Executive Openness and Transparency

Private Members' Business – in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 11:45 am on 4 October 2016.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton Speaker 11:45, 4 October 2016

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. As two amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, an additional 15 minutes has been added to the total time. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. The proposer of each amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other speakers will have five minutes.

Photo of Stephen Farry Stephen Farry Alliance

I beg to move

That this Assembly expresses its concern at ongoing problems with openness and transparency from the Executive and the implications for public trust and confidence.

The motion provides an opportunity to make clear the growing unease at matters around openness, transparency and accountability on the part of the Northern Ireland Executive. We have deliberately kept the motion on a high-level basis to allow for a free-flowing and wide-ranging debate. We have consciously tried to avoid getting bogged down in any particular remedies as such, but have no difficulty with either of the proposed amendments. However, it is important that we highlight a range of issues in the debate.

Over the past few months, we have seen numerous breaches of what should be the accepted standards of good governance, including disregard for Assembly processes, unnecessary secrecy, control freakery and cronyism, to name just a few.

I suspect that those today who will seek to defend the Executive will claim that their antics are little different from what happens in other Governments. So let us be clear: what is happening here is at the extreme end of the spectrum of what is supposed to pass for democratic government.

We often hear the mantra, "We won the election", but democracy means more than just majority voting. It about good governance, human rights and the rule of law. Others may dismiss this debate as part of the Stormont bubble, but this stuff really matters in terms of the nature and quality of outcomes for the people of Northern Ireland.

Good governance, including effective scrutiny, lends itself to better value for money and maximises the best use of resources, allowing more to be done in terms of investing in the key drivers of our economy or expanding public services. Indeed, there is a persistent trend of DUP and Sinn Féin MLAs on Assembly Committees being reluctant to countenance scrutiny of their own Ministers. This has had a particular effect on the Committee for the Executive Office and its predecessor, the Committee for OFMDFM, as a majority of members come from the ministerial parties.

There are numerous examples of decisions or the handling of issues that give substance to this motion. Let us take, for example, the appointment of the Executive press secretary. Before the opponents of the motion start to engage in "whataboutery", in terms of what other parties have done, let me be clear that the issue at stake is not that the Executive chose to headhunt somebody, let alone that that person is David Gordon. Rather, the concerns are that the First Minister and deputy First Minister thought that it was appropriate to use the royal prerogative in an area already covered by legislation and did not use one of the already generous special adviser allowances to accommodate the post, which happens in other jurisdictions.

Turning to the National Asset Management Agency (NAMA) scandal, it is a matter of some bewilderment that the DUP and Sinn Féin chose to close ranks to water down what would have been a more far-reaching motion in the Assembly. The issues at stake here are not just criminal; they also relate to the degree of due diligence around public appointments and the approach to decision-making within Stormont Castle.

Also in the news this past week was the failure of the First Minister (FM) and deputy First Minister (DFM) to disclose in a timely manner the document on the implications of Brexit, prepared by their civil servants almost a year before the referendum. A lot has been said about this in public, but one particularly troubling aspect is that it took a freedom of information (FOI) request to produce it. The FOI request was tabled in February, and while most normal public bodies would take regard of their duties to produce documentation within 20 working days, it was only released on the rather convenient day after the referendum. The processing of FOI requests is governed by statute, and compliance is not supposed to fit in around political convenience. This is not an isolated example. The response rate of OFMDFM, in particular, to FOI deadlines is appalling. Of course, it is conceivable that they have used the royal prerogative to change the freedom of information legislation to exempt themselves from this requirement and just have not told us.

The pattern of no respect for compliance with FOI deadlines is replicated in the time taken to answer questions. The protocols governing the timescales for responses are readily flouted with impunity. Again, some Departments and Ministers are serial offenders, with — surprise, surprise — OFMDFM, now the Executive Office, as the worst offender. Yet, some Ministers, from a range of parties, have proven in the past that it is possible to respect deadlines around FOI requests and questions; those Ministers include David Ford and me.

In terms of Ministers offering themselves for accountability, we also see a reluctance to make major announcements in the form of ministerial statements to the Assembly, so providing Members with the opportunity to question.

Photo of Christopher Stalford Christopher Stalford DUP

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. I have listened to him now for about four and a half minutes, and I presume that the myriad of problems that he is describing never occurred at DEL when he was the Minister?

Photo of Stephen Farry Stephen Farry Alliance

Indeed, that is the point. I made numerous statements to the Assembly, to the point where the Chair of my Committee was almost frowning at the number of times he was forced to come in to receive and listen to them.

Photo of Robin Swann Robin Swann UUP

I will add to the Member's contribution. I admit that, as Minister, his openness to the Employment and Learning Committee left many other Ministers in the shadow, including a lot from the DUP. I am not sure how often the FM and DFM appeared in front of the OFMDFM Committee in the last mandate.

Photo of Stephen Farry Stephen Farry Alliance

I stress that this is spontaneous coordination across the opposition.

[Laughter.]

Photo of Chris Lyttle Chris Lyttle Alliance

I thank the Member for giving way. The record can be checked, but, if my memory serves me correctly, I think that there was a period of more than a year in which the First Minister and deputy First Minister failed to even report to the Committee for OFMDFM in the last mandate. Hopefully, that is something that will change.

Photo of Stephen Farry Stephen Farry Alliance

I congratulate Mr Stalford on a very successful intervention.

[Laughter.]

Another case of secrecy that risks becoming counterproductive is the way in which the Health Minister is currently sitting on the Bengoa report. This report was commissioned by the previous Minister, with a key desire to build a cross-party consensus on a generational change in Health and Social Care, and all of the main parties were engaged and consulted in the development of the proposals. This report has been with the Minister since the start of the summer, and there seems to be no intention of publishing it until the Department has agreed its own response. This approach strikes me as missing an opportunity to continue the informed debate and to build consensus, particularly given the current state of the health service and what is at stake with public finances.

