary groups. The appointment of the panel was one of a series of commitments that we made in Fresh Start to end paramilitarism and tackle organised crime, which has been a scourge on our society for far too long. We very much welcome
2 the comprehensive report. We are most grateful to Lord Alderdice, Professor McWilliams and John McBurney for, first, taking on the very difficult and challenging role and, secondly, for delivering such a wide-ranging suite of recommendations within the agreed time frame. As we said at the time of Fresh Start, no plan or framework is self-implementing, and it will not be delivered without strong leadership. It will now be for the Executive to take it forward. Again, it is our intention, in line with the commitments that we made last November, to publish an action plan aimed at ending paramilitarism by the end of June. That, of course, will include the panel's recommendations.
With your permission, I will now hand over to the deputy First Minister.
Mr McGuinness (The deputy First Minister): Thank you, Arlene. I thank the Committee and you, Chair, for this opportunity. As the First Minister said, the approach and style of the next Programme for Government will be different. Whilst much of the work started previously — that will continue — the difference this time is that we will have a much clearer idea of what we want to achieve, described in terms that are meaningful to people rather than to those in this Administration. Through intelligent use of the framework, we will be in a much better position to tell what is working and what is not. By adopting an outcomes-based approach to the Programme for Government, the Executive have made some significant statements of intent and ambition. It sets the bar at a high level and commits to taking on the most difficult challenges facing our society. When evidence demonstrates that efforts are not making a difference, we will be quick to alter course and redirect resources to more meaningful effect. The draft Programme for Government framework recently agreed by the Executive and the Assembly is just the beginning; it is, as the name suggests, a structure for carrying more detailed programmes, strategies, actions and plans. As an Executive, we are committed to improving public services, investing in our schools, hospitals and roads and protecting the most vulnerable in society. This is, nevertheless, set against the backdrop of increasing pressure on public finances. The new approach to developing a Programme for Government will allow the Executive to rise to the challenges of the need to be more creative and joined up if we are to deliver for all our people.
As Arlene indicated, Delivering Social Change will continue to be a key theme for us as we progress work during the new mandate, and, where possible, we are keen to build on the partnership approach that led to a central funding investment of some £27 million in the development and delivery of six signature programmes that sought to tackle key issues being faced by parents, children and families. Members will also be aware of the three ongoing signature programmes worth nearly £60 million that are co-funded in partnership with Atlantic Philanthropies. The programmes focus on dementia services, early intervention transformations and shared education. We are keen to further explore the potential for developing similar relationships with funders, including those outside government, in the future. This will be one new way of doing business to assist in overcoming the challenges, such as budget constraints, that we will inevitably continue to face.
The Executive will formulate the programmes that they believe will deliver the outcomes in the draft framework over the next three months. That will not be done in isolation. Ministers and their senior officials will use this period to take every opportunity to meet stakeholders and potential delivery partners from all sectors to discuss and agree the roles they might be able to play to achieve our common goal. We need a Government who work coherently and collectively, and we need equality and respect to be at the heart of how we do business. The Executive's Programme for Government framework will enable us to prosper, live longer and healthier lives, have an equal society, live sustainably, be innovative and creative and be a place where people can fulfil their potential. It will help us to have more and better jobs, build safe communities, care for others and provide help to those in need. It will establish a basis for us to be a confident, welcoming and shared society that respects diversity. It will help us be a place where we give our children the best start in life, that is well connected by good infrastructure, where people want to live and work and that is attractive to visitors and investors.
When the full document is finalised at the end of the year, it will not only be a programme that affects us all but a programme to which everyone can subscribe and in which everyone can play a part. I have already expressed my disappointment that parties that were entitled to take seats in the Executive chose opposition instead. I would have much preferred that they remained to play a part in the delivery of an agreed and shared plan. Nevertheless, I hope that, working through channels like the Committee, we will continue to draw on the collective wisdom and hopes of all those elected to serve our community.
I turn now to the key work areas for the Executive Office. We are wholly committed to the various work areas that Arlene has highlighted, including Together: Building a United Community, the social investment fund and victims and survivors. Those must continue, and they are underpinned by
3 substantial funding for implementation. We are also committed to other important areas such as enhancing our local economy. Arlene and I will promote inward investment through our planned visit to China and our new office there later this year, and we will continue our global links in Europe and the United States through the important work of the Brussels and Washington offices. We are also committed to implementing the various strands of agreed cross-border economic infrastructures with the South of Ireland, which are recognised as key to continued growth in the North.
The Department will also continue to develop and regenerate the former Ebrington Barracks site, and officials are in the process of completing the marketing of the site. That process has been very encouraging, and, while marketing is still ongoing, letters have issued to businesses identified as preferred occupants for a number of buildings on the site. Further detailed discussions will be required, however, before that is finalised. We are also working to obtain the approvals necessary to bring forward grade A office accommodation, which will bring much-needed jobs to the north-west.
I have provided only a brief outline of the extent of work that is being and will continue to be taken forward in this term by the Executive Office. We accept that challenges will arise for us as we seek to deliver against our responsibilities, but we are confident that those challenges will not prove to be insurmountable. We look forward to working collaboratively with the Committee and the Assembly to achieve a better place for all our citizens.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Thank you both very much indeed. As I said in the introduction, this session is to discuss the work of the Executive Office as well as the draft Programme for Government framework, and I will begin with the former. You kindly sent us your first day brief last week, which includes a departmental vision. It states:
"The Department supports this vision through its Business Plan which reflects the commitments and key milestones in the Programme for Government".
That, of course, is being drawn up, and, as we understand from what you have said publicly, it could be the end of the calendar year before it is finalised. The business plan will be finalised and then goes to Ministers for approval and to this Committee for consideration. My question is this: over the coming months, how do we assess, scrutinise and support your work without that business plan as a reference point?
Mrs Foster: You scrutinise our work by us coming more frequently to the Committee so that you can ask us directly about ongoing work. We are very clear that the process we are in is one of consultation, not just with the public but with Members of the Assembly including, of course, the opposition parties, about what is in the Programme for Government. We listened carefully to what was said in that debate, and our officials took notes away from it as to what the opposition parties would like to see, not least a very useful contribution, I believed, from Alex Attwood about what was happening in Scotland. We will take that away and put it into our Programme for Government piece.
We will be off shortly for the summer recess, and then we will be back in September/October. It will be no time at all until we are in a situation where we will have a refreshed economic strategy. We will be into the Budget process and will have a new social policy, and all those policies will allow you to scrutinise the work that we are engaged in on a day-to-day basis.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I am not expecting everybody to answer everything, but I do not want to preclude anybody from commenting after a lead.
Mr McGuinness: OK.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Within the functions of TEO, we have:
"Providing support, advice and guidance to Ministers and the NICS on maximising the benefits of the European Union".
Does the Department rather than the parties that make up the Department accept that there are benefits to being members of the European Union?
Mrs Foster: Of course we want to get as much of the money that is put in by the United Kingdom Government to the European Union as we can back to Northern Ireland. My former leader, Dr Paisley,
4 was always very clear about the issue: we may not like Europe, but, when we are there, we will take as much of its money as we can get out. That was his policy, and I think that we are entitled to that money. Therefore, we will ensure that we get as much out of the European Union as we can. That is the case, certainly up to 23 June, and, whatever happens on 24 June, we will do what is right for the people of Northern Ireland, come what may.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I think that Dr Paisley talked about "milking the cow".
Mrs Foster: That is correct.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Is that an accurate —
Mr Stalford: He said that you milk the cow before you slaughter it.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Would that be language you would endorse?
Mrs Foster: Well, Dr Paisley had his particular style. [Laughter.] I hope that I have my particular style.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I am sure that you are aware that there are persistent rumours that, on a personal level, you are for "Remain". Would you like to take the opportunity to squash those rumours once and for all?
Mrs Foster: I will very much take the opportunity to squash those rumours. I have given a number of interviews talking about and endorsing the "Leave" campaign, so I am not sure where those rumours came from.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Some have come from within the media, but anyway. We, as a legacy Committee —
Mrs Foster: Goodness me, you are not taking the media at their word, are you?
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Some of them; it depends who they are.
Mr McGuinness: If the media are saying it, Mike, it must be untrue.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): You may say that; I will not comment.
Mr McGuinness: The reality is that, come 23 June, which is only a matter of days away, we will know, one way or the other, the lay of the land. Either we will be in the European Union, or we will not. I certainly hope that we will continue to be in the European Union, because it is better for us. At the same time, whatever happens on the other side of it, we as an Executive will have to deal with it collectively. It will obviously represent huge challenges, because, in the event of a "Leave" vote, which I hope does not happen, we will be in a totally new situation that will, in my opinion, provide challenges over and above the challenges that we face at the moment even if we remain in.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Is there a plan for 24 June? Whatever the result, it has implications for the Executive and the Assembly.
