Alastair Ross
East Antrim · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Over the weekend, she supported an independent investigation into everything that is going on in the RHI scheme. She has been working with the Economy Minister to try to make sure that we have something in place in early January to stop the costs of the scheme and reduce the cost.”
“There is no doubt that it has been an incredibly difficult time over the past two weeks for anyone involved in politics. It is quite clear that the public are, quite rightly, angry about a scheme that, with hindsight, was poorly designed and badly administered.”
“I know that, for some individuals, the old habit of asking questions rather than trying to answer them, dies hard, but what we had was not an opposition-driven policy or an attempt to hold the Executive to account; it was a media-driven thing, and some of the opposition parties tried to jump on the bandwagon.”
“Again, I hear the leader of the Alliance Party chirping away in the background. I listened to her contribution, and she must have had 10 or 11 questions she wanted answered.”
“That is why some of the hyperbole that has been around today is hard to stomach. <BR /> <BR />What we heard from my colleague Joanne Bunting was a thoughtful and considered first contribution to the Assembly, and I think that it was one that shows that she will be a valuable asset to the Chamber.”
“They abandoned their seats, and they failed to discharge their duties or ask the questions that their voters might, quite rightly, want them to ask. The public care very little about procedures, points of order or Standing Orders.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,064 lines we hold for Alastair Ross, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 22.
“— which is used for the most serious of offences. Mrs Foster has not been found guilty of any offence. She has not been found guilty of any wrongdoing. We absolutely want the facts to come out, we want to support the PAC investigation, we want an independent commission and we want fairness.”
“They abandoned their seats, and they failed to discharge their duties or ask the questions that their voters might, quite rightly, want them to ask. The public care very little about procedures, points of order or Standing Orders. What they saw this morning was a First Minister making herself available to answer questions, and opposition parties running away and failing to ask them. <BR /> <BR />Let me make some final comments about what we have in front of us. This is an exclusion motion; it is not a vote of no confidence. It is nothing other than an exclusion motion —”
“Over the weekend, she supported an independent investigation into everything that is going on in the RHI scheme. She has been working with the Economy Minister to try to make sure that we have something in place in early January to stop the costs of the scheme and reduce the cost. <BR /> <BR />We also heard some ill-informed commentary from Ms Bradley and Mr Carroll on the £400 million being squandered — it is not. I do not know how many times they have to be told before they understand that not all of this money has been spent. That is exactly why the First Minister and the Economy Minister are working to try to reduce that cost. <BR /> <BR />Today, we had the First Minister recalling the Assembly to give a statement and answer questions. When she did, what did other Members do? They walked away.”
“I know that, for some individuals, the old habit of asking questions rather than trying to answer them, dies hard, but what we had was not an opposition-driven policy or an attempt to hold the Executive to account; it was a media-driven thing, and some of the opposition parties tried to jump on the bandwagon. <BR /> <BR />I have just heard Mr Carroll make a comment that the First Minister was trying to sweep these issues under the carpet. As soon as the issue became live, the First Minister gave an interview from China, where she was trying to get more jobs and investment for Northern Ireland to help our economy. She said that she will waive convention and go in front of the PAC, which is not something that you would do if you had anything to hide.”
“She has not done anything wrong, she acted appropriately at all times, as, indeed, her permanent secretary said in front of the PAC, and she has made herself available to answer all those questions. <BR /> <BR />In the last two weeks, we have also had the rather embarrassing circumstances in which leaders of the Opposition have put themselves on the airwaves not to make an informed contribution but to ask presenters questions about what is going on.”
“Again, I hear the leader of the Alliance Party chirping away in the background. I listened to her contribution, and she must have had 10 or 11 questions she wanted answered. Her constituents would quite rightly have expected her to turn up this morning when the First Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and to ask those questions and get them answered, but she did not. She chose instead to go out to the Great Hall and give an interview about a range of issues that, quite frankly, the public could not care less about. <BR /> <BR />It is becoming increasingly clear, as this has gone on and on, that the First Minister in her current and previous roles acted at all times with the highest regard.”
“That is why some of the hyperbole that has been around today is hard to stomach. <BR /> <BR />What we heard from my colleague Joanne Bunting was a thoughtful and considered first contribution to the Assembly, and I think that it was one that shows that she will be a valuable asset to the Chamber. That stands in sharp contrast to the antics we saw from other Members this morning when the opposition parties, to a man and woman, walked out of the Chamber and lodged a protest outside giving interviews to the media. It was pantomime politics at its very best, and it shows that opposition parties are more interested in stunts than solutions.”