Poor governance extends more widely to the nature of the Budget process. The Budget for this financial year was presented to Ministers outside the two lead parties with 20 minutes before it was actually adopted. To be clear, I am not talking about the draft Budget but the actual final Budget. The Executive may well have been facing an incredibly tight schedule that was not of their making, but there was still space for some structured engagement with key stakeholders. There was an air of getting the matter out of the way in order to progress the DUP leadership transition. We are now facing a similar situation for the next financial year. Even with the tight timescale arising from the autumn statement, lessons need to be learnt from last year. However, the indications are not encouraging.

Drilling down into Budget changes also becomes more difficult when we look at the issue around monitoring rounds, and what happened in June is a lesson that we have to avoid. There was a lack of detail from the Finance Minister, and, indeed, a lack of engagement more generally with Committees. The Public Accounts Committee is now doing its job in trying to get to the bottom of the ongoing problems arising from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment's black hole on public finances.

We also have a growing culture of major financial decisions being taken without approval of a proper business case. I do accept that there are some cases where ministerial directions are appropriate, but that argument becomes weaker when the scale of resources increases. Concerns have been expressed at the decision-making process, including consideration of value for money and opportunity costs, related to the subsidy to United Airlines and also the financial support to the City of Derry Airport. Perhaps the most serious example in this regard was the decision of a Sinn Féin Minister to relocate DARD, now DAERA, to Ballykelly without a business case. This actually cost more than the status quo and does create major questions around business continuity. The dawning that this project is in difficulty reflects the dangers of not fully exploring all of the risks through a business case.

I will finish with the issue of the social investment fund (SIF), which is a walking recipe for bad governance. The fund seems to exist as a means to bypass the normal purposes of distributing and of how government engages with the community sector and delivers on employability and deprivation issues. The attempt seems to be to direct funding to particular favoured organisations. It has been dogged by delays and controversies, and, in particular, the recent announcement in regard to east Belfast sends out a terrible message in the aftermath of the Fresh Start commitments on addressing paramilitarism. Perhaps we might be better off if the social investment fund were wound up, with the money being invested in our health service.

The issues that are addressed by the social investment fund are not unique or new but are things that could have been addressed in the past by my Department — the Department for Employment and Learning — and the Department for Social Development through proper procurement measures, which can engage with the community and voluntary sector. When we end up bypassing those procedures, a whole range of risks are being borne by government, and we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg in that regard.

Photo of Steven Agnew Steven Agnew Green

I beg to move amendment No 1:

At end insert "; and calls for the creation of a standards commissioner for the Executive to investigate alleged breaches of the ministerial code.".

It is the height of arrogance and disrespect that, when we are debating a motion around transparency, openness and accountability, the Executive Office, with its four Ministers, could not send one to respond to this debate or even, indeed, one from the suite of Ministers that we have in government. We call on the whole Executive, and any one could have answered on behalf of the Executive, yet not one is here today to answer the criticisms that have been made.

Photo of Robin Swann Robin Swann UUP

Will the Member give way?

Photo of Robin Swann Robin Swann UUP

Will the Member agree that, potentially, the response from that empty glass sitting up there could be more beneficial?

Photo of Steven Agnew Steven Agnew Green 12:00, 4 October 2016

That is effectively what we are getting. That highlights the point that is being made in this debate, as mentioned by the proposer: we have an Executive who say, "We have the votes. We have the power. We don't have to". If I ever again hear a Minister say to me, "We don't need legislation for this", because this Executive have shown that, if they are not required to do something, they will not do it. There is no respect, no accountability and no openness, and that has to change if we are to have a genuine thriving democracy and our devolution is to meet the standards of other devolved regions and other Parliaments.

Accountability requires transparency, and, for Ministers to be accountable, we have to know about the decisions they are making and how they are making them. Over the summer, we saw a number of issues that we would not even have known about were it not for investigative journalists bringing them to light. The appointment of David Gordon was announced but the process was kept hidden, and it was Sam McBride's work that uncovered the mechanism used. The Brexit document, which the proposer mentioned, was uncovered after a freedom of information request. The legal responsibility was ignored until it was convenient to publish the information. We have heard the First Minister say that she never saw that document. I put it to her that, if I knew that a referendum of such significance to Northern Ireland was coming up, I would have been asking my officials, "Have you done any work on the outcomes of this?". There are two possibilities: the First Minister saw the document and chose not to publish it, or she never asked to see it, in which case she is not on top of her brief on such a major issue.

Photo of Gordon Lyons Gordon Lyons DUP

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It seems to me that Mr Agnew is accusing the First Minister of misleading the House with the comments that she made yesterday with regard to that document. Would you be able to rule on that?

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton Speaker

That is not a point of order, Mr Lyons, but you have made your point on the record.

Photo of Steven Agnew Steven Agnew Green

I made the point that there were two possibilities; I did not say which one was true.

We have a situation in Northern Ireland where business cases, which are ordinarily published at Westminster, sometimes do not even exist. Let me look at issues that arose over the summer. Where were the business cases for the bailout of City of Derry Airport and the Newark flight? Where did that money come from? Where was the accountability to the Assembly? We are operating with lower standards than should be expected of a devolved Government.

I am a former member of the Standards and Privileges Committee, and the ministerial code of conduct came up time and time again in that Committee. I was checking the figures, and, in the last mandate, the Standards and Privileges Committee received five complaints against Ministers. On each occasion, we were unable to investigate and had to tell complainants that there was no process for investigating their complaint. The only recourse for the general public is a judicial review, which is prohibitively expensive for most people.

As Members, we are held to the Northern Ireland Assembly's code of conduct — rightly so — and we have an independent process for the investigation of complaints. On this, Ministers in the Executive have nothing to fear if they are acting with probity and integrity. It works against both the complainant and those who are complained about. I alleged a breach, for example, when the First Minister, who was then the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister, licensed an area for fracking. It turned out that her husband owned land within that licensed area, and I argued that that should have been declared. She argued that such a declaration was not required, and I argued that there had been a breach of the code. What is left is suspicion among the general public. Arlene Foster, the First Minister, who was the then Enterprise Minister, can declare her innocence and I can allege her guilt, but we never get a conclusion or satisfaction.

