Diane Dodds
West Belfast · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Minister, that is a brilliant segue into the question that I will ask. Just over 5% of women who are now seen within the 14-day target for a suspected breast cancer in Northern Ireland. That has happened since the list was regionalised. I get the fact that cancer cases are rising, but —”
“Minister, for Members and those who are listening to the debate, it is important that you tell us what "actively being considered" means on a day-to-day basis.”
“Thank you, Minister. The Muckamore inquiry report demonstrates a shameful period for our health service, and no one involved can, in any shape or form, come out of this with any kind of credibility.”
“Let me be clear: experimental treatment on children that can have lifelong implications is unconscionable. Children of 11 or 12 are in no position to give clear consent to the use of such drugs, especially when those administering the treatments had them banned because of the lack of evidence on their long-term impacts.”
“Once again, I will speak in the House about puberty blockers and the nationwide trial run by King's College. I now understand that the Government will issue new guidance that will allow such a trial to go ahead.”
“It is now anticipated that more than eight out of 10 couples in which the woman is under 40 will conceive naturally, but that leaves two out of 10 who will need additional interventions. Over a lifespan, that is a fairly substantial number of people.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,456 lines we hold for Diane Dodds, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 39 of 50.
“Therefore, I move that the Assembly should now approve these regulations. Thank you.”
“The extension of this measure and the date to which it will be extended correspond with what is being done in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is imperative that mutual societies in Northern Ireland can avail themselves of the same easing of requirements as their counterparts in Great Britain. However, I am aware that many credit unions hold their AGMs in January and February, and my officials are working on a subsequent statutory rule to further extend the period to ensure that none of our hard-working mutuals are disadvantaged. I have written to the Committee and the Executive to inform them of this further extension of support to the sector. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, the extension of this temporary measure will provide continuing support and assistance to local mutuals and their members.”
“The coronavirus pandemic has not been the isolated and short-term event that was envisaged when the Act was passed earlier this year. I consider that it is now prudent to extend the measure to provide continued support to local mutual organisations. The Act allows my Department to extend the measure by up to three months at a time, so this statutory rule extends the temporary period by three months until 30 December 2020. Following consultation with sector representatives, it is appropriate to extend this measure from 1 October 2020 to allow cooperatives to hold their annual general meetings. <BR /> <BR />The regulations that the House is being asked to approve have been agreed with the Department's Committee, and the Executive were advised prior to their being made. The measure has the support of sector representatives.”
“Credit union representatives specifically explained how planned annual general meetings must be held in the coming months so that decisions can be taken about dividends. Many of their members are financially excluded and rely on annual dividends and interest rebate payments as part of their financial planning.”
“<BR /> <BR />Meetings, especially annual general meetings (AGMs), are required to progress corporate governance in mutuals, and crucial decisions can be made only following a vote by members. Trade representatives have detailed how corporate governance and oversight is likely to be affected or, indeed, suspended, if flexibility in how they hold their statutory meetings cannot be extended.”
“<BR /> <BR />In relation to the regulations, the Act includes a temporary relaxation of the manner in which meetings of mutual societies can be held. As some mutuals are bound by their constitution to hold meetings in a physical location, the Act sets aside requirements to hold physical meetings so that those organisations can continue to operate throughout the period of public health restrictions. The measure allows flexibility in how a meeting can be held; for example, an organisation may make use of technology and hold a virtual meeting or postal votes could be used instead of the usual show of hands at a meeting. That temporary measure was originally to expire on 30 September 2020; however, the Act allows my Department to extend the temporary measures for mutuals in Northern Ireland if it is considered necessary.”
“I seek the Assembly's approval of the statutory rule, which was made on 28 September and came into operation on 1 October. The regulations are made under powers set out in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, which was made at Westminster on 25 June 2020. The Act is a piece of emergency legislation that extends to the whole of the United Kingdom following a legislative consent motion passed by the Assembly on 2 June 2020. The Act contains provisions to help companies and mutual societies, cooperatives, community benefit societies and credit unions to deal with the serious economic consequences resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and includes corporate insolvency and governance measures.”