Mrs Foster: Of course it does, but whatever happens on 24 June will have to be worked out after that. No one is suggesting that there will be a break from the European Union immediately, even if there were to be a "Leave" vote. There will be a period of negotiation between us as the United Kingdom and the European Union, and that will take place over a number of months — maybe even a number of years. If it comes to that, we will very much want to be a part of those negotiations.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): The legacy Committee recommended having a specific European Committee. I am not sure whether the new Committee would endorse that, but it was in our legacy report. Have you given that any consideration?
Mrs Foster: We will have to wait until we find out the result of the referendum. If we remain in Europe, we should consider it. I have always taken the view — this was long before a referendum
5 was called, when I was the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment — that we should make more of our European Union membership to get as much as we can and as much benefit from it. Maybe we need to strengthen our presence in Brussels, but we shall have to wait and see what happens in the referendum.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I want to ask you about one other area of working in the Department. You have a board for the Department, including one independent member, George Thorley. I put his name into the Northern Ireland Executive website, and no items were returned. Can you tell me who he is and what he does?
Mrs Foster: He does not integrate with us. That is a departmental board, and he has oversight of the head of the Civil Service. We are happy to come back with details about that gentlemen, if that is helpful.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Can I take it that you would not have any objection if the Committee invited him to come here?
Mrs Foster: None whatsoever.
Mr McGuinness: None whatsoever.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Thank you very much.
As for priorities, I do not believe that there is any mention of age discrimination, which was a priority in the Programme for Government in the last mandate, or, indeed, Maze/Long Kesh (MLK). I know that Mr McGuinness mentioned Ebrington Barracks and the plans for that.
Mrs Foster: All these things will work into the ongoing consultation. As you know, we have a strategy on age discrimination, which has been challenged by the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY). You will notice in some of our outcomes that we talk about long, healthy, active lives. All those things will feed into how we will deliver those outcomes. Indeed, in terms of infrastructure, I imagine that the MLK site will fit in there. We will have those discussions. As you know, there is no joint, agreed approach on how we move forward with MLK. It is one of the issues that the deputy First Minister and I will have to discuss in the future.
Mr McGuinness: There was a significant response to the consultation on the ageism legislation. We want to consider those responses carefully and make sure that we have agreed a clear and robust policy position before legislating in that area. The Equality Commission is investigating a complaint made by NICCY alleging that the Department breached its equality scheme in carrying out the age goods, facilities and services (GFS) consultation. We are considering its response to that complaint.
As the Chair will know, I hope that we can find a resolution to the Maze/Long Kesh issue over the next while. There is a determination from Arlene and me to find a way forward that will see the site developed in the way that we envisage, because it is a prime site in a key location. It could provide thousands of new jobs and be an economic regenerator for the whole of the North. The move to the site by the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society has been an enormous success, and its shows over the past three or four years have gone from strength to strength. We are very proud of that.
Obviously, there are issues to be resolved. I think that you are acutely aware of those issues because you had your input to them — for example, your opposition to the construction of the peace-building and conflict resolution centre. I do not say that to score a political point; it is just a reality that we have had to deal with. You were not the only one opposed to it. In the aftermath of the election, we now have to find a way forward that we can all live with, and we are determined to do that.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I put it on record that I had no opposition to the development of the site, but I accept that you took a different view on the importance of the peace-building centre.
If I may, I have two other points. On the historical institutional abuse inquiry, from memory, you were doing some scoping on that, not least with regard to victims of what was often clerical abuse who were abused in a non-institutional setting. Two young men, say, could have been abused on the same day and by the same person: one has access to the HIA because of where the abuse took place, and the
6 other does not have access because of where the abuse took place. Surely, in building a society of equals and equality, that cannot be right.
Mrs Foster: As you are aware, we tasked the Department of Health with a scoping exercise, and it has agreed to engage the Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland to examine clerical abuse that occurred outside of institutions, as you rightly point out. It will make recommendations to us, and discussions are ongoing with colleagues in the Department of Health as to how that can best be delivered. We look forward to coming up with a solution, and, although we do not have a timescale at present, I am sure that we will continue to come to the Committee and that you will keep the matter under scrutiny. We are very aware that it is a live issue.
Mr McGuinness: You make a very important point. We have to deal with the issue, and the big focus at the moment is on the fact that we are almost in the final stages of Sir Anthony Hart's work, which will culminate in a report at the beginning of next year. I pay tribute to him for the commitment and determination that he showed during what must have been a very onerous, difficult and challenging task for him. I also think of all those who gave evidence, many of whom had gone through very traumatic experiences. We understand, given the complexity of the situation, that other circumstances require investigation, and we are committed to finding a way to ensure that nobody whose life has effectively been humiliated and destroyed feels that they have not received the support that they are entitled to from our Administration.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): On a point of clarification, previously OFMDFM said that victims who fell outwith the remit of the HIA could go to the police and/or social services. Are you saying that you wish to go beyond that to find an investigative process for those victims and survivors?
Mr McGuinness: We are looking at all the options, and you have just outlined two of them. We have to find agreement and face up to the enormous financial challenges that these situations impose. At the same time, that should not be the driver. We all have a responsibility to ensure that all those who have been the subject of terrible abuse get the support that they need. It is a question of how we do that, and we are determined to find a solution to these problems.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): The last area for me for the moment is the idea of ending the silo mentality in the Executive and having joined-up working. The Statutory Committees remain in silos. Have you any advice or given any thought to whether there should be a change in the way the Statutory Committees do business? For example, in the last mandate with Together: Building a United Community, we would have officials from the old OFMDFM coming to us but quite rightly saying, "We can't answer that because we don't lead on this; it's Social Development or the Department of Education". You are moving away from it, but we are still in silos.
Mrs Foster: There is work to be done on that. In the past, some Committees came together on areas that overlapped. It has been a rare thing, but they have come together on occasion. That is from your point of view. From our point of view, we will have to consider whether officials from other Departments should come to you and answer to you on areas that you feel you have a query. It is part of the development process to see whether we can look at that. That is probably the best way forward.
Mr McGuinness: In Arlene's initial comments to the Committee today and my own we effectively declared our desire to move forward away from a silo mentality to ensure that we have Departments that work cohesively and constructively together. That is the best way to get better results for our entire community. We are absolutely open to the suggestion that you have made, and we need to explore with you how we can do that. Maybe we can find a way to do that with you as the Chair but also with the Chairs of the other Committees, where we can have a conversation about how we can ensure that what happens at the Committees matches what happens at the Executive.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Members, I thank you for your patience.
Mr Boylan: You are welcome, Ministers. I am finding my way in this new Committee; I am tiptoeing through it.
I listened with interest to the debate on Monday, and there seemed to be some parties in and out in terms of clarifying their level of involvement with other parties in the composition of the draft Programme for Government and the opportunity that they had to work on it.
7 Mr McGuinness: The work on the draft Programme for Government goes back some time; in fact, it goes back about 18 months, when our officials were engaging with stakeholders in society to try to reach agreement with them that this new way forward was something that they would find beneficial and acceptable. There was an overwhelmingly favourable response from all sectors to that approach. During my contribution, I outlined some comments that were made by representatives of children's groups, where they declared themselves totally in favour of this approach. It is an approach that has worked successfully in some of the United States, in Finland and in Scotland, so it goes back a long time. Specifically, we had a situation from the get-go where the parties that were entitled to be in the Administration or were actually in the Administration and, we thought, would form part of the new Administration were present. We are talking about ourselves, the DUP, the SDLP and the Alliance Party. Those parties were there from the very beginning. Most of the parties contributed to the workshops.
The SDLP during that process, I think in the initial stages, sent a representative, then at all the other engagements sent only a note-taker, who made no contribution whatever to the work of putting a Programme for Government together. That is why I found it surprising when, during conversations that Arlene and I had with the leader of the SDLP, he declared himself as not having been at a meeting. I was surprised that the people who were at the meetings did not tell him what was happening at the meetings because we were working on the basis that the framework, outcomes- based approach that we were adopting was acceptable because no objections were raised to it by the Alliance Party, us or the SDLP. In the Assembly, when we discussed it the other day, the Alliance Party, through Naomi Long, gave a clear explanation of how acceptable it found the approach and how surprised it was in relation to the approaches adopted then by the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists. This goes back a long way. Nobody was in the dark. There was no attempt by anybody to pull the wool over anybody's eyes as to what type of an approach it was. It was very clearly there. The political parties were all there, but the Civil Service was there, and there is a record of all this.