If I am making a spurious allegation, that should be brought to light. There should be an independent process, and I should be put in my place and told, "That was a scurrilous accusation". Equally, if a Minister has acted inappropriately, there should be an independent, transparent process of investigation. Ministers should be held to account, as Members are, for their actions in the role as Minister. What is the point of having a ministerial code of conduct if there is no mechanism for investigating breaches of it? It is not worth the paper that it is written on.

That is a historical case. We have it again with the allegations around the Brexit document. I come back to the point that I cannot stand here and say with absolute certainty that the ministerial code has been broken. I suspect that it has. I say to the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and every other Executive Minister, "Open yourself up to independent, transparent and fair process". If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. That is what I hear from the Benches opposite quite regularly. If that is the case, why do the Executive not come forward with a proposed amendment to the ministerial code to initiate a process by which these allegations can be heard and adjudicated upon in an independent manner?

Often, the stumbling block in these cases is cost. However, we already pay in the region of £60,000 a year for the role of our Commissioner for Standards and its office. That could be the cost of a single judicial review that would have to be taken to investigate allegations of breaches of the ministerial code. There is a way of doing this: we can extend the role of the Commissioner for Standards. We have the mechanism and model in place, because that is how we investigate Members. If we are to meet the levels of democracy, accountability and transparency that we want, we cannot continue to have the situation in which I, as a Member, am open to scrutiny but a Minister of our Government is not open to the same level of scrutiny.

Photo of Emma Little-Pengelly Emma Little-Pengelly DUP

Does the Member accept that there are a number of different accountability mechanisms set up under the Assembly? One of those is the Committees, and they legitimately scrutinise Ministers.

[Laughter.]

Members may laugh, but there are procedures there. The Member has made some comments about the First Minister, Arlene Foster. The First Minister spoke to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee about this matter. She made it clear, publicly and to the House, that she considered that she had no conflict of interest. She outlined that to the Committee, a Committee with the role of scrutinising that Minister.

Photo of Steven Agnew Steven Agnew Green

I am sure that every criminal would love to be able to go court and say, "I am sure that I have done nothing wrong, Mr Judge". Would that not be a wonderful judicial system?

Photo of Steven Agnew Steven Agnew Green

Very briefly.

Photo of Jim Allister Jim Allister Traditional Unionist Voice

Is the parallel not in fact that it would be like having the criminal law but no courts to adjudicate on whether there had been a breach? We have a ministerial code but no process to adjudicate on whether there is a breach. It is as farcical as that.

Photo of Steven Agnew Steven Agnew Green

It is indeed. I repeat the point that the then Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister was very clear that she felt that she had not breached the code. I was very clear —

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton Speaker

I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Photo of Steven Agnew Steven Agnew Green

I will indeed. I was very clear that I felt that she had. What we need is a process to decide who is right.

Photo of Mike Nesbitt Mike Nesbitt UUP

I beg to move amendment No 2:

At end insert "; and calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to acknowledge these concerns and to outline to the Assembly how they will ensure, in the future, that the mandate of the Assembly is respected.".

As I move amendment No 2, let me also make clear that we support amendment No 1 and thank those who tabled the motion. Fundamentally, it comes down to this simple question: who represents the primary authority? Is it the judiciary? Is it the Executive? Is it the media, the so-called fourth estate? Is it the Chamber? I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that it is the Chamber and the 108 Members herein because we are the lawmakers. As we know, Members of the Executive can be law amenders.

Let me put it on the official record of the House that I have discovered that the deputy First Minister, the self-styled proud and principled republican, has conferred upon himself the powers of a monarch to change the law, not once, not twice, but no fewer than three times in league with the DUP First Minister. On all three occasions it was to make appointments. We have yet to get to the names of the other two, but clearly it was so important to them to get the right person, as they saw it, that they changed the law. For a republican to give himself the power of a king is nothing short of perverse, as perverse as booking a fine-art establishment in Birmingham to sip champagne with the Conservative Party that you have spent years deriding for its austerity.

Of course, Executive Ministers are not just law amenders; sometimes they ignore the opportunity to amend the law without reference to their Executive colleagues. Sammy Wilson, as Finance Minister, could have said to his Executive colleagues, "The law on defamation in England and Wales has been changed, and we could adopt it with a legislative consent motion". He did not, and, three years later, we find the current incumbent of the Finance Ministry, Mr Ó Muilleoir, sitting on a report, commissioned from Dr Andrew Scott, that recommends a change in the law, yet the Minister continues to sit on it. The Minister of Health sits on the Bengoa report, even though we hear this morning on our radio, read in our newspapers and see on our television screens, about hospital waiting lists, not of a year or a year and a half but of two years and more.

The defamation law was important for scrutiny, because we rely on the media, and that point was made during the debate. We do not have a second Chamber, as they do in Dublin and London, and until the last couple of months, we did not have an official Opposition. I note that the First Minister will apparently set down her champagne flute long enough to praise the development of an official Opposition in this House and admit that it has forced the two parties of the Executive to raise their game. That is a good thing, and I think that we can all agree on that.

Openness and transparency is not just for the Chamber; it is also for the Committees. Mr Lyttle, who was Deputy Chair of the Committee for OFMDFM in the last mandate, made the point that there was a time when we went for over a year without hearing from the principals, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. He could also have told the House that the Committee had to threaten to use its legal powers under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to force them to come to the House. It was not just about the principals; it was about the information flow. There were late cancellations of briefings by officials, late responses to requests from the Committee for information, and the late delivery of papers, which was so ridiculous that, one Wednesday, we received a sheaf of financial information at 1.55 pm — five minutes before the Committee was due to consider that information. Nobody can say to me that that is good government.

Looking ahead, if those two parties are to achieve outcome-based accountability government, which will involve cutting across two or more Departments, we must not allow our Statutory Committees, whose job is to assist and advise Ministers, to fall behind and remain in silos. It is a role, Mr Speaker, that I know you are already giving consideration to, as must the Chairpersons' Liaison Group and we, as MLAs. There is no point in waiting for the Executive to advise us, because they could not even be bothered to turn up for today's debate.