“There is no doubt that it has been an incredibly difficult time over the past two weeks for anyone involved in politics. It is quite clear that the public are, quite rightly, angry about a scheme that, with hindsight, was poorly designed and badly administered. It is remarkable to hear that some of the individuals who sat either as Chair or members of the ETI Committee or Members of the House who voted through that scheme are now looking back, being wise after the event and claiming that they knew it was wrong all along. It is a remarkable thing that of everyone, including the external experts who gave guidance on this, the officials who were in the energy department and the media — all those individuals — no one flagged up any problems at the beginning of the scheme.”
“It is exactly why the House should reject this motion.”
“One could be forgiven for thinking that Members support the programme but not those who thought it up. <BR /> <BR />SIF is an innovative and community-led approach to addressing long-term issues associated with poverty, unemployment and physical deterioration. It is an example of government trying something new and working in a genuine partnership with local communities. It is also a project that is transforming and will continue to transform communities and the lives of people right across Northern Ireland. This is exactly why councillors, MLAs and MPs from Alliance, the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party turn up to support SIF projects in their local areas. It is exactly why a UUP member of the Executive Office Committee last week described the local SIF project in his area as very successful and said that he was happy to support it.”
“I cannot, therefore, see how the lead partner role has had any impact on good governance. <BR /> <BR />I would like to pay tribute to all the people and communities involved in the development and delivery of social investment projects. I regret that the ongoing, unwarranted criticism is taking away from their dedication, hard work and genuine success in improving people's lives. Some are willing to ignore this good work and risk tarnishing the good name of the individuals and organisations working to improve the quality of life of some of our most deprived communities. Others have welcomed initiatives in their own areas and acknowledged the positive impact that a project is having whilst, at the same time, going on the airwaves to criticise the programme. We have had more of that in the Chamber today.”
“As we have confirmed on many previous occasions and, indeed, as was acknowledged by an Alliance MLA on the radio this morning, a robust process is in place in relation to all social investment fund projects and, indeed, any departmental funding to ensure the capability of lead partners and delivery organisations to manage public money and manage a project prior to any funding commitments being given. All projects are required to have an approved business case that takes account of advice from accountants and economists. There are also robust vouching and verification processes in place to ensure that projects are delivering and that finances are being allocated appropriately. We take good governance incredibly seriously, and we have the necessary checks and balances in place to ensure that money can be properly accounted for.”
“This approach is not specific to SIF; it is an approach used in other programmes and funding schemes as well. It is a perfectly legitimate way of providing project oversight and ensuring that the original thinking behind the project is never lost sight of in the process of development and delivery. This oversight role is quite distinct from that of a project delivery that has been implemented through open public competitive procurement. <BR /> <BR />The motion also talks about the impact that the lead partner role has had on good governance. Good governance, of course, is a fundamental part of government funding, whether there is a lead partner approach or alternative delivery methods.”
“I will not give way because I have very little time left. <BR /> <BR />If people want government to be innovative in policymaking, it requires continual review and adaptation and an agile response, and this is an example of the type of innovative project that government has tried to do. It is also worth saying that all government programmes are subject to internal and external audit, and SIF is no different from any other programme. <BR /> <BR />As I said, the decision to adopt a lead partner approach was a direct result of the consultation responses in which the public selected this as a preferred delivery option. The lead partner has an oversight role to lead and manage the procurement of delivery agents and their resulting contract. It also reports to and draws down funding from the Department in respect of the project.”
“All reviewers have to go through an accreditation process and training. The social investment fund programme has undergone no fewer than four gateway reviews, commencing in 2011-12 and continuing as the programme has developed, with recommendations from each review being implemented. We are in the process of preparing to undergo a fifth gateway review as part of the ongoing quality assurance of that programme.”
“The Office of Government Commerce developed the gateway review process for projects and introduced it across government as part of the modernisation agenda to support the delivery of improved public services. That process has been operating since January 2001. The gateway review process is a series of short, focused, independent peer reviews at key stages of a project or programme. The review highlights risks and issues that, if not addressed, would threaten successful delivery. The reviews are carried out by a team of experienced people who are independent of the project or programme team and were chosen because of their relevant skills.”
“I have to come to the conclusion that it is contradictory to imply that there is "deep public concern" about the "formation, implementation and operation" of a fund when its operation is based on exactly what people told us, as part of the public consultation, they wanted. <BR /> <BR />The motion also refers to an:”
“<BR /> <BR />I emphasise that the Department took the process very seriously, and the final programme that emerged was the direct result of what the public told us they wanted. On the establishment of steering groups, for example, 48% of respondents preferred option 4: the then Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister would invite groups and individuals to indicate interest in serving on the steering group. Subsequently, that was the approach that was adopted. Similarly, when asked about the delivery method, 72% preferred option 2, the community option: resources would be allocated directly to one or more organisations nominated by the steering group, and they, in turn, would deploy those resources to projects included in the strategic area plan. Again, that was the approach adopted.”