We are absolutely convinced that the approach that we have adopted is one that has not only found favour with the public but is one with which the public will engage over the consultation period. That will lead to better outcomes in relation to ensuring that the Budget that we will have to put before the Assembly in December matches what we are trying to do in this Programme for Government. The key point is that this will be a Programme for Government that gives the public the maximum opportunity to input. This is not us coming with a top-down approach of "Here it is. Lump it or leave it". This is us clearly saying to people, "We want you to be involved. We want you to contribute. What you have to say will be taken very seriously by this Administration".
Mr Boylan: Following on from that, and I ask in the context of only being in the Committee and hearing the debate the other day, in the framework it says that under the next steps:
"The Framework sets the direction of travel. In the next period we will ... provide opportunities for people to have their say on the Framework;"
Is it up to each Department to engage with all the relevant stakeholders, or is it an oversight on your part?
Mr McGuinness: It is a key responsibility of civil servants in our Department and in all the Departments now that we have a reduction in their number. We have nine Departments, and key officials in them will engage with stakeholders and the public.
Mrs Foster: In relation to that, we have also asked the head of the Civil Service to establish a Programme for Government delivery unit in the Executive Office so that we can drive delivery on the Programme for Government. We want to be closely associated with it. The deputy First Minister has already said that, if we are going in a particular direction and it is clear that that direction is not working to deliver on the outcome, we will need to change it. It will be a living Programme for Government; it will not just be "There is the Programme for Government. We will look at it in five years' time". We want to very closely monitor from our perspective what is happening, so we have asked the head of the Civil Service to set up a small team in the Executive Office to make sure that that happens.
Mr Boylan: I ask it again in the context that, in the past, we have seen consultations, and there have been tick boxes where we want proper participation.
8 Mrs Foster: We want proper participation. Each Department will have its stakeholders to speak to, but, working across Departments, we want to ensure that nobody is left behind and everybody is valued in what they have to say.
Mr Irwin: I welcome the fact that victims and survivors are high on the agenda of the office. First Minister, the Kingsmills families are currently going through an inquest, and I have just been informed that that inquest has been suspended because of new information or information that has been there. Police have seemingly found evidence that the print found in a getaway vehicle is related to an individual. It has been a stressful and difficult time for the families, and you can understand that this adds to their stress and disappointment. Is there anything that your office can do to help families in this situation?
Mrs Foster: First of all, I was not aware that the coroner had adjourned; that has obviously just happened. I know, having met some of the families with you last week, that they feared that this would occur because of the new evidence that had been brought forward. The coroner has obviously decided that we need to get answers on that before he can proceed, but I had hoped that he would be able to continue, given the many other issues that need to be dealt with. However, he has decided on this route, and we have to respect that.
We will continue, through the Victims and Survivors Service, to support the Kingsmills families. I understand that it continues to do that. I have asked, and it has contact with them quite frequently. Obviously, if there is anything that you or any Member would like to request specifically, the Victims and Survivors Service will consider it. We have again made this one of our priorities. When we spoke to the service recently, we were told that 1,000 new victims come to the service every year. I find that staggering, and it shows the scale of the issues that are still to be dealt with. We are very cognisant of all of that.
We have, over the past two years, had quite a substantial budget for victims' and survivors' issues. That has been augmented by the setting up of the mental health trauma service by the Department of Health and by our application to Peace IV, which we hope will be successful, because the programme is a total of €17·6 million, which has been allocated to the victims' element of the Peace IV programme. We are applying for that money, and we hope that it will be accessible, given the pressures that the Victims and Survivors Service is under.
Mr Kennedy: Welcome and thank you for your attendance. I attended this morning's hearing on the pathologist's report on the Kingsmills atrocity, when the Provisional IRA murdered in cold blood 10 innocent Protestant workmen. It was an extremely difficult session. I agreed with the coroner when he said at the outset this morning that recent events had particularly shaken the confidence of the families and of the sole survivor. They are not sure whom to believe or what the circumstances were, and that has led to a very difficult situation for those families. It is not yet clear. When I left the inquest at lunchtime, the coroner was still indicating that some progress could be made on the inquest without a formal adjournment, but it is almost inevitable that one will be sought. That makes things very difficult, First Minister. You are aware of the circumstances.
It leads me on to my question on the role of the Executive and the Fresh Start Agreement. That is the basis for the new mandate and the position that we find ourselves in. There was an absence of agreement in the Fresh Start Agreement on legacy issues. What is the current situation, and what are the timescales?
Mrs Foster: I hope that the coroner is continuing with the issues that he can deal with, but, of course, I am not seeking to interfere with his decision. At the end of the day, it is his inquest and he has to decide. However, I am acutely aware, having met the families, how much distress they are going through. It is bad enough having to relive the atrocity. When the report of what happened was on the news, I found it particularly difficult listening to how the 18-year-old died crying for his mother.
Mr Kennedy: Robert Chambers.
Mrs Foster (The First Minister): I found that particularly difficult to listen to. They have now been told that the police have found some new evidence, and, whilst it is very confusing for them, I am hopeful that the police will be able to carry out an investigation of the matter. It is our job to support those people at this difficult time.
9 You are right: agreement could not be reached at that time on legacy issues. There was a very specific issue, which I am sure the deputy First Minister will want to address, about onward disclosure in relation to national security issues. We will attempt to revisit the issue of dealing with the past in the next couple of weeks with a view to trying to bring it to a conclusion. It is incumbent on us, early in the mandate, to find solutions to these issues so that we can have an architecture to deal with them in a comprehensive manner. That is what we are tasked with doing.
Mr McGuinness: First, in relation to Kingsmills, I think that many people will find it absolutely incredible that it took 40 years for someone to come up with a palm print that was allegedly on the side of a vehicle —
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I am sorry to interrupt, but I think that I have a duty to say that we may be breaching or getting close to breaching sub judice on an open coroner's investigation, whether it has been suspended or not. I ask that we do not go into the specifics.
Mr McGuinness: People have already gone into the specifics.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Yes, well I think —
Mr McGuinness: OK. I will —
Mr Kennedy: It is fair to say that the coroner described that as unhelpful this morning. The current newspaper speculation was described as not being helpful.
Mr McGuinness: There has been all sorts of speculation and interviews in the newspaper. Some of them from people who are totally hostile to the peace process and to Sinn Féin's involvement in it. However, apart from that —
Mr Kennedy: I have to say, deputy First Minister, what is indisputable is that those responsible were the Provisional IRA.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I really am not comfortable with the Committee continuing to discuss detail.
Mr McGuinness: I will abide by your judgement because the danger is that we end up getting into a bout of "whataboutery", and I do not think that that will take us anywhere.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I am sticking to the guidelines for Assembly Committees on sub judice.
Mr McGuinness: OK. If I could address the Fresh Start Agreement and the need to ensure that we get an outcome that will see the considerable progress that was made during the negotiations; that is, the agreement on the structures and mechanisms to provide a menu of options for satisfying the needs and demands of victims. Clearly the difficulty that we face centres around the fact that there are victims' groups who believe that the use of the term "British national security" is really an attempt by the British Government to prevent them getting full disclosure. I am, absolutely, one of those in the process who believes that, if the mechanisms through the Historical Investigations Unit (HIU) or the information recovery mechanism that has been agreed are to be meaningful, everybody who was part of the conflict has to make a contribution to support the requests from families around what happened to their loved ones. I fully support that.
Can we find a way forward? I have been involved in discussions with the Secretary of State recently, and I know that she has given interviews in which she has indicated that she thinks that a way forward can be found. Those discussions continue, as, indeed, they continue between the First Minister and me. I think that all of us accept, apart from what we consider to be a success, that there are individual opinions around this table of the Fresh Start Agreement. For us, the big disappointment was the inability to find a way forward that would see the mechanisms and structures go live. There is a determination to do that, but it needs to be resolved before the summer; I do not think that it is acceptable for it to run into the autumn. The elections are over. There is an opportunity to find a way forward. The Secretary of State is probably very much tied up in the whole Brexit campaign and debate, but that will be over in a couple of days. I hope that in the aftermath of that she will knuckle
10 down, as we will, to find the missing piece of the jigsaw to see the considerable work that was agreed between all of us during those discussions going live.
Mr Kennedy: Essentially, it appears that the blockage is between Sinn Féin and Her Majesty's Government.