Looking back, when we had all those difficulties in the last mandate with late delivery, cancellation and all the rest, I went privately — I was interested in sorting it out rather than grabbing a headline — with the permission of the Committee, to see the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. This is what happens: you go to the east wing of this Building and have a private chat and say, "Here is a problem". They direct you to the west wing and say, "That is where the problem lies". So, you walk the 365 feet from one wing to the other and have a private chat and are told, "Actually, the problem lies at the east wing, because we have cleared it here at the west".

It is not just about us in this Chamber or this Committee. What about the people out there who rely on us? Let me give you an example. A social economy organisation contacted me recently. They wanted to brief me about a development that they imagine could reimagine a famous area in this city. It seems to me to be a very good plan, but, of course, they need finance, so they applied for a grant from the Executive. They were unsuccessful and were advised:

"the application has been determined to be of merit it has not been considered of sufficient strategic priority to progress at this time."

They wrote and asked whether there had been a scoring matrix. There had been, and, my goodness, what did they score on their contribution to strategic objectives? Five out of five. What did they score out of five on the contribution to an existing strategic plan or scheme? They scored five. They got a perfect 10 on their contribution to strategic development, yet, in the previous letter, they were told that it was a lack of "sufficient strategic priority" that was holding them back. The two letters were signed by the same person. One stated that there was a lack of strategic vision but the second stated that it was because of the cocktail of funding: that was the problem. Yet, they know that there is a prior example of a very similar scheme in another city in this country that had exactly the same cocktail of funding. This is not open, and this is not transparent government.

We certainly support the motion; we certainly support our amendment and that of Mr Agnew. It is just wrong that Members of the House are under greater scrutiny and threat of sanction than members of the Northern Ireland Executive. It is one of those fundamentals that, at any moment, can further undermine public confidence in our devolved institutions.

This was supposed to be a new era for the Executive. Maybe it is, because the shutters seem to have come down more firmly than ever before down at Stormont Castle. My Committee used to pore over monitoring rounds and take briefings on what was being bid for, but those are now a mystery to the other Members of the House because the DUP and Sinn Féin have decided, for their own purposes, not to disclose monitoring bids any more.

A moment ago, Mr Agnew focused on the existence of the paper on the implications of a Brexit. I listened very carefully to the First Minister's responses yesterday and, on two occasions, she said that neither she nor her predecessor had seen that paper. What she did not say was whether the deputy First Minister had seen it.

Photo of Mike Nesbitt Mike Nesbitt UUP

That was not clear or transparent government. As the Member said, she may not have seen it because those surrounding her chose not to let her see it.

Photo of William Irwin William Irwin DUP

The motion from the Alliance Party comes just a few short months after the DUP, as the largest party in the Executive, was returned once again as the largest party in Northern Ireland. It must be pointed out —

[Interruption.]

There is a reason for that, I am sure; the electorate make the decision. It must be pointed out that the motion also comes a few months following the Alliance Party's departure from that same Executive.

Having walked the streets of Newry and Armagh for weeks before May's Assembly election, I was encouraged by the support of voters for the DUP. Many on the doorstep took the time to outline their support for our role in the Executive.

The vision of the First Minister and my party leader, Arlene Foster, for Northern Ireland resonated with the electorate. The positivity of what she presents, matched by her enthusiasm for the role of First Minister, is proving that Northern Ireland will continue to thrive within the United Kingdom under her leadership.

As the opening weeks of the new term have shown, the Opposition are struggling to come up with any meaningful business. What in effect has been seen from the Opposition is opposition within the Opposition. In other legislatures where an Opposition is present, there is normally a degree of collaboration and an understanding of purpose; however, for reasons best known to these parties and individuals involved in the Opposition, that level of understanding has been very much lacking. The motions tabled on what was termed Opposition day were on issues not within the power of the Executive, rendering the benefit of the motions marginal. Then the Alliance Party tabled this motion today.

The accusation of lack of openness and transparency stands at odds with the record of my party's involvement in the Executive —

[Laughter.]

— and with the many developments overseen across the DUP Ministries. Even —

[Interruption.]

Even in recent days, there has been significant progress in my constituency. The Communities Minister, Paul Givan, made a very important announcement of the creation of additional jobs at the Armagh Social Security Agency offices, an announcement that has been very well received in the wider Armagh area. The Alliance Party raises the issues of public trust and confidence in their motion. In response, I have given an example of the type of evidence that garners public trust and confidence. Local to me, and in response to a concern I raised, Minister Givan delivered a solution to a problem that was brought to his door. Localised delivery on issues that matter most: that is what people want.

The issue for those engaged in trying to form a meaningful Opposition is that they know that the electorate they say they represent wants Northern Ireland to flourish. People want positive politics. That is the very message the DUP took to the doorsteps, and it was endorsed wholeheartedly. Indeed, the Opposition parties got their answer from the electorate just a few months ago.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

Will the Member give way?

Photo of William Irwin William Irwin DUP

I will.

[Laughter.]

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

I thank the Member for giving way, and I note the hyenas in the corner. I am interested to know, in the interests of transparency, whether anything was held back in relation to the fitness of the infrastructure at Magilligan prison. Perhaps, at a later stage, the Alliance Party can tell us how fit for purpose that facility is, even for refurbishment.

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton Speaker

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of William Irwin William Irwin DUP

I thank the Member for his intervention. Indeed, that will be very interesting.

I believe that the Opposition have a grave dilemma. I fear that they will slip into the trap of opposition for opposition's sake. That, of course, is a decision for them. In the meantime, the DUP will continue with its plan for delivery, and we will ensure that Northern Ireland moves forward and thrives.

Photo of Alex Maskey Alex Maskey Sinn Féin

I rise on behalf of Sinn Féin to reject the motion and the amendments. I will make a number of points, and maybe we could have a respectful discussion; but that is in the gift of the Speaker, not me.

Stephen Farry, on behalf of Alliance, proposed the motion and spoke to it, but it is very interesting that no one, apart from some on the sidelines, said that there has been anything illegal, inappropriate or wrong in the various decisions that have been taken or in the delay or non-production of documentation at any given time. The issues that Stephen Farry raised are really policy matters and manifesto commitments that parties have made, and you either agree with them or you do not.