“The fact that some opposition politicians have welcomed SIF projects in their own area, sat on steering groups or turned up smiling for photographs, whilst choosing to criticise the fund, is a point that will not be missed by the general public. <BR /> <BR />Let me make it absolutely clear to the House that the development and final operation of the fund was the subject of in-depth public consultation. Not only was a pre-discussion paper published for public comment but this was followed by a formal public consultation process that included public events, an online questionnaire and the option to provide written responses. Almost 600 people engaged in the process and provided views on how SIF should operate. That included views on how steering groups should be selected and how the programme should be delivered.”
“I am not giving way. <BR /> <BR />I want to emphasise those points because the social investment fund really is making a difference to people's lives and benefiting communities. The negative press coverage and the continued focus on a process that was openly consulted on and finalised on the basis of the outcome of that consultation continue to distract from the real value that the programme brings, which is, as I have said, a shame. <BR /> <BR />I will address some of the points raised. First, the motion refers to the:”
“One project is now operational, with another two due to become operational over the coming months. That equates to over £5·5 million of investment in educational support to improve the life chances of those who need it most. Over 3,000 people are already engaged in support from the projects being rolled out, including improving educational skills to create greater employment opportunities; dedicated maths and English support at Key Stage 2 and 3; literacy support for primary-school children; and family support to better integrate schools and communities.”
“I have had the opportunity to visit a number of employability projects in south Belfast, west Belfast and Portadown, and I was able to speak to people who have been encouraged back into work, set up their own business and been given the confidence to try to make a difference and move on in their life. <BR /> <BR />Some £5·7 million is also being invested in early intervention projects across the SIF zones, providing a range of family support interventions in schools and communities to support physical, intellectual, social and emotional development. Over 2,000 participants are already availing themselves of the services, and many are sharing positive examples of how the support has helped them. <BR /> <BR />One of the other key areas in which SIF funds focus support is education.”
“Thirty-one individuals have left the project to date, and, of those, 20 have moved into employment or self-employment. That is a 65% success rate, which shows just how much impact the project is making. In addition, local people are openly speaking at events to demonstrate how much the project has impacted on their lives. One of the participants spoke about how her children felt that they had a different mother since she had been on the placement. Having been out of work for several years, she acknowledged that she had no confidence or self-belief and could not even attempt to apply for a job. She spoke about how straightforward the process was of securing a placement and how the ongoing support from the employer and the project officers had truly changed her life and that of her family.”
“To date, over 6,000 participants are engaged in social investment fund revenue projects. They are local people whom we are supporting in key areas such as employment, early intervention and education across all of Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />We are investing £18·5 million in employment-focused projects and supporting over 1,300 people through training and paid work placements. These place local people with local employers, and over 100 people have already secured full-time jobs out of it. They credit their success directly to their engagement with SIF projects, particularly as most of the jobs are with SIF project employers. One of the projects, Work Ready West in the western zone, has just completed its interim evaluation and demonstrated real examples of people turning their life around as a result of the intervention received.”
“Those new facilities allow the centre to become a safe environment where the community can centralise its youth activities and young people can develop and interact. Youth provision will expand due to the increased capacity of the centre and an increased ability to operate projects from a dedicated youth facility. <BR /> <BR />Only a few weeks ago, I went down to visit the Lanyon tunnels project with my colleague junior Minister Fearon and the Lord Mayor of Belfast to see how innovative solutions can reinvigorate a part of the city that has lain derelict for many years and can connect local communities to the city centre. That is a great example of thinking outside the box in projects. <BR /> <BR />Those are only some of the valuable projects that capital investment from SIF has brought to local communities. There are many more.”
“That point about hypocrisy and who has funded that organisation has been well made and aired over recent weeks. However, I do not want to focus on one organisation because that does a disservice to the entire social investment fund. I want to make progress because I have a lot to get through and do not have a lot of time. <BR /> <BR />I want to talk about some of the other projects, such as the West Lisburn Community Centre, which is also being completed. It is being transformed into a dedicated youth facility. It is modelled on current youth development centres such as those in Laurelhill and the Colin area. It contains a range of spaces, such as a sports hall, drop-in facilities, group rooms, art space and kitchen facilities.”