Mr McGuinness: No, you are wrong. The blockage —
Mr Kennedy: That is what the First Minister appeared to indicate.
Mr McGuinness: Let me make it absolutely clear: people should not try to provoke a division between the First Minister and me —
Mr Kennedy: Perish the thought.
Mr McGuinness: I do not think that we are divided on the issue. Quite a number of victims' groups objected to the use of the term, particularly those concerned with people who were victims of state violence. They made their position clear to Sinn Féin and the SDLP and anybody else who would listen to them. My position is clear. I have stated it to the Secretary of State and to the First Minister, and I have said it publicly: if the relatives who are concerned about this can be assisted in finding a way forward that resolves their problems, whatever they are prepared to go with, Sinn Féin will support them. This is not a situation where the victims' groups are being told by Sinn Féin, "No, you can't sign up for this, because this appeals mechanism is the one that we want to see". What we say and what we have said to the victims' groups that have lobbied us on this issue is, "Here is an issue; there needs to be a solution found to it. We will assist in trying to find a solution, but, at the end of the day, you have to decide what you want in terms of how this goes forward". We are not putting any pressure whatever on any of the victims' groups. I am saying very clearly today that, whatever those groups are prepared to sign up to in order to satisfy their requirements and needs, we in Sinn Féin will support them. This is not a case of Sinn Féin saying to them, "Don't sign up for that, because we are not happy with it". That is not our position.
Mr Kennedy: I have up-to-date information from the inquest, which I offer to be helpful and for the information of members and Ministers. The coroner has not yet formally adjourned or suspended. He has approved a new schedule that removes the investigative element of the inquest, and, when that process is completed, it is likely that some form of adjournment will take place.
On the issue of the Fresh Start panel report, which was published yesterday, there has been a broad welcome for the work of the panel and many of the recommendations. It is still early days. Recommendation A8 states:
"the Executive and the PSNI, in conjunction with the Policing Board, should review their protocols for engaging with representatives of paramilitary groups."
Are you supportive of that? Are you also supportive of the increased role — the very welcome increased role, in my view — of the NCA?
Mrs Foster: First, the work of the three-member panel is comprehensive. It covers four areas: promoting lawfulness, support for transition, tackling criminal activity and addressing systemic issues. The point that you raised came to the panel during its engagement with community groups and groups on ceasefire that were trying to move forward, and they felt that sometimes the PSNI were not as visible in their neighbourhoods as they would like them to be and that therefore people were drifting back to those in the community with so-called leadership roles. That is why the panel is saying that we need a protocol to deal with those issues through the Policing Board, the PSNI and us. There are lots of pieces in this that we hope to have in an action plan by the end of June. We are working closely with the Minister of Justice to make sure that all the justice bits will be delivered as well. It is a tight time frame — we accept that — but it is one that we want to keep to.
Mr McGuinness: This is a very important report, and I pay tribute to John McBurney, Professor McWilliams and Lord Alderdice. They made a tremendous commitment and had a very wide-ranging engagement with all the key players in society who are rightly and justifiably exercised by the fact that we still have criminal gangs and so-called paramilitary groups, many of which are still committed to plunging us back to the past. It is important that, as we go forward on the basis of over 40
11 recommendations, we put in place a strategy that means that we can more effectively deal with the challenges that those organisations pose to peace and to our people. There is a huge responsibility to put that strategy in place by the end of June. As the First Minister said, that is a very tight timescale, but we support all the recommendations in the report and are determined to see them all implemented.
Mr Kennedy: It is good news that an increased role for the NCA is not problematical for anybody.
There are a couple of issues with the Programme for Government that I would like to ask about very quickly. One of the features, certainly in the election campaign in Newry and Armagh — two thirds of the representatives for Newry and Armagh are in this room — was the desire for increased broadband provision, particularly in rural areas and for the business community. What can the Executive do to accelerate that? My sense is that it is an issue of real importance to the local economy.
Indicator 19 is on reducing poverty. In a previous mandate and a previous existence, this Committee — I was Chair at the time — had a major inquiry into child poverty and its causes. It seemed to me then, and seems to me now, that part of the problem is in the measurement of poverty and in actually achieving a reduction that is meaningful and can be seen. It can be said that you can take measures to alleviate poverty but perhaps not, in the early stages, completely eradicate it. The measurement seems to be an important tool as to how that is done. Do you have any comment on that?
Since the draft Programme for Government emerged, we have had comments from the new Finance Minister, who seems keen to borrow more moneys. Is that an Executive position at this stage and what can we expect there?
Finally, structures for the Opposition —
Mrs Foster: You are good, Danny. Keep going.
Mr Kennedy: Absolutely. Keep talking.
Mr Boylan: Do you want us to leave the room?
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): It is only a four-pointer.
Mr Kennedy: The structures in place appear to have adopted the letter but not the spirit of Mr McCallister's Opposition Bill. How do you react to that?
Mrs Foster: First, I will speak about broadband. It was under the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, so I know a little bit about it. Under outcome 13, when we talk about infrastructure, we are talking about how we can deliver physical and digital infrastructure. The difficulty with broadband and, indeed, mobile connectivity is that, when we are given our targets from Ofcom, it is usually population density that is covered. Therefore, the operators — Cathal will know this very well having been on the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment — tend to go to the big areas of population: Belfast, Londonderry, Lisburn and to the cities and towns around Northern Ireland. That leaves rural areas struggling. That is why DETI had to intervene on occasions with broadband intervention programmes, and we could do that because there was market failure in that space. What we need to do now is work closely with Ofcom. As I understand it, Ofcom is thinking about setting up a dedicated Northern Ireland office to look at delivering communications better here. That will be a key element of what we want to do, because the issue of digital connectivity has been raised across Northern Ireland. It has an impact for businesses and for many of us with children who have homework to do. They need to be online, and they need to be able to access homework and all of that. This is a critical part of connectivity through infrastructure.
I turn to the measurement in relation to poverty. Again, part of our difficulty in the past has been about how much money we put in and what we get out at the other end, instead of looking at how we can help children who are in a particular circumstance to have a better life in future. This is where not working in silos really comes into its own. It is about the Health, Education and Communities Departments and how all those work together to alleviate poverty and social disadvantage across Northern Ireland. For me, poverty is a good example of how the outcomes-based Programme for Government can tackle something in a new and innovative way. When the Westminster Government had problems with measuring poverty they changed the measurement stick and, by doing so, got a lot of ridicule for it. We did not do that in the last mandate, but we accept that there are huge challenges
12 in dealing with the issue. I believe that this new way of having the Programme for Government will help us tackle that issue.
I will let the deputy First Minister talk about the Finance Minister. I will say only that I am very pleased —
Mr Kennedy: It surprised you, did it?
Mrs Foster: — to see today that housing associations have accessed money from the European Investment Bank and will be able to deliver over 4,000 new affordable homes in Northern Ireland, thereby reaching half of my target in my five-point plan, which I can share with you if you want to have a look at it in future. But, anyway —
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): There is a five-point plan?
Mrs Foster: It was a five-point plan.
Mr Kennedy: I got it through the letter box more than once.
Mrs Foster: People seemed to like it. [Laughter.] The other thing is in relation to the opposition Bill. I understand that there was a bit of toing and froing in the Business Committee yesterday as to whether the spirit or the letter of the Bill was developed. As I understand it, three options were put forward and a particular option was accepted, and that is the way it will go. We look forward to opposition debates because it will give us the opportunity to engage with your alternatives to what we are trying to do. I have no difficulty with that.
Mr McGuinness: First, I want to talk about broadband because it is an issue of inequality, particularly in rural areas. People feel that they are hugely disadvantaged and it has an impact on their ability to run their businesses and all the rest of it. It needs to be dealt with seriously by us and by broadband providers and that will certainly be one of the priorities.
I agree with Arlene about the ability we have by not working in silos. It is quite clear, when you look at the outcomes — long, healthy, active lives, and giving children and young people the best start in life — that all these things place a huge responsibility on every single Department to play its part in bearing down on unacceptable poverty levels, particularly for children. I agree with her that this approach offers the best opportunity to make an impact, and I look forward to making that impact over the course of the next five years.
Everybody around the table will agree that we have a very interesting and imaginative Finance Minister. He is prepared to think outside the box, but, at the same time, as always, in going forward with important financial considerations, final decisions will be Executive decisions. In the time ahead, we intend to be imaginative and find innovative ways of looking at how we can raise money and provide the first-class public services that we are duty bound to provide for our people. We have to be imaginative; we have to look at the European Union. Look at the tremendous work that I, Peter Robinson and Arlene did in bringing in more foreign direct investment and more jobs here in a four- or five-year period through our various visits to the United States than had been brought at any other time in the history of the state. Apart from Executive meetings, we will provide opportunities for the Executive to come together on a very odd awayday to discuss these imaginative approaches. This is one of the ways in which we will move forward. It will not be in Marbella or Benidorm.