For example, the decentralisation of her Department by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and the means to do that were raised as being somehow inappropriate. The fact of the matter is that it was a commitment given to the electorate and delivered upon. Whilst I accept that there may be arguments against that, there are many very good arguments for it. The fact of the matter is that it was a policy decision that was taken in the interests of the people who were served by the Minister and, I suppose, the Executive as a whole.

To also suggest for one second that the current Minister of Health is sitting on the Bengoa report is actually quite disgraceful. I accept that, in his presentation, Mr Farry was, for the most part, very respectful in his contribution, but I think that it was very wrong to imply at all that the Minister is sitting on the Bengoa report.

Photo of Stephen Farry Stephen Farry Alliance

Where is it? Will the Member give way?

Photo of Alex Maskey Alex Maskey Sinn Féin

No, you will all have plenty of time. You will have your Opposition days. You will have all sorts of opportunities to ask your questions. I have to try to condense what I have to say in just a few short minutes.

What I am saying is that there are issues, whether they be the Bengoa report, decentralisation or Executive funding programmes like SIF. All the Executives, from the initiation of the Assembly in 1998, have had a variation of Executive programme funds, which allowed, in the first instance, the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party to establish the Executive funds by which they could cross-fertilise ideas and fund bigger programmes, including support for children's programmes and all the rest. The fact that this Executive and the previous one, which had Ulster Unionist Party and SDLP involvement, have had Executive programmes is hardly a surprise, because it has been the practice since the day and hour that the Assembly was formed in 1998-99.

Likewise, Mr Agnew referred to the decisions about support for the New York flight and City of Derry Airport. Mr Agnew is entirely entitled to his opinion on whether to oppose the financial and other support for those initiatives — the airport and the flight. He is entitled to have that opinion, but so, too, the Minister and the Executive are entitled to take some positive action to address those issues. I dare say that the vast majority of people right across the North and maybe further afield will also very much welcome the fact that support was given to both the New York flight arrangements and the City of Derry Airport. Those policies are delivering for people.

I have to say that, on quite a number of occasions in the last mandate, as a member of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister — Mike Nesbitt, the former Chair of that Committee, will know and, I presume, would concur — I supported him in calls to the First Minister and deputy First Minister to ensure that the Committee was treated respectfully and properly and was given papers on time and proper briefings. I raised that myself within my party.

As everybody around this table knows, we have had three or four years of significant debate in the public around what was then called the "dysfunctionality" of the Executive; an argument that was put forward by both parties that have proposed amendments this morning. We all discussed that dysfunctionality argument. Part of their problem — and I think that it has been proven — is that, first of all, the public rejected their arguments about where the fault for that lay. Quite clearly, whether people like it or not, Sinn Féin and the DUP have been returned as the two largest parties. The two parties who are making the loudest noise about dysfunctionality are those that were rejected as Government parties because people did not trust them to solve the leaks, the permanent and systemic leaking, from the Haas talks, the Stormont House talks and Executive meetings; leaks which were coming from those parties —

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton Speaker

I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Photo of Alex Maskey Alex Maskey Sinn Féin

— which were not designed to inform the public but to put themselves in a better light.

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton Speaker

I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Photo of Colin McGrath Colin McGrath Social Democratic and Labour Party

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. It is a very important debate because, over the past number of months, despite this being a new mandate and the various pledges that were made in the Fresh Start Agreement, we have seen the Executive — the Government parties — close the gaps with regard to providing information, rather than loosening the strings. It is more autocratic leadership than joint leadership. In an era of openness and effective democracy, we have already seen in this mandate the Executive shut down rather than open up government. There are issues surrounding a hidden Brexit paper, the use of prerogative powers to appoint a press secretary and allegations linking a certain political party to the dealings of the NAMA Project Eagle sale. They have all undermined the democratic processes of the House. They may fly in the face of due process: I will not even mention the rule of law.

Only last week, we heard, through the excellent work of 'The Detail' with an FOI request, that a 15-page document was drawn up by the European policy and coordination unit in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister that listed 20 ways in which an EU exit would hit the Northern Ireland economy. The document noted:

"we could lose access to: €862million in Structural Funds and European Social Fund ... €2.5bn in Common Agricultural Policy funding ... and loss of access to competitive EU funding".

If we are operating with an open and transparent Government, we have to ask ourselves this: why was that document not released? Was it not, surely, in the public interest? The only conclusion that I can come to is that it was at odds with the DUP's ridiculous position on the referendum and that it certainly did not want it. Sinn Féin, who supposedly wanted to remain but did not even register as a campaigner, was happy to go along with the DUP agenda.

I do not agree with the deputy First Minister's claim that the statistics were already in the public domain. The unit that compiled the report had expert knowledge of the EU and its relationships with the North. The information did not make its way into the public domain, despite being clearly in the public interest.

Then, of course, we have the monitoring round bids, with information about departmental priorities being made available for Committees to scrutinise. In our new era of openness and transparency, that has been closed down. We are shut out. We are told, "You're in the Opposition now. Just get on with it". I have to say, I love the DUP and Sinn Féin's approach to openness and transparency: they tell you nothing.

When we then look at the recent appointment of David Gordon as the Executive's media spin doctor, we see that further issues about secrecy and transparency arise. Prerogative powers are meant for the most serious of issues: in this case, they were used to bypass employment law. That is not what the powers were designed for, and it is ironic that Sinn Féin, a supposedly republican party, was happy enough to bow to the Queen and accept her royal prerogative.

Perhaps the biggest financial crisis facing this institution and the wider North has been the NAMA sale and Project Eagle. Serious allegations have been made against certain Executive parties. There have been moves to prevent the House from conducting a Committee inquiry, despite legal advice that there was no conflict here with the NCA criminal investigation. Again, we have to ask ourselves this: what is being covered up?

I was looking forward to the spirit of openness and transparency and to hearing what the Ministers would say. Unfortunately, we do not have a Minister from our Executive brave enough to come down and hear what they do not want to hear: that the public of the North are interested in openness and transparency. I fear that the public might perceive it as a tactical and wilful obstruction of the House and its processes that no Minister would come down and give us a response.

