Arlene Foster
Fermanagh and South Tyrone · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Yet, like too many projects, it has been tied up in legal wrangles. Too many infrastructure projects are being swallowed up in the courts. We need to improve the expertise in infrastructure delivery. We need better infrastructure for the next generation, but key projects being delayed by 10-plus years is unsustainable.”
“Any agreement involves compromises but NDNA had two central pillars that, I believe, remain important: ambition for devolution and a new cultural deal. The breadth and depth of issues that NDNA set us all to deliver on would have been enough to fill an entire term or perhaps more, let alone two years of government.”
“That confidence-and-supply agreement will leave a legacy but also highlights our challenges. Some £150 million has been rolled out via Project Stratum to bring broadband to rural areas and leave Northern Ireland as the best-connected region in Europe. When it is completed, the project will be transformational to our economy.”
“However, such short-term advantage comes at the cost of long-term harm to relationships. It is not a real partnership. Imbalance and instability are built in that will fester and deteriorate. If Brussels continues to think that the protocol is enough, it is in denial.”
“Colleagues inside and outside the House know very well that all periods of leadership must come to an end. That is why, when we are privileged and, indeed, honoured to hold such a position, we must not waste a moment in frivolous brinkmanship but forge ahead on behalf of those whom we represent.”
“The recommendations of the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT) are to be taken forward as well. I encourage all of you to do all of it, to take it forward in its totality and to speak of and implement it as one complete, independent package: a new cultural deal for Northern Ireland's new century.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,345 lines we hold for Arlene Foster, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 49 of 67.
“Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I will ask junior Minister McIlveen to answer that question.”
“There has been no indication to me or to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister in relation to that matter. The only way that we can move forward on these issues is to get on, agree welfare reform, which, I have to say, in relation to Northern Ireland, we are going to have the most generous welfare package of any part of the United Kingdom and, indeed, any part of these islands, I would say. It is time to get the matter dealt with so that we can move ahead and grow the economy in Northern Ireland.”
“I absolutely do believe that. The implementation of welfare reform is critical to implementing the agreement; it unlocks all the other issues that were agreed during the Stormont House Agreement. It was a comprehensive, balanced agreement, which had parts in it that, individually, each party may not have recommended, but it was a compromise agreement that was to move Northern Ireland forward, but, because of the non-implementation of welfare reform, we find ourselves back as if the Stormont House Agreement had not been agreed. What does it say to the wider world that we came to an agreement and then we cannot deliver on it? It is very important that we move forward on welfare reform so that we can move forward on all the issues identified in the Stormont House Agreement.”
“So, if we were to bring it in for April 2017, which is probably not going to be the case now because time has gone, the full cost to the block would not have happened until 2020-21. So, it is wrong to mix the cost of corporation tax up with welfare reform costs because the Office for Budget Responsibility has indicated that revenue will be more readily available at that time, and we will start coming out of a deficit position. So, there will be more money available in 2020-21 to deal with those issues. I think that we need to have clarity on a lot of these issues, but it is wrong to mix up the cost of corporation tax and the cost of welfare reform.”
“As the Member is aware, the devolution of corporation tax is something that this whole House, apart from one or two notable exceptions, agreed upon. Indeed, the Westminster Government have stepped up to the plate in relation to that; they have fulfilled the Stormont House Agreement position and brought forward legislation. It received Royal Assent, I think, on 17 March, and now it is a matter for us. Do we want to have this transformative tool in our box to grow the economy in Northern Ireland or do we not? <BR /> <BR />The reality is that, if we decide to go ahead with the devolution of corporation tax and to lower that rate, the full cost to the block grant does not come until three years after it is brought into position.”
“I thank the Member for his question. There is no doubt that, when we go to sell Northern Ireland as a destination for investment and a destination to bring jobs to, one of our strongest selling points is in and around political stability. I say to those who are putting the political stability of Northern Ireland at risk to think long and hard about that, because we have had tremendous success with job creation. The Programme for Government target for job creation was 25,000. We brought 36,000 jobs to Northern Ireland, and we should be incredibly proud of that. We were able to do that because we had political stability here.”
“I assure the Member that he will not be sitting in limbo in May 2016.”
“As the Member knows, and I think that he was here when I spoke about it last week, the Budget is predicated on the full implementation of the Stormont House Agreement, and that includes welfare reform implementation. Therefore, the matter will have to be dealt with, and it will have to be dealt with sooner rather than later.”