Mrs Foster: You did not tell me that. [Laughter.]
Mr McGuinness: It will be a lot closer to home.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Bundoran.
Mr McGuinness: There will be very little cost attached to it.
Mr Kennedy: Newry and Armagh?
Mrs Foster: We might go to Newry and Armagh.
13 Mr McGuinness: That is the sort of mood that there is in the Executive. There is total willingness in the engagements that we have been involved in since the new Executive have been formed. There is a good atmosphere, a good spirit and a very clear recognition that there is an opportunity to make a real impact on all these issues.
Danny mentioned the Opposition and the comments that were made yesterday, which Carál Ní Chuilín responded in the context of her belief that the spirit of John McCallister's Bill was being upheld. However, we are always open to discussions, as I am sure are the Assembly authorities, about how we can continue to improve opportunities for people to have what they think is a proper say in the Assembly.
I Iistened carefully to what the Chair said in his contribution to the debate on the Programme for Government about scrutiny of the Executive. Scrutiny is a two-way street. Accountability is a two-way street. The electorate had its opportunity, just a few days ago, to pass judgement on the work of the Executive and, as I said, and I will repeat myself for the benefit of those who were not there, we could not have the situation where we have people in Government who had one foot in the boat and one foot on the shore. Now, effectively, a number of parties have stepped out of the boat and on to the shore and are bystanders watching the boat move along, with authority, with ministerial responsibility and with a very clear opportunity to deliver for citizens. However, that also requires the Opposition to be responsible. It requires the Opposition to recognise that we are going to face very challenging times over the course of the next five years. There is a responsibility on all of us to contribute positively and constructively. I accept, as the Chair said at the beginning, that he will approach this term in a constructive but critical fashion. That is only but right. However, there is an entire community out there who will make judgements on all that, and it ill behoves any of us to ignore that reality.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): On a point of information, the European Investment Bank lists the borrowing to our housing associations. I know that it is owned by member states. Can non-member states and non-member regions access funds?
Mrs Foster: I do not know the answer to that. Something at the back of my head says that they can, but I could not stand over that. Of course, we are in the European Union at the moment, so we can access that money.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): But, you do not want to be. To be absolutely clear, you have already quashed that rumour.
Mr Stalford: Neither does half of your party.
Mr McGuinness: Chair, you are being very provocative.
Mrs Foster: Very provocative, but one would not have expected anything less.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): The provocative bit comes later.
Mrs Foster: Something to look forward to. [Laughter.]
Mr Milne: Welcome and thank you for coming along today. We talked earlier today about victims of conflict in Ireland. My question to you is about victims of conflict in Syria. Over recent months, groups of them have come to the North, and I would like an update on how they have settled in. Is there any prospect of more coming in the near future? What is the Executive's role in settling them into life here in Ireland as regards education, work, benefits etc?
Mr McGuinness: We have been very involved in the issue; it is close to all our hearts. We want to support people who have been through very traumatic experiences. The First Minister and I met the Syrian refugees who came here — initially, the ones who came to live in Belfast. Our junior Minister, Megan, and I met the Syrian refugees who came to the north-west last Sunday. I will let Megan speak about that.
Ms Fearon (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): At the outset, I wish the Committee well for the mandate ahead. I very much enjoyed being a member of the legacy Committee. I have to say that it is very different being on this side of the table.
14 You will be aware that, in September 2015, the British Government agreed to take in 20,000 refugees. In December, 51 came to Belfast. They have settled in very well as I understand. A few weeks ago, 47 arrived and are now settling in quite well in Derry. Martin and I met them on Sunday. I have to say that they were so grateful to be here, for all the support that they have received from various organisations and for the warm welcome that they have received from the community. I have heard stories of people mowing their lawns for them and dropping food off at the houses where they are staying. They are very grateful for the support that they have been given.
Obviously, a lot of them have very complex medical, physical and emotional needs. Caseworkers from a range of NGOs, including the Red Cross, are working alongside them. I have to say that the councils have been really important in integrating the families into the local community. I think that the council in Derry has been particularly good in that regard.
A third group will arrive in June. Obviously, more will arrive on a phased basis. We have to be sensitive to the fact that there is also an existing population of refugees and asylum seekers here. We have the double challenge of ensuring that Syrian families who arrive integrate well into society and get everything they need to set up their new lives while improving the situation for those who already live here. At the minute, work is ongoing on a refugee integration strategy. We hope to do that in the summertime. There is no exact timeline yet. The aim will be to make the transition from asylum seeker to refugee as smooth as possible. The crisis fund has come in very useful for that.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Megan, now that we have had two groups come in, is the integration strategy a living document based on the learning from that experience?
Ms Fearon: We hope to see it in the summertime. I have not seen a draft. I understand that an initial draft has been done and work is ongoing on it. We hope to see it in the summer. There is no exact timeline for it yet, but we are hopeful that we will see it soon.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I think that I mentioned before that representations had been made to me that some of the refugees had very acute mental-health issues and that maybe we did not have the resources and expertise to deal with those. I am not saying that that is the case. Are you assured that everything that needs to be done is available to be done?
Mrs Foster: We are. As Martin has said, we have taken a very hands-on approach to the issue because we very much want these very vulnerable people to have access to whatever they need. Certainly, I am not aware of any specific mental-health issues being raised. After you raised that issue with me, I specifically asked officials to look into it.
We have the racial equality strategy, but we became aware that we needed to look at an integration strategy, so that we would not just bring people here or that they would come as asylum seekers but that they would integrate into society. Work is being done to develop a draft. We hope that it will come soon.
Mr Milne: Are there situations in which families have been divided, with some in Syria and some here? If that is the case, are there plans to reunite those families as a unit here?
Mr McGuinness: Among the families who have arrived in Belfast and the north-west, there are undoubtedly people with relatives still in Syria. Our big focus at the moment is how we can care for and look after the people who arrive and are now living in our community. The implications of family relationships that have been broken up as a result of war and conflict is a much more difficult issue to deal with given what is going on in those countries. Obviously, over time, we will work with the families, but I think that our initial duty is to ensure that the people feel part of our community, respected, loved and cared for. Being there and seeing so many children among them, it really is an emotional experience to know that we are giving those children the opportunity for a better life. What I found really gratifying in the visit to the city last Sunday was that a number of consultants based at Altnagelvin hospital came over to be part of the welcoming event. One of the issues raised, and these were people of the same faith as the refugees, was about where they could worship. That appeared to be a big issue.
These are the practical issues that we need to deal with. Many of the consultants are worshipping in the small facility at Altnagelvin hospital, which is now far too small to deal with the new people who have come in. That is a challenge that we are going to have to rise to and I am sure that we will be able to find a facility where they can conduct their worship.
15 Everybody who supports this strategy, and every party in the Assembly has done that, is deserving of credit for the way in which our Administration have opened our arms, and we will continue to open our arms to ensure that people who are going through traumatic experiences can find a life here.
Mr Milne: Just to clarify, I was talking about immediate family, a father or son.
Mrs Foster: Most of them comprised mother, father and children. They seemed to be complete units. They may have had brothers —
Mr McGuinness: They are complete units, but no doubt they have brothers and sisters who are still in Syria.
Mr Lynch: Thanks for the presentation. I have just a quick question about the Programme for Government. Much has been said about the Scottish model. How successful has Scotland been, and for how long have they been implementing that model?
Mrs Foster: They have been successful in changing the whole dialogue around involving society in delivering outcomes. Did they get everything that they wanted? No, probably not, but they are looking at that again. As we said, this will be a living document. Before their last elections, they did not have a Minister for the Economy, which you may find strange, but they have just appointed one now, so it is a living document and a living way of doing things.
As Alex Attwood pointed out in the Assembly debate on Monday, bringing secondees from the private sector and third sector into government and allowing them to work in government would give a new focus on how to deliver from outside the public sector. We need to look at those things as well and think about doing them.
Mr Lynch: I assume they sent theirs out to public consultation. Do you know how much buy-in there was from civic society?
Mr McGuinness: It was a very successful project. It went out to consultation and there was tremendous buy-in, according to reports. The First Minister and I, and other Ministers, will be in Scotland next week for a British-Irish Council meeting. We will again have the opportunity to talk to Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister, and her Ministers about how well their approach to the Programme for Government is proceeding. Like us, they are now in a new mandate.