I welcome the amendments. The amendment proposed by Mr Agnew, which was tabled jointly with my SDLP colleagues, calls for a commissioner to investigate breaches of the ministerial code. I support that, especially —

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton Speaker 12:30, 4 October 2016

I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Photo of Colin McGrath Colin McGrath Social Democratic and Labour Party

— concerning the withholding of the EU document. I also welcome the joint Ulster Unionist/SDLP amendment, which calls for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to act. That is very welcome. I urge the House to support the motion and the amendments.

Photo of Christopher Stalford Christopher Stalford DUP

Today, we could be talking about health, education, roads, jobs or anything, but, instead, the bold, brave Opposition, under the leadership of the Member for Strangford, are interested in an insiderish political bubble-type story that will not put one loaf of bread on anyone's table. That, I think, speaks —

Photo of Jim Allister Jim Allister Traditional Unionist Voice

It puts bread on your table.

Photo of Christopher Stalford Christopher Stalford DUP

That, I think, speaks — Do you want me to give way?

Photo of Jim Allister Jim Allister Traditional Unionist Voice

It is interesting that we do not have a Minister, but we have a collection of wannabe Ministers here to impress those in whose hands they think their future lies. When the Member pontificates about not debating all those issues, that of course, is a mere distraction from a party that has made a lifetime's existence out of failing to come to the House —

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton Speaker

I remind the Member that interventions should be short.

Photo of Christopher Stalford Christopher Stalford DUP

No one will ever accuse the Member of being a wannabe Minister, just a wannabe.

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton Speaker

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Christopher Stalford Christopher Stalford DUP

The fact is that they had the opportunity to use their precious time in the Assembly to talk about issues that are of real import to the people out there, and, instead, this is how they decide to use their time.

Photo of Christopher Stalford Christopher Stalford DUP

No.

That speaks volumes. The motion refers to "ongoing problems". The definition that I have of "ongoing" is "continuing or still in progress" which means they must have started at some point. I presume that that means that they started when the Ulster Unionist Party, Alliance and the SDLP were in the Government.

Photo of Christopher Stalford Christopher Stalford DUP

Well, if they started then, why did you not speak in the House on them? The fact of the matter is —

Photo of Christopher Stalford Christopher Stalford DUP

No. The fact of the matter is that the problems are not as they describe. The fact is that we are now having an attempt by three parties, two of which decided to walk away from their opportunity to serve in the Government. Instead, we are having time wasted with stuff like this.

The Member from South Down referred to royal prerogative powers being used. I asked him to give way, and he refused. I am glad to take the opportunity to remind the Member that, when the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP were the largest parties in the Chamber, Mr Trimble and Mr Mallon, the then First Minister and deputy First Minister, also used those powers in making a public appointment. There are probably very few people who were here at that time, but I do not recall hearing then the outrage that we hear from others now about the use of royal prerogative powers.

When they say that there is not proper accountability or scrutiny in the House, what they are really saying is that they are not up to the job. This is supposed to be the Opposition. This is supposed to be the power —

Photo of Robin Swann Robin Swann UUP

Will the Member give way?

Photo of Christopher Stalford Christopher Stalford DUP

I will give way to Robin in a few seconds.

[Interruption.]

I like people from North Antrim. It is Mr Allister and then Mr Swann. I like North Antrim: it always sends a good DUP squad here.

I hear people saying that there is no proper scrutiny in this place: they are saying that they are failures at the job of opposition. When they say that they want information and access to this and that, they are really saying that they want the Government to do the job for them. Having elected to be irrelevant and on the sidelines, they now want the Government to assist them because being in opposition is too much like hard work.

Photo of Robin Swann Robin Swann UUP

Thank you very much. You know what we want. As the Opposition, what we really want is for Ministers to answer us and for them to appear in the Chamber and actually respond to the Opposition rather than hiding away at champagne receptions. Thank you for giving way.

Photo of Christopher Stalford Christopher Stalford DUP

I am happy to. There have been numerous references to the champagne reception. Look, Robin, I promise I will get you an invite for next year. You were out with us —

[Interruption.]

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton Speaker

Order, the Member must be heard.

Photo of Christopher Stalford Christopher Stalford DUP

I think we should make it an annual occurrence. Given the rate at which people are leaving the Ulster Unionist Party to join the DUP, Robin might be with us next year, so he would be more than welcome.

Today, the Opposition, when they decry the inability to hold Ministers to account, are effectively admitting that they are not up to the job. Some comment was made about the social investment fund. I would like to respond to it, and I have spoken about it before in the House. The greatest criticism that I have of the social investment fund is that it took too long to deliver it. I accept that it took too long to deliver.

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton Speaker

I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Photo of Christopher Stalford Christopher Stalford DUP

Yes. I will say that the social investment fund is delivering and will deliver massive improvements to some of the communities that I represent, and those projects were selected independently and fairly.

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton Speaker

The Member's time is up.

Photo of Sean Lynch Sean Lynch Sinn Féin

I oppose the motion and the amendments. We are all for openness and transparency —

[Laughter.]

Yes, absolutely — and we are all for inclusive and positive government. It is ironic that the parties that are laughing walked away from the Executive and are now complaining that they do not know what is going on in it. When they were there, they adopted a negative agenda, opposing almost everything and routinely voting against every —

Photo of Sean Lynch Sean Lynch Sinn Féin

No. — every initiative and every Budget. I could accept that if they had proposed alternatives, but they did not. It was a political strategy to oppose everything; a failure to demonstrate any kind of positive or collective leadership. We had the election, as other Members mentioned, on 5 May. The electorate had its say and, as a result, the same parties find themselves taking up the negative agenda in opposition on the Back Benches. They walked away from the responsibilities of governing and delivering for the people who elected all of us to the House.