“Unlike the Member's party, our party voted against the previous cuts to welfare at Westminster. Our MPs go to and have a voice at Westminster, unlike the party opposite, which is not there to make the case. Yes, you can go to rallies and make the case, but why not go to the House of Commons to make it? If those welfare cuts come, as predicted, the estimated welfare costs to Northern Ireland of a £12 billion reduction will likely be in excess of £350 million. That is the Barnett share for Northern Ireland. It is a matter of grave concern, but I have no doubt that our MPs will raise their voice at Westminster, and the very deep concerns that we have on those issues will be heard at Westminster.”
“As the Member is fully aware, as is his leadership, that question has been asked on numerous occasions, at Stormont House Agreement meetings and, I presume, directly to national Government Ministers. We are unaware of the specific reductions that have been earmarked. However, he will read the same newspapers as I do — or perhaps not, as the case may be — and he will have seen the predicted areas from which the £12 billion will be cut.”
“It was expressly an ambitious programme aimed at transformative change, and their achievements in this period show the benefits of such an approach.”
“Successes have been notable in areas including numeracy and literacy, as well as support for families and young people. Through the social investment fund, to date, Ministers have committed £53·7 million to projects, which is 67% of the total fund. Engagement with Europe has increased, exceeding targets by drawing down over £80 million of competitive funds. Under Together: Building a United Community, seven major good relations programmes have been put in place. They represent the largest investment in constructive community relations in our history and are a positive statement of the Ministers' ambition to build a better future. <BR /> <BR />When the First Minister and deputy First Minister set out their Programme for Government, they never pretended that the achievement of its aims would be straightforward.”
“The Programme for Government 2011-15 sets out an ambitious programme to deliver real improvement in people's lives. Since then, despite difficult economic conditions, quality of life for people has improved. Data from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) show that people here have greater happiness, satisfaction, sense of purpose and lower anxiety than others in the UK. Those indicators are all improving. <BR /> <BR />Of the 82 commitments in the Programme for Government, almost 81% has been achieved, which is well in advance of the 70% achieved in the last Programme for Government. OFMDFM led on 14 of the commitments through the Delivering Social Change framework. For example, the First Minister and deputy First Minister have found innovative new approaches to tackling deep-seated, cross-cutting issues.”
“All I can do is speak on behalf of the First Minister's side of OFMDFM and make it perfectly clear, as we have done right throughout the issue, that we will not support any pension if it is to be accessed by terrorists. That is very clear, and I cannot be any clearer about it. It then goes to the very heart of the definition of "a victim". We will have to revisit that. As he knows, this party brought forward proposals to try to deal with the issue, but, unfortunately, others on the other side of the House did not feel that they could support it. I hope that, when we bring it forward again, the SDLP in particular will look at the issue and decide to move forward.”
“Well, you know, we came to an agreement on 23 December that brought about £2 billion of spending power for Northern Ireland over a number of years, yet we are going back to the United Kingdom Government and saying that that is not good enough. We want more money at a time when we are dealing with the deficit. As part of the United Kingdom, we have to deal with the deficit, which is currently in and around £75 billion or £76 billion. We cannot ignore those facts. If we are part of the United Kingdom, which we are and which we will be under the consent principle until the people of Northern Ireland decide otherwise, we have to deal with the budget that is allocated to us by the Westminster Government. Wishing it away is not going to do any good. We have to get real and deal with the issues that are in front of us now.”
“For my part, I went to see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury last week, and he made it very, very clear that there is no more money for welfare reforms for Northern Ireland. Indeed he went further, saying that welfare reform is an essential part of moving forward. It is, of course, a fundamental part of the Stormont House Agreement, and without one part of the Stormont House Agreement, the rest of the Stormont House Agreement does not proceed.”
“I noted that the deputy First Minister was in London at the weekend, and we look forward to hearing how much money he was able to achieve by attending that event.”
“I fundamentally welcome that because it is in line with paragraph 26 of the Stormont House Agreement, which says:”
“If the Member is referring to the pension for seriously injured people, he will know that that is a commitment in the Stormont House Agreement. That is moving forward as officials have been tasked to bring forward a paper on a possible victims pension for the party-leaders group. That paper will draw on the useful background paper from WAVE and the report commissioned by the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors. There has been much talk about that issue recently and whether it will apply outside Northern Ireland and whether terrorists will be able to avail themselves of the pension. I took heart from the fact that the Secretary of State seems to be moving to a position where she will address the issue of victims residing outside Northern Ireland who have been directly impacted by the Troubles.”
“<BR /> <BR />The input of stakeholders gleaned through that collaborative programme, coupled with the valuable feedback from the recent reviews of the Victims and Survivors Service on what is working well and the areas that require further analysis, will provide a useful steer to build on the improvement to services that has occurred in recent months.”