Mr Lynch: OK, thank you.
Mrs Cameron: Thank you for your attendance at the Committee. This is my first time on this Committee, and it is, so far, very interesting. I was a bit afraid of it at first.
I very much welcome this outcomes-based approach for the Programme for Government. It is new and exciting, and it is something that people on the ground will very much welcome, with the whole consultation process and the inclusion that that brings with it. I very much welcome it and the fact that it is a living organ that can change and is not set in stone.
I want to ask about the mental health trauma service. Have you an update on how that is progressing?
Mrs Foster: As you know, the last Minister of Health decided to put this into place, and set it up. We hope that it will be very much augmented by the Peace IV application for €17·6 million. We are hoping that the application will get approval from the EU and allow us to draw that money down. It will allow us to have an integrated regional health programme, which will involve different stages in helping those with mental health problems. Again, this is a good example of how the community sector and victims sector can work with the statutory sector. Counselling can perhaps be delivered by the victims groups at a level 1 to people who may not have acute mental health difficulties. But, once they are in need of acute help, people will go into the more statutory setting. The programme is being led by the Department of Health. We hope that it will be an integrated model between the victims sector and the Department of Health, and, if it works, it will be a very different way of doing things. It will be an innovative and new way and one that I hope will make a real difference.
16 Mr McGuinness: As we all know, this was an issue during a number of discussions that we were all involved in. The Chair, with others, raised the issue of how important good mental health is. He is right. This issue is not just common to here. Even though we have to deal with the fallout from the conflict and how that affected many people on all sides of our community, mental health is increasingly coming to the fore in every European country. We have unacceptable rates of suicide that need to be addressed. The Stormont House Agreement committed us to the establishment of a mental trauma service for victims, and setting up that trauma service, as the First Minister said, is the responsibility of the Department of Health. Work is being progressed on the basis of an integrated model between the statutory and community sectors. A partnership agreement is under development. It is linked to the step-care model and will cover areas including the interface between the voluntary and community sector and the health and social care referral protocols, linkages, monitoring and evaluation and funding. Of course, Peace IV funding will support building the capacity of the voluntary and community sector to enable the delivery of services. We remain committed to ensuring that victims receive the best services possible, and, to that end, the Department will continue to work with key stakeholders to progress work in that area.
Mrs Cameron: Thank you. That is very useful information.
I have another couple of quick questions. One is on indicator 31, which is to "Increase shared space". I note that the measure talks about leisure centres, parks, libraries and shopping centres and ensuring that they are shared and open to Protestants and Catholics. My home town is Antrim, and we have no experience of any difficulty in those facilities. I am thinking of areas in Belfast or elsewhere in Northern Ireland that have that issue. What is the train of thought? How do you ease a problem that has been there for so long?
Mrs Foster: This is about raising capacity and confidence in those communities and allowing them to get to a stage where they feel comfortable in reaching out to others whom they may not have been reaching out to in the past. This is at the core of our community relations work. It is about local representatives at council and Assembly level showing leadership in reaching across the divide. It is another good example of how it does not matter how much money you put into these projects. If there is no local leadership and no community capacity to move forward, it will not happen. We hope very much that, when community groups look at that Programme for Government indicator, they will come forward with ideas on how they can help us deliver that in a very real and tangible way.
Mr McGuinness: I agree with the First Minister, and your point is well made. There is a huge responsibility on all of us to ensure that we continue to bring people together. Principally, that is what the Together: Building a United Community programme is all about. It deals with a wide variety of issues that bring people together. Some of them have been very successful pilot programmes, but all that work will have to be taken forward. For me, a key relationship in all this is that between the Departments, the Executive and the new super-councils. The councils also have a huge responsibility to address issues that affect them in their areas relating to how we bring people ever closer together. There is a real opportunity, over the next five years, to make a big impact on an area where, for far too long, individuals and disparate groups in communities were left working to engender better community relations. The programmes we are promoting during this Programme for Government period will lend themselves to achieving what you are seeking, which is to bring people closer together. One way of doing this is, obviously, to provide amenities that people will use collectively, including, for young people, shared education campuses.
Mrs Cameron: I have just one more question, which is about indicator 36, "Increase household waste recycling". I come from the Environment Committee, along with Ian and Cathal who will be sighing, "Here she goes again". I am a great believer in recycling. It is a good thing to do. My granny taught me that. She reused everything. She hardly needed a bin.
I was far from convinced that the Department of the Environment did all it could to reduce the amount of landfill waste that we produce. A lot more could be done. Maybe this is more of a statement than a question, but I would really emphasise the need for government to do good research into this area. There are good examples, such as Bryson, which does fantastic work, and not just because it is in my constituency. I have been very impressed by presentations from Bryson, and by the fact that its form of recycling, which is moving us away from traditional big bins, produces very high quality waste, which is actually a very valuable resource and is creating jobs in Northern Ireland, as opposed to sending very low quality contaminated waste abroad for very little money in return or at a cost. I would just like to encourage you and seek your opinion on what more can be done to ensure that we
17 increase recycling targets. Of course, the knock-on effect of that would be less pressure to get rid of landfill waste.
Mrs Foster: You have already made the point about this Programme for Government being outcomes-based when you mentioned Bryson. It is another of our partners, which does things very effectively on the ground. In fact, it is probably more effective than government: when government say that you should do something, people do not necessarily go along with it, but when another organisation says that this is a good thing, and not only is it a good thing but it could save money and do all these other things, it has more of an impact. I know that John McMullan and Bryson will contribute to the Programme for Government consultation. I am very confident that they will come forward with how they can help us to deliver on our outcomes and indicators.
I congratulate you, Pam, for being the only female on the Committee. I am sure that you will hold them all to account.
Mrs Cameron: Oh, yes.
Ms Fearon: It was me last time.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I am sure that Bronwyn would have something to say about that.
Ms Fearon: She moved on.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): She did; you are quite right.
Mr Stalford: The IMF, which our "Remain" friends are keen on quoting, have forecast that the eurozone will post stagnant growth over the next two to three years. Meanwhile, India posted 7·8% growth this year, and the Commonwealth, as a whole, is expected to expand by more than 7%. China, despite its decline, is expected to expand by more than 5%. Mention was made of the new Chinese office. I wonder whether the First Minister and deputy First Minister could detail some of the work that their Department will be engaged in to attract jobs from the growing new and emerging markets rather than from the older, more reliable markets that we have relied on in the past.
Mrs Foster: I am sure that you, Christopher, will have seen the manufacturing statistics this morning in terms of where our growth markets are across the world. Of course, we do not ignore the stable market that is the European Union or, indeed, our nearest neighbours, but the growth is coming from further afield. I am pleased to see that India has stabilised and is back in a position of growth. We are very much looking at those new and emerging countries, whether it is Brazil, Russia — maybe not so much now, because of what is going on politically — India and China (BRIC). We have been driven by that in where we have concentrated on in the trade missions and visits that we make.
As the deputy First Minister said, we will visit China before the end of the year. We now have a fully functioning office there, run by Tim Losty, and he is doing an excellent job building relationships. As we all know, in China in particular it is so important to have those governmental relations, and we are very pleased with the relationship we have built with our consul general in Belfast from China. She is doing a marvellous job. She is getting out and about, understanding the Northern Ireland proposition, and it has been tremendous to have her resident in Northern Ireland. It makes things a lot easier for us when we go into China as well.
China is a huge market, and we know we are not going to be able to deal with the whole of China, but I think the plan is that we will be in Beijing, Shanghai and probably Shenyang, which is the sister city of Belfast, if I am not mistaken.
Mr Stalford: We were a sister city of Hefei, in the Anhui province. One of the things that I find in sister city relationships is that you have to work at it to make it work. That is why the opening of a dedicated office is a really positive development.
Mr McGuinness: All the experiences in dealing with China certainly suggest that personal relationships are key, and we have a very good personal relationship with the consul general, who we regard as a good friend of ours. We now have an office there, and there are tremendous opportunities for us to build on that, not least in the agrifood sector. The now Health Minister — the previous
18 Minister of Agriculture — was there on several occasions, and we made a number of breakthroughs in relation to exports from our agriculture sector to China.
At the same time, we have to be realistic about world economies. It was not that long ago — a couple of years — since Peter Robinson and I were in Brazil, and there was at that time tremendous growth in Brazil. They were beginning to work at building the stadia for the Olympics just prior to the World Cup, yet it is in a mess at the moment due to the political situation, which has had a detrimental impact on their growth potential. There are huge problems and difficulties there. The combination of what is a stable and important market for us in the European Union, as well as building relationships with the BRIC countries that the First Minister identified, is hugely important.