Last week, we had what looked like an Opposition day in which two of the three motions tabled were not in the competence of the Assembly. Yes, I want to see rural banks stay open, particularly in Belleek in my constituency, but it is misleading to raise people's expectations when we could not resolve the issue in the Assembly. It was the same with the changes to pensions that impacted women born in the 1950s. It is an important issue, but it is one that cannot be dealt with in the Assembly. There was a motion on roads maintenance, and a Member — he is not here today — from my constituency, led the House to believe that there had not been a pound spent on the roads in Fermanagh in decades. The reality is that the new Minister, Chris Hazzard, announced a roads initiative worth millions of pounds that is being rolled out on 56 roads in Fermanagh at this moment. That is positive, constructive leadership, dealing with real issues that affect people's daily lives, not carping from the sidelines. Not once during the debate did the Opposition come up with a constructive idea.

The SDLP walked away from the Health portfolio; it was handed to them, but they refused it and sat on their hands. When I hear SDLP Members raise issues in my constituency, whether it is the GP crisis, adult learning funding, or services in Enniskillen, they should let everybody know from the outset that they were offered the portfolio but did not take it; they want to sit on the sidelines.

Photo of Mike Nesbitt Mike Nesbitt UUP

Will the Member give way?

Photo of Sean Lynch Sean Lynch Sinn Féin

No, I am not giving way. It reminds me of someone who refuses to take the post of manager of a football team but continues to criticise from the sidelines. A well-known and successful GAA manager once said, when asked about his detractors, "Empty vessels make most noise".

These two parties were elected to deliver, and that is what we are doing.

Photo of Gordon Lyons Gordon Lyons DUP

I know that the Members who spoke today do not like to be reminded of the fact, but this is seen as — I think that Mr Farry mentioned it — a "Stormont bubble" issue. It is seen as something that does not really affect the lives of the majority of the people whom we represent. When I think back over the last week and the issues that —

Photo of Gordon Lyons Gordon Lyons DUP

No, I will not. The issues that people have raised with me have been about broadband, special needs education, social housing, agriculture, road safety and all those other things. I defend the right of the Alliance Party and others to bring whatever motion they want before the House; that is their right, and they have the opportunity to do so. However, I do not think that it is an issue that is high in public concern. Perhaps that demonstrates why the DUP had a good election while some of the parties to my right did not. I also know that those Members do not like to be reminded of that, because they get very annoyed when they are reminded about the electoral mandate that we came to the House with. When we spend time speaking about these issues, we lose some of the trust and confidence of the public.

The public think, "Here they go again, talking about process and issues that appear to pertain to what is going on in that Building rather than what is going on outside". That said, the Member has taken the opportunity to table a Motion, and we will address it.

Members spoke about openness and transparency in this place. A lot of the scrutiny of the Executive and legislation has to take place at Committees, but the same Members will say, "Oh, but we're not very good at doing that" or, "We are not able to do that" or, "We haven't had success in doing that". Use the powers that you have, and, if you do not believe that you have the powers, ask for the powers. We hear so much about constructive opposition, but all we have had today is a whingeing session from the other Members. What is this all about today? This is all about opposition. This is not about the Executive, and it is not about openness and transparency.

Photo of Gordon Lyons Gordon Lyons DUP

No, this is about the Opposition struggling to come to terms with the fact that they are no longer in government. They have had one foot in and one foot out of government over the last number of years, and now —

Photo of Gordon Lyons Gordon Lyons DUP

You have all had your time, and I am sure that you will have time later, Mr Ford, and you can respond to me then.

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton Speaker

The Member has indicated that he is not willing to give way. Members should not persist.

Photo of Gordon Lyons Gordon Lyons DUP

We have an Opposition that is struggling to come to terms —

A Member:

Will the Member give way?

Photo of Gordon Lyons Gordon Lyons DUP

I will not give way to Members until I get through a few more of the points that I want to make. This is about opposition and the poor quality of opposition. What is it over the last number of days that the Ulster Unionist Party has crowed about most and been most concerned about? It is the fact that the DUP is hosting a champagne reception at the DUP — sorry, the Conservative Party — conference.

Photo of Mike Nesbitt Mike Nesbitt UUP

You are one.

Photo of Gordon Lyons Gordon Lyons DUP

I never stood on an electoral platform with them, so the Member should be very careful.

That is what this is all about: the fact that they have nothing of any substance to bring. They focus on issues of process. The Opposition, and I wish them well in their task, need to learn to do their job a little bit better. They need to learn not to rely on journalists or the Executive to do their job for them — that is what is happening.

I am sure that, if Members have any positive suggestions about how we can be more open and transparent, those will be listened to, but they should not expect others to do their job for them.

Photo of Robin Swann Robin Swann UUP

Before I talk on the motion or the amendments, I would like to respond to Mr Stalford's invitation to join the DUP. It is not the first I have received, but I will give him the same answer as I gave every other one, "Never, never, never".

[Laughter.]

That came from north Antrim as well.

The currency of leadership is transparency, and if we use that to measure the Executive's response today, the Executive are bankrupt. They have failed to send a single Minister to address the issue of openness and transparency, and the concerns raised by a significant number of Members in the House. That is where the failure lies.

Openness and transparency are the key weapons that the people of Northern Ireland have, and the Opposition in this place have, to hold this Government to account. If you fail to deliver openness and transparency, that engenders in people the sense that there is, by default, dishonesty and corruption. That is where this place, if we do not look to the openness and transparency that can be delivered, is in danger of going today.

I listened to the DUP and Sinn Féin contributors; they want to deflect from the real concerns — concerns that their MLAs have raised in the House and in Committee at different times. Mr Lyons spoke about using powers. The OFMDFM Committee was nearly forced to use those powers to bring OFMDFM to account and to bring Ministers in front of it. It should not have to; that is the point. The Ministers should be open and transparent about their policies and beliefs and about what their Executive are trying to deliver. They should not hide behind royal prerogative or monitoring rounds, which no longer come before Committees, no matter whether Committees ask for them, Mr Lyons. I assure you that they have asked. We have been told, "No, you're not getting the monitoring rounds; you'll see them when they're done" — like the last time. That only came about —

Photo of Christopher Stalford Christopher Stalford DUP

I appreciate the Member giving way. One of the great arguments about opposition was that people wanted to move towards a more Westminster style of doing things. That is precisely how things are done in Westminster with the monitoring rounds. Similarly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer generally gives the Budget to the Leader of the Opposition about 45 minutes before he delivers it in the House of Commons.