“That SIF investment has transformed the property into a larger, more spacious environment with the capacity to offer increased services to local people and provide a one-stop shop. It will make a really positive difference to people in that community.”
“Whilst the projects committed are at various stages of the delivery cycle, significant progress has been made over the last 18 months, with many projects now at delivery stage. As a result, 42 projects worth £54 million have commenced and 16 projects worth £27 million are operational. Five capital projects have completed their construction works and are providing vital services in local communities. <BR /> <BR />I had the enormous privilege of opening the Bridges Family Practice in east Belfast, which has totally transformed a once-derelict and unused Bryson Street surgery on the Newtownards Road into a state-of-the-art health centre that is accessible to everyone in the local community. The extension to Fermanagh House in Enniskillen has also been officially opened by the First Minister and junior Minister Fearon.”
“Before I address the points raised in the motion, I want to highlight some of the valuable opportunities that SIF provides to people in need and the very positive impact that it has on people's lives. <BR /> <BR />The social investment fund is now in full delivery mode, with all projects prioritised by local steering groups approved and funding committed in zonal budgets. A total of 68 projects will be delivered: 49 capital projects that will make improvements to 115 individual premises and 19 revenue-focused projects primarily on support for employment, early intervention and education as well as mental health, community capacity, transport, social economy and fuel poverty.”
“Following the considerable media attention that has been given to SIF in recent weeks, it was inevitable that a motion such as this would be tabled. Of course it is the role of the Assembly to scrutinise Executive programmes, but it is concerning that it seems to be in response to what could be described as sensationalist and at times ill-informed media commentary on the social investment fund project. It is deeply unfortunate that recent media coverage focusing mainly on one individual has proven to be a distraction from what is in reality an innovative government project that is changing communities and lives across Northern Ireland. It is a project that is about communities identifying their needs and how to address them, rather than a top-down government approach that imposes solutions on communities.”
“We continue, through the work of the Executive Office, to help victims and signpost them to the right place for assistance. We are also helping to build capacity within groups, and hopefully we will be in a better position in January to outline how we intend to continue to move forward in this area.”
“Thank you for repeating the question. Significant progress has been made. Department of Health officials continue to lead on the establishment of a mental trauma service for Northern Ireland, which was announced by the Minister for Health in September 2015. It will meet the psychological needs of victims and survivors, and it is not a purely medical model either; it will be an integrated approach. The partnership agreement is being developed to define referral protocols between statutory, voluntary and community sectors as we speak. Considerable progress has been made, and coupled with the other programmes and services offered by the Executive and the arm's-length bodies, we are helping people right across Northern Ireland deal with the many complex issues facing victims and survivors.”
“Yes, last week we were delighted to be able to announce new funding streams worth over £30 million. There were two identified. The first is the victims support programme which is worth £18·7 million, and the second is a Peace IV shared spaces and services programme worth €17·6 million. Both are designed to not only build capacity within groups who are supporting and representing victims, but also improve the health and well-being of victims and survivors right across Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />The application process for both funding streams opened last week on 24 November, and I encourage as many people as possible to come forward and apply for that funding because, as we have said, it is a significant amount of money available and it demonstrates the Executive's commitment to the victims and survivors sector.”
“The design programme team has been set up, and it comprises personnel from the Executive Office, the Victims and Survivors Service and the Commission for Victims and Survivors to ensure the development of an improved service delivery model capable of meeting the needs of victims and survivors. During the process, there was extensive engagement. A series of workshops were held to identify the key priorities moving forward. The areas identified included: improving the monitoring and evaluation for victims groups, giving greater flexibility for individuals, the piloting of new ways of working, personalised budgets, caseworkers and a better assessment of needs. Hopefully, all this work has put us in a better position for us to move forward into next year.”
“Our Department, in conjunction with the Victims and Survivors Service, the Commission for Victims and Survivors and key stakeholders, has been taking forward a collaborative design programme of work to develop a comprehensive and high-quality service which meets the needs of all victims and survivors. The outworkings of the collaborative design programme have clearly outlined the need for a new service delivery model which can address the longer-term sustainability of programmes and eligibility concerns to help provide better outcomes for victims and survivors. We aim to have this new model operational from April 2017 onwards.”
“In part, that means having public services that deliver for our people. It also means eliminating waste and inefficiency wherever we find it. That means stopping doing the things that are not delivering. We will not shirk from that responsibility, and I look forward to the support of the Assembly as we bring forward the changes necessary to deliver for all of our constituents. As I have indicated, I am content to support the motion, and I am confident that progress can be made, not least because Mr Stalford is now in the Assembly.”