“I indicated that most of the problems related to the automatic payments. However, it is clear, it was clear at the very outset of the scheme and the eligibility for the scheme was clear that it was not applicable to MP and MLA constituency offices. Anyone who received that money into their bank account — paid automatically, in error and unasked for — should have returned it and should not have been tardy in doing so. <BR /> <BR />In the further schemes, we need to strike a balance between getting money out to people who are in awful circumstances because of the restrictions that have been placed upon their daily lives and the risk to the public purse and the timescale that we have to get money to people in order to help them in very difficult circumstances.”
“I certainly am not using it. I am not using it for the COVID restrictions support scheme, which is currently under way. Perhaps Members would like an update. That scheme launched late on Wednesday afternoon. We worked very hard to get that out. Part A of the scheme has launched. To date, we have around 1,200 applications, with many more draft applications in the pipeline. <BR /> <BR />Again, I say to the House, because we need to be clear: this is about the balance that we strike on all that. Checking data and being able to check eligibility criteria are very important in de-risking a scheme, but it makes it slower to administer. Therefore, we have to choose.”
“We set out the parameters and eligibility for the scheme. If a business applied and was not eligible, it is clearly in the wrong. What it has done is wrong, and, therefore, we will come after it for payment.”
“That was not so much the case with either the £25,000 scheme or the microbusiness hardship scheme. I have stood in the Chamber and heard people complain about how slow those schemes were because of the application process. Of course, that process takes away considerable risk from the scheme. Therefore, we must all make choices in what we do and how we conduct business. <BR /> <BR />Going forward, those application processes are important, as would be — as I have explained to a number of Members on a number of occasions — HMRC cooperation in the verification of data, which still eludes me to this day.”
“I thank the Member for his question, which really centres on automatic payments. As I said in my answer to the previous question, it was a balance between getting money out quickly and the risk of fraud and error. The Executive decided that we should use the LPS data system because it was a rates-based scheme. That mirrored all the schemes that were put in place across the United Kingdom. We did not invent something that was new or different. Obviously, as we are now fully cognisant of, in the haste to get money out, we used the database, but it included some businesses that we would not necessarily think of as being impacted by the COVID pandemic. As soon as we realised that with regard to wind turbines, we moved to exclude them. Again, it was a method by which to get money out.”
“Thank you for your question. You are absolutely right: I wrote to Executive colleagues before the scheme launched on 25 March. I received a response from every party in the Executive, which indicated that, even though I had outlined the risk, that risk, when balanced against the need to get money out very quickly in a very difficult situation in order to save jobs and businesses that would have failed, was appropriate in the circumstances. We are now in a situation, as the scheme has closed, where we will evaluate and take the scheme forward. If you got money and you know that you are not entitled to that money, that money should be paid back. We will be writing to everyone whom we are aware of in those circumstances, and we will try to seek the recovery of that money for the public purse.”
“I remind the Member that we should try to eliminate fraud and error in all aspects of life, and that includes in the benefits payment system. I looked this up the other day: in 2018, the fraud and error in the benefits system amounted to £60 million in Northern Ireland. I encourage people who are in that situation to make that right. I do not approve of it in any form of life. I also say that, if payments were made in error, people should return those payments. The eligibility criteria are very clear on the website, and people can examine the eligibility criteria. People should look at it very carefully, and, if they have received a payment in error, they should return it.”
“It is worth reminding Members that 24,700 grants went out in an extremely short space of time under very difficult circumstances. Currently, including the 52 wind turbines, the number stands at just over 400.”
“I will take the last part of your question first. My Department has advised people of a telephone number that they can call to make arrangements with LPS. If there are very specific difficulties, I will, of course, pass it on to LPS. However, the Member will be aware that LPS is under the control of the Finance Minister, so this may be a matter that he would wish to take up with him. <BR /> <BR />At present, as we know it and before we have done a full evaluation of the scheme, most of the difficulties lie within the 7,000 automatic payments, because the other payments were actually processed, and many of them were processed and checked manually by people from my Department. It was a huge undertaking to try to get those grants out in a very short space of time.”