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton Speaker

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Robin Swann Robin Swann UUP

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

I accept the Member's intervention. Opposition is about making this place more open and transparent. If the Executive take that backward step and use other places as a reason to hide what they are doing, they are wrong. They should use the procedures that were established in the House and practised by his Ministers in the past in regard to monitoring rounds. It was only when the current Executive came about that monitoring rounds started to become secretive and were done behind closed doors.

Photo of Stephen Farry Stephen Farry Alliance

I am thankful to the Member for giving way. If the DUP wants to use Westminster as its benchmark, does Mr Swann agree that, in Westminster, it would not be tolerated if papers were late for Committees, Ministers were not showing up frequently and announcements were being made by press release as opposed to on the Floor of the House of Commons, where Back-Bench MPs can hold Ministers to account?

Photo of Robin Swann Robin Swann UUP

I fully accept the Member's contribution. This place is not Westminster. If it were as simple as that, we would be drinking champagne with the DUP.

[Laughter.]

Mr Irwin hailed his Communities Minister, who came to Newry and Armagh and made the great job announcement. That was great for your constituents. What about the other offices that were closed? The representatives in the House, including representatives from your party, did not get a chance to ask your Minister about those. Do you know why it was not done in here? It was because they did not have the answers. It is about giving sweeties to the people to try to keep them happy. It is about subterfuge rather than being accountable politically to this place.

I have some sympathy for the DUP and Sinn Féin contributors today. It is obvious that they are the Lobby fodder of their parties. Their Ministers failed to show for this debate today to be held accountable. Much has been said about us not using this time to debate broadband or special needs. The point of the motion and the amendments is that, when it comes to debates on broadband or special needs in the House, or when projects are being delivered by Ministers, we, as elected representatives, have the opportunity not just to question but to contribute to those debates and shape that policy. The special needs inquiry that was put through the Employment and —

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton Speaker

I call on the Member to conclude his remarks.

Photo of Robin Swann Robin Swann UUP

— Learning Committee prior to devolution is something that should be delivered in the House by Ministers.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

We have heard quite a bit from the Opposition today about issues of transparency. My colleague Mr Stalford pointed out quite correctly that it is the job of the Opposition to probe and question and to seek out and find information. It is not the job of the Government to hand it all to them —

[Interruption.]

It is the job of the Government to deliver and ensure that delivery is carried out. Very often, releasing information in advance of that can inhibit delivery. Very often, people will come in and seek to exploit things for party political interests as opposed to the interests of the public. It is incredibly important that those people who are in government carry out their work in a way that is proficient and ensures that delivery happens. Delivery on the ground is fundamentally important to the public, not the issue that is being raised.

Photo of David Ford David Ford Alliance

I am grateful for the fact that at least one Member of the DUP has the grace to give way, and I thank Mr Poots for that. Mr Poots and I have been in this House since 1998. The 1998 Northern Ireland Act specifies that the role of Committees is to "advise and assist" Ministers. Perhaps Mr Poots will now explain how that is to be their function if they are not given any information by Ministers.

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton Speaker

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

I thank the Member for his intervention. I had rather hoped that he would deal with the issue of Magilligan, which I mentioned earlier, but he failed to tell people what is going on.

Photo of David Ford David Ford Alliance

I will do it later; do not worry.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

I welcome that because I think that there could be something interesting in relation to it.

Nobody is suggesting that Committees are not given information. Who is actually suggesting that Committees are not given information? I found in my past role that, sometimes, Members can get information that was not previously made available to Ministers. Sometimes civil servants do not want all the information available to go to Ministers, so I always welcomed good, probing questions being asked that got to the issues and that could assist a Minister in the execution of their duties.

Mr Allister asked many questions, and he referred to wannabe Ministers. Mr Allister is, of course, a wannabe leader of unionism, which has never happened for him, and he is a wannabe MP, but Ian Paisley showed him a very clean pair of heels when he made that attempt. We will not be taking any lectures from Mr Allister about wannabees.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

I had six and a half years of it, so I did not do too badly. They took a brave while to catch me on.

[Laughter.]

We are here today, and what we are interested in as a Government, as an Executive and as a party of government is delivery for the people of Northern Ireland. Breast cancer and the issues around that were raised earlier. Those are the issues that are fundamental, and Mr Durkan, in fairness, has a question down on that. I know that the Opposition are just finding their feet, but they appear to be clambering about and taking a stab here and there without any real coherence. They appear to be somewhat leaderless and rudderless, and having Mr Nesbitt as leader of the Opposition is somewhat worrying for those of us who would like to see an effective Opposition in this House because, after all, he is a failed political leader. In virtually every election that he goes into, he comes out with a worse result.

Photo of Steven Agnew Steven Agnew Green

I appreciate the Member's giving way. There has been an attempt to turn this into something that is only relevant to the people in this room. When Arlene Foster issued a licence for fracking in Fermanagh, there was a public petition, which I presented to the Assembly, there were protests and there was huge public interest. The complaints that came to the Standards and Privileges Committee against Ministers were from members of the public. This is an issue of importance to the public.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

The Member has raised many environmental issues, and many of them I disagree with. I would much prefer that, if there were resources available here in Northern Ireland, we look at that and see whether we can use those resources for the population in Northern Ireland, as opposed to importing oil from regions in the Middle East and Africa and gas from Siberia and so forth, where, very often, much poorer environmental conditions apply. If you are looking at the global earth, it would be much better to do the thing right here than import it from somewhere else and ignore what is going on. Perhaps Mr Agnew will reflect that in his green policies. Is it just green here in Northern Ireland, or is it green elsewhere?

Those are issues that we are very happy to take on and debate. The issue that is in front of us today is, for the general public, a non-issue, and it has been brought forward by a somewhat rudderless Opposition.

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton Speaker

The Business Committee has agreed to meet at 1.00 pm today. I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm, when the first item of business will be Question Time.

The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 1.00 pm.

On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McGlone] in the Chair) —