“The Victims and Survivors Service has already issued letters of offer to victims and survivors groups for this financial year. In addition, the Ministers are continually looking for ways to improve service provision. OFMDFM officials, in collaboration with key stakeholders including the Victims and Survivors Service and the Commission for Victims and Survivors, are in the process of examining the service delivery model that is currently providing services to victims and survivors. That collaborative programme of work will help to design and inform the types of services required for victims and survivors going forward.”
“The First Minister and deputy First Minister are committed and will continue to remain committed to ensuring that victims and survivors receive the best services possible and that funding is targeted to those most in need. To that end, the Ministers will take whatever steps are necessary to mitigate any impact that the delay in agreeing welfare reform has on organisations working with victims and survivors. <BR /> <BR />Funding in this financial year has been increased, with over £14 million provided to support the victims sector. That includes the highest ever opening budget for the Victims and Survivors Service and reflects the continued commitment of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to victims and survivors.”
“With your permission, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I will ask junior Minister McIlveen to answer this question, too.”
“With your permission, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I will ask junior Minister Michelle McIlveen to answer the question.”
“Absolutely. Indeed, parents themselves have identified cost and accessibility as the principal barriers to getting, in particular, school-age childcare at an appropriate level. There seems to be more availability for preschool children but a dearth of childcare places for them once they go to school. That is something that we should be concerned about, because, of course, we need to enable parents, whether they are male or female, to enter the market for work and move ahead in that regard — if they so choose, as, of course, there are some who will want to remain at home with their children. Cost and accessibility are absolutely the key issues.”
“The balance will continue to be used to resource the key first actions of the childcare strategy. I do not think that it is correct to say that the fund has been underspent. We will continue to work through those key first actions and then the development of the full childcare strategy. As I have indicated, cost, in particular, and accessibility will be two of the main issues that we will look at in relation to the full strategy.”
“On the second point, as I said, the details in relation to the Prime Minister's announcement are still emerging. We will watch carefully to see whether there will be read-across to Northern Ireland or, indeed, there are merits to our adopting a scheme in Northern Ireland that is similar to what will happen in England and Wales. However, we must ensure that whatever we do is fit for purpose in Northern Ireland because, of course, we have a very rural community here. That is not taking away from the urban areas, but we have specific issues in Northern Ireland in relation to our rural community. <BR /> <BR />Of the money that was ring-fenced to support the development of the childcare strategy, £4·7 million has been allocated and £3·4 million has been spent.”
“That is true whether it is in an urban area or a rural area.”
“I thank the Member for her question. The details of the Prime Minister's proposals are still emerging and are still being developed. The Department will examine those proposals in detail to see if there is merit in having a similar initiative in Northern Ireland. I will say, however — this goes back to the original question — that the Department has been cautious about taking a simple subsidy or top-up approach to childcare here, because the international and national evidence suggests that the market often adjusts within a few years and that largely subsumes the top-up amounts so that, in fact, the price of childcare rises. That is not what we want to see happening; we want to ensure that more children can be accommodated in low-cost quality childcare that is accessible for their parents.”
“<BR /> <BR />As the Member will know, social enterprises have been identified as a way of dealing with the issues in relation to having low-cost, affordable childcare, but there are many small private sector companies providing that as well. We need to ensure that we do not knock those small private sector companies out of the field by using other mechanisms to deliver good childcare. It is certainly the focus of the Department and will very much form part of the basis of the full childcare strategy.”
“I thank the Member for those points. The twin aims of the childcare strategy are to promote child development — I think we all want to see that happening — and to enable parents to join the workforce. I know that he referred to people having to leave the workforce to deal with their childcare needs. The cost — in many cases, the high cost — of childcare is what the strategy has been trying to identify. It is certainly where the key actions have been focused. How do you deal with that? Do you deal with it through free childcare places or as a subsidy? What is the best way to deal with that issue? Those are the issues that the board has been looking at in relation to the full childcare strategy. That will be the key driver moving forward.”
“Those projects will sustain or create approximately 2,200 low-cost, quality childcare places, mostly in disadvantaged areas. A third call for applications will be held in the autumn. That will result in further low-cost childcare places being created. <BR /> <BR />Other key first actions have enhanced childcare services for children with a disability and improved the information available to parents on the childcare services available locally. Work to develop the full final childcare strategy is at an advanced stage. It has been developed on a co-design basis with full engagement with childcare stakeholders. We aim to issue the strategy for consultation in the coming weeks, with a view to publishing it before the end of the year.”