“<BR /> <BR />Be aware, folks, that we will come back at businesses that have not claimed properly or businesses that, through no fault of their own — and that was the case with some of the businesses, and we do not want to make people out to be in the wrong where they are not in the wrong — received one of the 7,000 automatic payments, and we will attempt to recover all the moneys that are owed.”
“I thank the Member for her question. We are now only starting the evaluation of the scheme. We had done some preliminary work on areas where we thought there may be difficulties with the scheme. For those who are concerned about the issue of payment to wind turbine owners, the small business rate relief scheme is an all-encompassing scheme, and Members of this Assembly and members of the Finance Committee may wish to examine it in further detail. We discovered that many businesses that are eligible for small business rate relief are strange, to say the least. For example, we discovered that payments had been made through the automatic process to wind turbine owners. We later moved to make those ineligible for the scheme.”
“I want to thank the Member for his question and to correct him. I never indicated at any stage that we should rip up the rule book. In actual fact, I cautioned, in a letter to my Executive colleagues — and I brought it with me — on 25 March, before the scheme launched, that there would be risk to the scheme. So, I am not in favour of ripping up the rule book. The rule book is there for a very good reason. I included certain exemptions to the scheme. Those exemptions included MPs' and MLAs' constituency offices. That was clear from the start, alongside businesses that were insolvent or dormant etc. Therefore, I had a very clear set of guidelines for those who were operating the scheme, and we will write to those people and seek to claw back money that was paid in contravention of the guidelines for the scheme.”
“I thank the Member for his question. I assure him that appeals will, and should, be heard as quickly as possible. Those who are still waiting tend to be the most difficult and intricate cases, and they are probably waiting for further information etc. We will ensure that that happens. That is important, and I thank the Member for highlighting that. It is very significant.”
“There are very limited numbers of officials to work on all those grant schemes at the same time, and I refer you to Her Majesty's Treasury, which has indicated that the full scale of fraud and error in the job retention scheme may not be known until 2021.”
“As I have noted in the Chamber already today, the scheme closed on 20 October. We will write to everyone whom we identify as being ineligible for payment and ask them to return the money. It is important that we have proper accountability for taxpayers' money. Indeed, it is particularly important at a time like this when so many businesses are suffering and so many individuals are hurting because of the health crisis in our communities. Yes, that process will be undertaken, but be aware, colleagues in the Chamber, that, in response to the four-week restrictions, we are also putting together another set of grant schemes.”
“<BR /> <BR />As well as that, my Department has been working on skills, on higher education, on further education, on improving our green, clean energy strategy for the future and, of course, on developing our overall economic strategy for the future. These are incredibly difficult times, and I thank the officials in my Department for their response and work so far. I also want to place on record in the House — it is very important — the work of Land and Property Services. Many people across the Chamber will have cause to be very grateful to Ian Snowden, who personally rang them time and time again to answer queries for businesses. It is worthwhile putting that on the record today.”
“That does not really relate to the question, Mr Speaker, but, of course, I will answer it because it is very relevant. <BR /> <BR />In terms of COVID-19, the only other Department that had a response rate similar to that of the Department for the Economy was the Department of Health, which you would absolutely expect in a health pandemic. My Department moved very quickly, as the Comptroller and Auditor General indicated in his preliminary report into the Executive's response to the pandemic so far. Again, as the Comptroller and Auditor General says, by moving quickly and getting money out quickly, my Department saved many thousands of jobs and thousands of businesses that would otherwise have failed.”
“The subsequent application process, whilst slower, was open to less risk, and we should remember that for subsequent processes in the future.”