By far and away the most important for us is the relationship with the United States of America. That is where we have seen tangible benefits over the last number of years. That is because the US Administration feel that they had a role in what happened here in the peace process. They recognised at an early stage that is was one thing having a peace process, but, if there was no economic progress, that would leave the situation ripe for those violent groups that are still out there and that wish to prey on young people in every sector of society and draw them into activities that are detrimental not just to the peace process but to building an economy that is delivering for all our people. I am sure that everybody around this table is looking with considerable fascination at what is going on in the United States at the moment in the presidential election. Without pre-empting the outcome of the big conventions in July, it looks from last night's results that it is going to be Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton. Our relationship with the United States has to continue, because it has borne huge fruit for us. It is very important that we have ongoing contact. I spoke to Gary Hart yesterday on the telephone, and he is determined to arrive back here very shortly and, more importantly, later in the year, probably in the aftermath of the presidential election, to bring a high- powered economic delegation to the North.
You are right: it is important that we build relationships with all of these countries. Whatever happens on 23 June will happen, and we will have to deal with the fallout. It will not stop us from ensuring that we continue to encourage people to see that we are open for business and to invest here.
Mr Stalford: One of the OFMDFM projects that had — or will have — a really positive impact in my area was the social investment fund. In the Taughmonagh estate, which the First Minister visited, a rather dilapidated building where we were operating a day nursery is going to be expanded. That will be fantastic. Sandy Row training and employment centre, again, is in an area of great deprivation and need. Can the First Minister and deputy First Minister give us an update on the social investment fund and when we can expect to see things brought to a conclusion in the various areas?
Mrs Foster: Yes, a total of 71 projects are expected to be delivered under the social investment fund. Sixty-four of those, worth over £71 million, have already been approved. The remaining seven are expected to secure approvals by the end of the summer. Thirty-one of those committed, which are worth £44 million, have commenced. Of those, 13 are operational, worth £25 million. That means that projects are at a full delivery stage and are impacting on local communities, as you rightly said.
I was pleased to see the impact that the investment will make in Taughmonagh through the building that people will be able to access there. You can look at statistics, and I can talk about the amount of money that is being committed, but it is only really when you go out and see the projects and what they are doing in their areas that you know that you are having an impact in those areas. Some of the work that is going on in the Old Warren in Lisburn, for example, is fabulous, and it is really good to see the work that is being done, principally by the Resurgam Trust, down there. They are doing excellent work in childcare, early intervention and all of those areas where, in the past, they had been relying on statutory agencies; it was not happening for them in the estate.
The Kilcooley nurture unit is going really well, and up in Coleraine and places like that, good work is happening. I have had an opportunity to see some of the projects, and when we have had the full implementation of SIF there will be a real impact in both resource and capital build terms.
Mr Stalford: The First Minister has outlined some of the really positive things that that money is achieving. How do the First Minister and the deputy react when senior politicians refer to the fund as a "paramilitary slush fund"?
Mr McGuinness: I addressed that issue in the Assembly the other day. When the project was first mooted, it was described by Alec Attwood as a slush fund for paramilitaries, which I thought was a
19 really unfair thing to say, given that we were in the process of establishing steering groups that were made up of people from the local community. This was not us coming in to the local community and saying, "This is what we have identified that your community needs." We were asking the local community, "You tell us what you need."
Look at the quality of the programmes that have been brought forward, whether it is the regeneration of a particular area or a work programme that is about getting people who are long-term unemployed back into work. I attended one of those events in the north-west just a couple of weeks ago, where I presented diplomas to people who had successfully come through the programme. You can clearly see that this is making an impact on people's lives.
The Chair has been the arch critic of the slowness of the process, but it has moved forward, and the First Minister outlined the levels of funding commitment that have been made to projects that have now commenced. It is a learning curve for everybody. It was a new idea. It was a new scheme. We were very careful to ensure that under no circumstances did any paramilitary get their hands on any of the money. This is about investing that money in local communities. So far, I think that it has been a success, albeit the challenges that we faced which prevented us moving at the speed at which we would have wished to from the very beginning.
Mr Stalford: Coming on to the Programme for Government framework, in my maiden speech I identified health inequalities in my area. I was chided afterwards; I was told that I used a story that the Member of Parliament for Newry and Armagh often used when he was a Member here. Two men get on a bus at the City Hall. One man gets off the bus at Sandy Row and the other keeps going until he gets to Finaghy crossroads. The man who gets off at Sandy Row is expected to live 10 years less than the man who gets off at Finaghy crossroads. To my mind, that is just ridiculous in this day and age, in 2016. Can you outline for us some of the measures that you envisage — I understand that this is a draft framework at the moment — to tackle some of those inequalities that are very real, even in a constituency like South Belfast, which enjoys a reputation for being a place of plenty? In reality, there are actually significant levels of inequality in my constituency.
Mrs Foster: I think that South Belfast is a very good example of a constituency where affluence and deprivation live side by side. You will know that very well, having been around the constituency during the election. I know too well about the health inequalities because I had an aunt who lived on the Donegall Road, and she lived considerably less time than her siblings did. That was because of the environment that she was in.
Again, at risk of repeating myself, it is a case of a holistic approach to dealing with those issues and understanding why it is that people from those areas have that time span, which is a lot less than that of people who live in affluent areas. What are the contributing factors to that? It will not be just one issue; it will be many, many issues, whether it be about housing, access to services, why it is that they do not keep appointments — all those sorts of things. We have to get down to the very core of those issues and try to deal with them in the Programme for Government. Again, it will be about people like Glenda Davies from Sandy Row coming forward and saying, "Here is where I think the problems are and here is how we can help you to solve those problems." I hope that, through you and your good offices, we will hear from communities in those areas as to how we can help them to solve those problems.
Mr McGuinness: That is one of the big challenges facing not just the new Health Minister but all Departments. As the First Minister said previously — and I agree with her — tackling social deprivation, poverty and poor lifestyles is a huge responsibility for all of us in Government to ensure that we are providing the best possible education for young people in schools, particularly, on how they should lead their lives and what is the healthy way to go.
One of the biggest challenges that we face in the modern world is the hugely damaging high levels of obesity, particularly among young people. A lot of that is around lifestyles. New technology is fantastic if it is used properly, but if it is overused and abused, it can be very damaging for young people because they are not getting out into the fresh air, participating in sports and so forth. There is a particular problem in urban areas, where you have high levels of deprivation, but you also have levels of deprivation in rural areas. It is a very complex situation. I think that, as we go forward, obviously prevention is better than cure. There needs to be, as we travel forward within Health and all the other Departments, a recognition that we all have a responsibility to work collectively to ensure that we are giving the best possible leadership to people, whether that be through the health service, the education system or many of the other Departments that can contribute in a way that removes us
20 from this silo mentality and which recognises that, by working together, we can all collectively make a real difference and improve the length of time that people live on this earth, whether that be on Sandy Row or in the leafy glades somewhere in other parts of South Belfast.
Mr Stalford: Just one final question. The Markets, Donegall Pass and Sandy Row are incorporated into the urban villages initiative, and this is something that local community groups and people who live there have welcomed greatly. Can you give us an update on the delivery of urban villages throughout the Province? I do not want to sound too parochial, but you would not half tell that my family came from Sandy Row. [Laughter.]
Mrs Foster: The urban villages programme team is developing a strategic framework for each of the areas, and the frameworks will be launched at events early in July, with detailed delivery plans completed for each area to make sure that they can deliver against their 2016-17 targets and budgets. I will have more detail then, Christopher.
Mr Stalford: Thank you.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I admire the way you opened with the international markets and then narrowed yourself right down to Sandy Row.
Mrs Foster: It all happens in Sandy Row.
Mr Stalford: Sandy Row is the heart of the empire.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Without wishing to open a debate on the social investment fund, I want to fact-check two points. When officials last briefed the legacy Committee, we were told that, on spend rather than commitments, the last of the £80 million is due to be spent in financial year 2019- 2020. Is that still the case?
Mrs Foster: Yes, the time frame for the programme is expected to run until 2019-2020 to allow for full delivery of all projects.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): OK, thank you. Is it true that you are now bidding the £80 million up to £91·3 million to allow for increased capital costs?
Mrs Foster: Yes.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): OK. Thank you very much.
Mr Richie McPhillips: Thank you, Chairman. First of all, it is good to see Alex Attwood's name being checked here —
Mrs Foster: Make sure you tell him, Richie.