“The first phase of the Executive's childcare strategy was launched in September 2013. It included 15 key first actions designed to address the main childcare needs identified through research and consultation. The greatest area of need identified was for school-age childcare services, breakfast clubs, after-school clubs and summer schemes aimed at the four-to-14 age group. The school-age childcare grant scheme, which former junior Minister Bell and junior Minister McCann launched in March 2014, was developed to address that need. It is creating new, low-cost, quality school-age childcare places and sustaining the places we already have. To date, the grant scheme has held two calls for applications, which have attracted 119 responses. Of those, 79 met the selection criteria and have been allocated £3 million over a three-year period.”
“Even the fact that we are having this discussion around the new Bill will raise the profile of regulation and of the fact that people can make complaints if they are unhappy about the services that they have received from either their solicitor or barrister. <BR /> <BR />We look forward to scrutinising the Bill in detail. In my opinion, this is an important Bill. It will significantly improve how complaints are handled against the legal profession, be that solicitors or barristers, and it will lead to a more open and transparent system. I think that that is what the House should be engaged in and, in doing so, it will help users of legal services right across Northern Ireland. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the Assembly.”
“I welcome the consensus that it is proportionate and has a fair balance. Mr Maginness and Mr Cree commented on that. <BR /> <BR />Ms Boyle referred to the fact that public knowledge about the complaints process and about complaining about solicitors is not as high as she would like it to be or as high as it should be. I do not disagree with that, and I hope that the process of the Bill will increase the knowledge of people's rights. I know that the Consumer Council and the Federation of Small Businesses are content with the process that we have set forward under the Bill, and I look forward to others coming to the Committee and raising their voices in relation to the process.”
“It is important that it is a proportionate figure and, indeed, is commensurate with the size of the legal profession in Northern Ireland. Of course, those regulations will be consulted upon and laid in draft at the Assembly to allow those who want to comment on them to do so. <BR /> <BR />Mr Girvan and others referred to the delay in this matter. The Bill was considered by the previous mandate, but, for a number of reasons, mainly political, it did not proceed. My predecessors in this mandate, Mr Wilson and Mr Hamilton, did further work on the Bill, and I thought that, given the lapse of time, it was right that the Department went out to consult on the provisions to see whether the conclusions that Bain came to are as relevant today as they were in 2006. I hope that explains that. The fact is that the Bill is now before the House.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is important that we are making the change from self-regulation to more involvement of the lay representatives, but it is also important that the professional bodies continue to be involved in the complaints system as well, so that they can have a role in trying to resolve some of those complaints at an early stage, because, often, as I indicated in my opening remarks, it is not about compensation or about a long, drawn-out affair but is about acknowledging that things did not go right and apologising for that. Sometimes, that is all that the customer or the client will want. <BR /> <BR />What level will the penalty against the professional bodies be set at? The maximum level will be set by subsequent regulations, and I have yet to finalise a figure for that.”
“He is right in saying that we do not know why we have fewer complaints here in Northern Ireland than in other similar jurisdictions. It is important that we try to get to the bottom of that, and I hope that the Committee will be able to look at that and at the empirical evidence and perhaps hear from some people who have been through the process. The new oversight commissioner will have an important role to play in relation to the points that Mr McKay made.”
“I thank Members for their contributions to the debate on the Bill today. It has been useful and has raised some interesting issues, and I reiterate at the outset that the Bill has come around, as has been referred to, after considerable work. Yes, it has taken some time to get to here, but we have been consulting with interested parties, and I think that there is a body of support for it to now move forward. <BR /> <BR />I want to refer to a number of issues. The Bill will now go for more detailed scrutiny, and there will be an opportunity to look at some of the issues that have been mentioned around the House. Mr McKay, as Chair, broadly welcomed the Bill and its principles but indicated some concerns about knowing the full picture of complaints on the ground.”
“I consider that it is a proportionate response to the issues that have been raised during the work of the legal services review group and the subsequent consultation carried out by my Department on the draft Bill. I believe that the relevant professional bodies have a key role to play in how this new system will operate, and I have every confidence that they will react in a positive and responsible manner. Ultimately, the rights and needs of all those who use legal services will be enhanced. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the Assembly.”
“Indeed, in England and Wales, even with the £50,000 cap, the average award was recently noted to be less than £1,000. In any case, clauses 20 and 39 provide that my Department can vary this amount if the evidence following implementation considers it necessary. <BR /> <BR />Most of the other provisions in Parts 2 and 3 are supporting in nature, giving the relevant complaints committee the powers to access relevant information and enforce these requirements. I do not propose to go into detail on those clauses. As I mentioned, the Bill will be supported by subsequent regulations and will, when enacted and implemented, result in a significant improvement in how complaints against lawyers are handled and discharged.”