“Yes. I thank the Member for his question and comments and for reminding the House that many Members, from every single party in the Chamber, urged us at the time to rip up the rule book in order to get money out quickly. "Bury bureaucracy" was a phrase that was used. The honest answer is that we were in an incredibly difficult situation: a pandemic that we had never before been in as a nation. We had been told that businesses had to cease trading, and there was a huge concern that many of those businesses would subsequently fail were they not to receive the support that they did. <BR /> <BR />The Executive took a decision, supported by every party in the Executive, that there would be a number of automatic payments because that would get money out more quickly to those businesses. That is where we have seen most of the difficulties.”
“Many businesses are here today that would not be here had they not had that type of relief, alongside the other national programmes that our Government put in place. Many businesses comment to me about that on many occasions.”
“First, I inform the Member that the process only closed on 20 October. The reason that it was allowed to continue was to allow for appeals concerning the £10,000 small business grant scheme. It is very important to remember that. <BR /> <BR />I have said, as I said to my Executive colleagues in my letter of 25 March, which asked for approval for the scheme, that we will have a full evaluation of the scheme, followed by a process of recovery of any payments that are deemed ineligible. We will allow the process to continue to ensure that those payments made in error are recovered and to ensure that businesses that got the money were able to continue in business. <BR /> <BR />We saved many businesses in Northern Ireland through the £10,000 small business grant scheme.”
“<BR /> <BR />The scheme closed on 20 October to appeals. My Department is committed to undertaking a post-scheme evaluation and will put in place a full process to recover ineligible payments. To date, 74 payments have been recovered in full. I am content that my Department took the necessary, swift action to support tens of thousands of businesses and jobs under threat because of the COVID-19 crisis.”
“The data that was used to process the payments is held by LPS. An online portal was also launched for those businesses for which LPS did not hold bank details. <BR /> <BR />In my letter to Executive colleagues on 25 March, I set out that a subsequent audit of the scheme would provide an opportunity to identify payments made in error and to consider options for recovery. I remain committed to that today. <BR /> <BR />The eligibility criteria for the scheme included a list of exclusions, including vacant properties, MPs' and MLAs' offices, and businesses that were insolvent or dormant. Every effort was undertaken in the time available to ensure that automatic payments were made only to eligible businesses. I am aware, however, that a number of ineligible payments were issued, representing less than 2% of the 24,700 grants issued.”
“The scheme mirrored those being implemented in other parts of the United Kingdom. <BR /> <BR />Every party in the Executive agreed that there was a need to get payments to businesses as quickly as possible. For that reason, it was agreed that approximately 7,000 automatic payments would be made to those businesses for whom Land and Property Services (LPS) holds bank details for rating purposes. The Executive took that decision fully cognisant of the risk. To save businesses and jobs, it was simply not possible to put in place the checks and balances that would normally be associated with schemes of this nature. The scheme was announced on 18 March and launched eight days later on 26 March.”
“I wish to start my response with a reference to the Comptroller and Auditor General. In his report, he highlighted the fact that 20 Department for the Economy initiatives were activated to support local businesses and that, as a result of that action, tens of thousands of businesses have been assisted and jobs saved. This would not have happened had the Department failed to act quickly. My Department launched three grant schemes: the £10,000 small business grant scheme, the £25,000 small business grant scheme, and the microbusiness hardship scheme. A total of £343 million was processed to approximately 32,000 businesses. The £10,000 small business grant support scheme was open to businesses registered as in receipt of small business rate relief. It was later extended to include those in receipt of industrial derating.”
“I assure all in the House that I and my Department remain committed to working with all key stakeholders to ensure that we continue to deliver key Programme for Government outcomes and climate change commitments in Northern Ireland. I have set out my Department's direction of travel, which will result in the Assembly and the Executive being able to deliver an evidence-based petroleum licensing policy for Northern Ireland, for the benefit of all our citizens.”