Mr McPhillips: I certainly will, First Minister. Thank you for coming along today —
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I think he knows already.
Mrs Foster: Oh right, OK. Somebody has been tweeting.
Mr McPhillips: First of all, going back to refugees — this is in light of a recent 'Spotlight' programme dealing with girls more or less disappearing from the radar — what are you doing to protect vulnerable individuals like this to ensure that they do not become victims of trafficking?
Mrs Foster: Of course, Richie, you will be aware that Lord Morrow brought forward the human trafficking Bill in the last Administration. That was one of our private Member's Bill successes in the last mandate and gave police more powers to deal with these issues. We understand that there is an underground system; all we can do is try to break that system. Organised crime has a lot to do with it, too. You will see that the panel talks about dealing with paramilitarism and criminality; these things
21 are often dealt with as organised crime under a badge of convenience. We are determined to break organised crime through legislation, amongst other things. That is how we will take it forward.
Mr McGuinness: The chief responsibility to deal with these matters rests with the police, and we wholeheartedly support them in their investigations into anybody exploiting refugees. It is not just young women and how they can be used and abused but also the prospect — I am not just talking about here in the North; it could happen anywhere in these islands — of people who come here being effectively exploited by people in business paying them slave wages, for example. There are many dimensions to the damaging impacts of how people who come here as refugees are dealt with by those who live here, principally in relation to the first point that you made with regard to people being used in a way that can destroy their lives. The responsibility rests with the police, but it also rests with people in local communities who may have information about this. The police can only do so much. If people have information about people who are being abused in this way, they have a duty and a responsibility to pass it on to the police.
Mr McPhillips: My second question is about the historical abuse inquiry. The deputy First Minister talked about the financial challenge in providing some redress for victims. What work has the Executive Office done in terms of a scoping exercise regarding bringing about a redress scheme for these victims, bearing in mind that the inquiry is coming to a conclusion in the near future?
Mr McGuinness: It is coming to a conclusion and, again, thanks are due to Anthony Hart, who has sat through all of this. Because of his experience and the very skilful way that he has handled what has been a very challenging investigation, we have agreed that we will be guided by his approach to this. He has come out in favour of a redress scheme, which is obviously something that we have to take account of. However, he is also making it clear that he does not want us to go forward on that until such time as he completes his investigations. He has made it clear that he has still some work to do. Obviously, in the aftermath of that, depending on the judgement that he makes, the responsibility to provide redress may go wider than just the Government.
Mr McPhillips: I expect so.
Mr Logan: First, I want to welcome the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the junior Ministers and thank them for taking the time to come here. As a new member, I thought that briefing was very helpful. I approached it with two ears and one mouth; I have been using them in that proportion as a new member. I did find it helpful, and I appreciate that. I want to pick up on something that Christopher said, quite rightly, when he welcomed the office in China. That is good news, and I look forward to seeing that rolled out to other places as well. It is important to sell Northern Ireland on the world stage, because we are a great country. It is not just about the reduction in corporation tax; again, I welcome that being implemented in April 2018. Not only are we more competitive, but we have a fantastic skills base, and it is important to sell that on the world platform.
Of course, Wrightbus is in my constituency; it is performing very well on the world stage. My question might be a silly one, and I apologise if it is. That will attract investment and jobs to Northern Ireland. What mechanism do the Government use to distribute jobs or new companies coming to form in Northern Ireland? I appreciate that they will have a say in where they want to go, but do we have any mechanisms that we use to distribute that or to advise?
Mrs Foster: Invest NI will normally work with companies that have expressed interest in coming to Northern Ireland, and they will express an interest in whether they want to be, as some companies do, in the capital city. Some companies will want to look for particular skills, and Invest NI will have at its hand where those skills are available throughout Northern Ireland. If a company is looking for manufacturing skills, Invest NI will point them in the direction of a number of places in Northern Ireland. Essentially — this is sometimes controversial with some of us from the west of the Province — it is, at the end of the day, the decision of the investor as to where they wish to place. We can sell particular areas, and we do that; we do it in conjunction now with local government, because it has economic powers as well. I have always said to local government that it should decide what its offering is and then sell that offering to Invest NI and to international investors. At the end of the day, it will be the investor who decides where he wants to go and invest in.
Mr McGuinness: This is a huge issue. One of the great successes of the last couple of years has been the number of companies that believed that financial or legal services clusters around Belfast was the route to go for them. Because those companies made choices to set up their operation in Belfast alongside similar companies, that created a perception among people in other areas that they
22 were not getting a fair crack of the whip. The First Minister and I have had a number of conversations about that. To be fair to the former First Minister, he and I, along with Arlene and other Ministers, recognised that we had to ensure that we were creating the best possible regional opportunities for everybody for a fair distribution of jobs. In the course of what we have put together in relation to the Programme for Government, that is an issue that we absolutely intend to deal with. We understand that the loss of jobs in your constituency — Michelin, JTI and so forth — has had a huge impact. The success of Wrightbus is something that we all celebrate. To go to Hong Kong, as we have done, and see that Wrightbus has buses travelling through the streets of Hong Kong and Singapore is absolutely fabulous.
We face the same problem in Enniskillen and Derry. The big problems in the Derry area are the situation with Magee, which we intend to address, and the situation with regards to infrastructure with the A5 and the A6. Those are all huge issues that can either help to attract businesses if we can provide the proper infrastructure, or, if people look at what is very poor infrastructure, be a demotivating factor for them to go to the west.
You have identified a big issue. We intend, through the course of putting the Programme for Government together, to do it in the fairest possible way which will give every region under our stewardship a fair crack of the whip.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Members, I am not going to open it up to a second round, but Cathal, as you went first.
Mr Boylan: It is just a small point. I feel that I have to say this, and I have to declare an interest as I am involved in one of the SIF zones. To be honest, the First Minister spoke about Mr Attwood's contribution. He made a positive contribution to the Programme for Government and then a negative one in relation to the SIF programme. Having worked on the SIF programme, I can say that it is a good programme. I think that the positives outweigh the negatives, and the time frame is the only issue that has raised its head. I know that people will benefit from the five priority projects in my zone. I do not think that we are selling it enough. Overall, the aims were very good and it is a good-news story. OK. Thank you.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): OK. There are two final issues. Actually, do we need to discuss the frequency of engagement? You are sending out very positive messages about your willingness to come to the Committee.
Mrs Foster: We do not want to overburden you with our appearances, of course, but —
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): So, every other week. [Laughter.]
Mrs Foster: It would be useful to hear from you how frequently you would like us to be here.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I do not see the point in having a meeting just for the sake of having a meeting.
Mrs Foster: No.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Maybe as a rule of thumb that we could look at, would it be reasonable to say at least three times a year with either you or the junior Ministers?
Mrs Foster: Yes. Well, I am comfortable with that.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): We would be more than happy to see the junior Ministers.
Mrs Foster: Of course, if huge issues arise and there is a need for us to come, we will come. We do not see any difficulty with that.
Mr McGuinness: We are very open to coming as often as you want.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I am more of a fan of talking when there is something to discuss than because it is in the diary.
23 Mrs Foster: Yes.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): We shall review that. We are having an awayday, probably in early September.
Mr McGuinness: Is that in Benidorm?
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): No, Bundoran again.
Mr Boylan: Newry and Armagh.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Newry and Armagh. OK. I promised to finish — did I say "controversially" or "provocatively"?
Mrs Foster: Provocatively.
Mr McGuinness: We are wondering what this controversial issue is.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Wonder no further. I am sure that I can expose the split at the heart of Executive Office with this question, which you cannot dodge: Robbie Keane or Kyle Lafferty? [Laughter.]
Mrs Foster: You are asking a Fermanagh person "Robbie Keane or Kyle Lafferty?".
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Yes.
Mrs Foster: Kyle Lafferty.
Mr McGuinness: What about Robbie Keane and Kyle Lafferty?
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): It was an either/or.
Mr McGuinness: Let us go for both of them. I wish both of them —
Mrs Foster: You pick Robbie Keane, and I will pick Kyle Lafferty.
Mr McGuinness: I wish both of them every success and particularly the two O'Neills.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Are you both travelling out?
Mrs Foster: I do not think that you have made your mind up yet as to what you are doing. I am travelling to the Poland match.
Mr McGuinness: My problem is that I am up for Question Time the following morning, so I have to be here. No doubt we will mark the occasion in an appropriate way.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I think that we all wish both O'Neills every success.
Mr McGuinness: Absolutely.
The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Thank you all very much indeed.
24