“However, I am concerned that the initial rationale presented by Bain of providing a simple, quick and user-friendly scheme for complainants could be compromised by complaints committees having such levels of compensation at their disposal. Insurance companies would have to be involved, and that would, to my mind, defeat the purpose of the recommendations. <BR /> <BR />With the figure of £3,500, I have borne in mind the lapse of time since Bain, and I am persuaded that a figure of £5,000 strikes the correct balance. In particular, with this amount being below the excess of the solicitors' master policy, it is unlikely that insurers will be exercised by this, at least for solicitors, and I would expect that the average award figure will be significantly lower.”
“Secondly, Bain recommended that, when loss was suffered by a complainant due to the negligence of the lawyer, it would be appropriate for a complaints committee to award compensation when the loss was of a relatively modest nature. This would provide a quicker and more cost-effective method of redress, obviating the need for a complainant to take his or her lawyer to court for negligence. <BR /> <BR />The Bill provides for the relevant complaints committees to pay compensation in these cases. Bain had initially recommended that the level of compensation should be restricted to £3,500. That point was raised during the recent consultation, and it led to different views. In England and Wales, for example, the limit in the scheme is £50,000.”
“One of the weaknesses of the existing system is the inability for compensation to be paid in appropriate cases. So, as well as including provisions that will allow complaints committees to determine fees that should be payable, the Bill provides that the committees may be able to award compensation. <BR /> <BR />Bain considered that there should be two aspects to this. First, when a complainant has suffered inconvenience or distress due to the poor service of his or her lawyer, Bain considered that it was reasonable for compensation to be paid. The complainant may have suffered loss, and it is right that he or she should be compensated.”
“Clause 19, for barristers, and clause 38, for solicitors, set out a broader range of powers that relate to the determination of complaints. One of the points raised by Bain during its work was the lack of appropriate redress for complainants. These clauses set out, in statutory terms, the range of options that the complaints committee will have about complaints, and they vary in effect and scope. Sometimes, for example, complainants are simply looking for an acknowledgement that something has gone wrong and that it is not their fault. A simple apology may suffice — a point that was welcomed by, amongst others, the Lay Observer in his response to the consultations — but, at other times, it is appropriate for the level of response to be stronger.”
“So the lay majority committee will be in charge of issues such as the investigation, determination and consideration of complaints and can make appropriate rules for the range of relevant matters relating to the complaints-handling process.”
“<BR /> <BR />All solicitors are now required to have an informal complaints procedure that is designed to resolve matters early. Clause 32 underpins that, whilst recognising that there will be times when it will not always be appropriate to use such a process. Only when that process does not work, or is inappropriate, will the solicitors complaints committee be required. Clause 14, for barristers, together with clause 11, will ensure that the Bar Council has a process in place for complaints to be considered before they are elevated to the Bar complaints committee. <BR /> <BR />Clauses 17 and 36 will place the procedures and methods of working of the relevant complaints committees with the lay-led committees themselves.”
“<BR /> <BR />A number of clauses on the scheme for barristers and that for solicitors relate to the jurisdiction of the relevant complaints committee and how it should be used. I draw Members' attention to the following points. First, I believe that the strength of the new arrangements will be to place a greater emphasis on good client-care relationships. The system has, as its focus, the person who goes into his solicitor’s office, or has an interface with a barrister, and does not receive the level of service expected. The Bill will allow that person the chance to remedy that in a measured manner. Clause 14, for barristers, and clause 32, for solicitors, emphasise that the first step in that process should be for the lawyer and the client to try to resolve the problem informally.”
“<BR /> <BR />The provisions are broadly the same for solicitors. Schedule 3 notes that no members of the council of the Law Society may serve on a complaints committee. Again, the purpose is to maintain functional separation from the representative body. <BR /> <BR />The complaints committee to be set up for barristers by the Benchers and for solicitors by the Law Society must contain, in keeping with Bain, a lay chair and a lay majority. The relevant schedules ensure that that will indeed occur. That was a central plank of the Bain proposals, and I believe it is right and proper that the emphasis move from professional-led complaints committees to lay-led complaints committees.”
“Clause 11 states that it must make provision for all barristers to participate in procedures for resolving complaints, but the maintenance of the formal Bar complaints committee will vest in another arm of the professional body, the Benchers of the Inn of Court. <BR /> <BR />Regulation of barristers is quite a complex arrangement, and I do not propose to go into a lot of detail about that. All barristers are members of the Inn of Court of Northern Ireland, and their representative body is the Bar Council. Bain considered that, for the process to be functionally separate from the representative role of the profession, the Benchers of the Inn of Court, which has no representative function, should have responsibility for the formal complaints-handling role. That is catered for in clause 12 and schedule 2.”