“<BR /> <BR />At this stage, I cannot support the motion as presented. I have taken legal advice on the matter and have been advised that the course of action proposed in the motion would, most likely, be subject to challenge. Accordingly, my view is that the appropriate way forward is to undertake the Northern Ireland-specific research that my Department is in the process of procuring. As Minister with responsibility for this area, I am asking for the time and space to allow officials to develop evidence-based policy proposals that will be subject to a rigorous policy development process. I will then ask the Executive to take a fully informed decision. <BR /> <BR />To conclude, I thank Members for their contributions to today's debate.”
“It will substantially improve our energy efficiency and benefit energy consumers. The review of petroleum licensing policy will therefore need to take account of the policy direction in the energy strategy. I thank Mr Dickson for reminding the House that I have said very clearly that Northern Ireland needs not just economic recovery but a green economic recovery and sustainable environmental policies that can be part of the new economy in Northern Ireland's second century. <BR /> <BR />I understand that the motion has wide support across the Chamber and that petroleum development is a very emotive subject. As Minister, I want to ensure that any decision that I recommend to the Executive on future policy is based on robust evidence and presents the best way forward for Northern Ireland as a whole.”
“After any proposals for a future policy have been fully developed and assessed, it will then be taken forward to a public consultation. Ultimately, the final decision on the future petroleum licensing policy for Northern Ireland will then be taken to the Executive, prior to the draft legislation coming before this House. That is my commitment to this House. <BR /> <BR />Members will also be aware that my Department is developing a new energy strategy, with consumers, businesses and domestic users as central to all of the themes of work. Many have referred to it, and I look forward to engaging with you on it. Indeed, I noted the issues that you specifically addressed, Mr Aiken, and I will write to you on those very specific issues. <BR /> <BR />The new strategy will set out a road map to 2050 to decarbonise heat, power and transport.”
“<BR /> <BR />There has been much speculation this afternoon in the House, and many have referred to the policy developments in England, Scotland and Wales. One thing that England, Scotland and Wales have in common in this area of policy development is that they all carried out that independent research before coming to that policy decision, just as Northern Ireland will and should do. Once the independent research is completed, the review will move into a period of intensive stakeholder engagement, with a view to developing evidence-based petroleum licensing policy proposals. <BR /> <BR />Any new policy proposal will, as and when necessary, be subject to a full environmental and regulatory impact assessment, including a strategic environmental assessment.”
“That included engagements with counterparts in Scotland and Wales. The outputs of the review only further highlighted the deficiency of the existing information on the Northern Ireland-specific impacts of petroleum licensing. <BR /> <BR />When taken in conjunction with the number and range of issues that were raised in the consultation on the two applications, the review also identified a need for independent research into the economic, societal and environmental impacts of onshore petroleum exploration and development in Northern Ireland. This research is designed to help to inform the evidence on which we can base our future petroleum licensing policy. My Department is working through the final stages of the procurement exercise and intends to award the contract for this project in the coming days.”
“No. <BR /> <BR />I have also given a commitment that, given the cross-cutting and controversial nature of petroleum exploration and development, it will be for the Executive to make the final decision on what our future petroleum licensing policy will be. <BR /> <BR />As I indicated, my Department has commenced a wide-ranging review of our petroleum licensing regime. The review is being undertaken in accordance with the Executive's policy development toolkit, with the aim of establishing a robust evidence base from which to develop policy options for any future petroleum licensing regime. Work began in February 2019 with a high-level review of the existing regime to assess its effectiveness and the impact on sustainability, particularly in light of the UK's net-zero carbon commitments.”
“It has also brought into sharp focus the urgent need to review and update our petroleum licensing policy and regime to meet the needs of Northern Ireland going forward. I have previously made it quite clear that a review of the licensing policy in this area must be completed before any decision on the two current applications can be taken.”
“The extraordinary and unprecedented number of responses to the public consultation on petroleum licensing applications is a clear sign of the change in public attitudes and demonstrates the concerns that exist around petroleum exploration. I recognise the very legitimate unease that has been raised through the consultation process and, indeed, by Members of the House directly to me. My Department is considering the issues and will do so in conjunction with the relevant experts across government and other regulatory bodies, as is required. However, the number and range of concerns that were raised in the responses to the consultation has simply underlined the lack of knowledge and evidence that we have around the issues.”
“<BR /> <BR />In summary, across Northern Ireland at this time, we have no petroleum exploration and development licences in place, and neither of the two applications that are being considered propose the application of high-volume hydraulic fracturing.”
“Both applications were subject to a public consultation process, which closed in July 2019. My Department received in excess of 5,700 responses, which were published online at the end of October last year. Following its own review of the responses received, one of the applicant companies, Tamboran Resources (UK) Ltd, made a request to the Department to revise its application. The proposed revision will remove the need for fracking, very much as a direct result of the strength of opposition to this controversial technique, which was highlighted by the respondents to the consultation process.”
“In recognition of that clear change not only in policy objectives but in public opinion and even before the New Decade, New Approach commitment to tackle climate change head-on, a review of our approach to petroleum exploration and exploitation was needed. On that basis, my Department commenced a wide-ranging review in 2019. <BR /> <BR />I wish, for a moment or two, to return to the two petroleum licence applications that are being considered. One applicant proposes exploring for oil and gas in the porous sandstones in the area to the south-east of Lough Neagh using conventional drilling techniques. The other applicant proposes exploring for gas in County Fermanagh and initially proposed the use of high-volume hydraulic fracturing, which is also known as fracking.”
“<BR /> <BR />In the past, having the economic security of an indigenous oil or gas supply would have been welcome. My Department and its predecessors would have been strong advocates for the exploration for and exploitation of fossil fuels. However, in recent years, there has been a step change. Genuine and proven concerns about carbon emissions, global warming and the environmental impacts of petroleum extraction and use are setting a new policy context. Indeed, many in the Chamber today have recognised that evolving policy context, with references to the changes in policy in the other nations of the United Kingdom.”
“I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion, and I value the interest that has been shown by Members in this very important and current issue. <BR /> <BR />I will provide some context on the current arrangements for petroleum licensing in Northern Ireland. Onshore exploration for petroleum in Northern Ireland has been taking place on a small scale since the Petroleum (Production) Act (Northern Ireland) was introduced in 1964. Over that time, although small amounts of oil and gas have been found, no commercial extraction has taken place. There are currently no petroleum licences in Northern Ireland. The last one, held by Terrain Energy, was relinquished on 28 April 2020. The House will, of course, be aware that my Department is considering two petroleum licensing applications, and I will talk about those in more detail later.”
“Actually, as I have answered on previous questions today, I wrote to the First and deputy First Minister on Friday with a full list of those who had not been incorporated in the current Northern Ireland schemes or, more importantly, the national schemes, because many of these schemes are for the national Government to implement. I have outlined this very clearly to the First and deputy First Minister. I will, of course, write to Executive colleagues and the Finance Minister with those details.”
“Again, I agree with the Member. It is not specifically my responsibility, but I can opine on this for a moment or two. These are difficult circumstances, and I understand that some mortgage lenders have increased the contribution that they require, particularly from first-time buyers. We need to see the construction sector and the housing market move, and we need to see people able to afford their own home. Were this my area of responsibility, I would encourage the banks to look at the issues with greater flexibility.”
“It is an important issue, and we hear about it as constituency MLAs over and over again. The issue probably should be addressed to the Finance Minister, although I recognise how important it is to many people in our communities. I have had conversations with our main banks in the past number of weeks about how important it is to keep local branches open and functioning so that people can continue to have contact and do transactions as they need to, even during these difficult health situations.”
“As I said in answer to my previous question, I have been working with the Finance Minister, and, so far, there is a budget of £5·6 million for higher education students. That is available through our universities and, indeed, in some of our further education colleges for our young people. It is a time of great anxiety for young people. We saw throughout the summer how, for many of our young people, that was manifested with their exam results; now, it is manifested in trying to keep teaching going so that those young people can sit exams and be properly rewarded at the end of next year for the work that they have done. It is important that we support those young people going forward.”