“We will review it and see whether there are efficiencies that can be made. The motion does not talk about slash and burn; it talks reasonably about having a review and, where possible, reducing the number. That is perfectly acceptable language. I do not think it should challenge or upset anybody in the Housel. It is something that the public would support as well. <BR /> <BR />I conclude by again thanking everyone who took part in the debate. I look forward to working with Members from across the House as the Executive bring forward the new Programme for Government. They are an Executive who are not afraid to make changes where they are needed. That has been illustrated this evening. One of the 14 outcomes that the Executive will pursue in the Programme for Government is high-quality public services.”
“Nobody should shy away from trying to do things differently and improve how we operate.”
“The context in which we have to make decisions and the context of public finances is very different from what it was 10 years ago. We have to accept that reality. Where is the money coming from? Maybe I will resist talking about selling airports that we do not own. <BR /> <BR />Mr McPhillips talked about the fiasco of the social investment fund. Perhaps some of his councillors and colleagues who turn up for the photographs at social investment fund events have not got that memo. Members need to be cognisant of that. He talked about his concern over slash and burn: nobody is talking about slash and burn. People are talking about reviewing the current set-up and seeing if there are better ways in which we can do things. That is the whole focus of the Executive and the Programme for Government.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Poots talked about how a number of the quangos were a hangover from direct rule. He talked about some of them needing to go away. There are differences in some of the ALBs that are in existence. Some have a very important role, but, of course, even in the ones that deliver in education or health and social care we have seen efficiencies in recent years and a reduction in the number of bodies around education and health. That shows that you can make progress and efficiencies. <BR /> <BR />The Member talked about the membership of the bodies and jobs for the boys. Maybe that was a reference to the gender make-up. I suggest it was not, but it is a theme that we heard across the Chamber. He talked about the SDLP amendment talking about more finance. It is just not based in the reality in which we are living.”
“Mr Boylan talked about the support for a review. He acknowledged the good work and expertise of some of the ALBs that are in operation at the moment. Again, those ALBs have nothing to fear: if they are doing a good job and are delivering and effective, of course, we will want to keep them. There are perhaps question marks over how effective or efficient some are, and it is right that we would have a closer look at those to see whether they are necessary. He also talked — this is a fundamental point, and I made it to Mr Attwood — about the legal and statutory duties on the Executive. Those are not going away; they will remain. It is how we deliver and live up to those duties that is important, and there are different ways in which we can do that from what is, perhaps, the case at the moment.”
“He talked about quangoland and the make-up not necessarily being reflective of society. As I have acknowledged, other Members made that point, and it is something we need to look at.”
“<BR /> <BR />There is a list of things you never expect to hear, and Mr Stalford quoting Tony Benn is one of them, but that is how he began his contribution. He talked about the role of Government and the importance of Ministers taking decisions and being held to account by the Assembly. That is absolutely right. In devolution, we want to make sure that Ministers are able to take decisions and that they are held accountable for them instead of giving them to some bodies, which has perhaps been the aspiration of others.”
“We are not talking about a bonfire of quangos; we are talking about a strategic review to identify what is still needed in the current context. <BR /> <BR />Mr McGuigan talked about the need for good governance and a Sinn Féin commitment to looking at a review. There is a DUP commitment as well, which augurs well for the Executive trying to make progress on the issue. He talked about things moving on, which is right, because we have evolved and adapted; we need to be an agile Government in how we look at things. That is in contrast, unfortunately, to the SDLP's view. It is so wedded to what was once described as the "ugly scaffolding" of the past that it is unable to be agile and adaptive to the environment, which does not serve anybody particularly well.”
“He also talked about the Budget review group, which was well intentioned but, unfortunately, various Executive Ministers were a little bit protective over the arm's-length bodies that they had responsibility for, and we did not see the support for rationalisation at the time that we might now. We are in a different mandate and a different environment, and I think there is more opportunity to move forward on that basis. I also suggest to Mr Nesbitt that in the next few days both he and I will know much more about pollinator initiatives and the threat that exists, and we both may live to regret that. <BR /> <BR />Ms Armstrong said that she supported both the motion and the amendment. Hopefully she will support the motion. She questioned whether some functions are still needed; the whole purpose of a review is to find out.”
“He said that it was important that we did this in the context of public finances and how we do business. He acknowledged that the last time we looked at the issue was about six years ago and that it is important, therefore, that we look at it again. <BR /> <BR />When Mr Nesbitt stood up, time stood still for a short period. He talked about the relationship between the Executive and ALBs. It is important that we examine that relationship; at times there will be tension, and sometimes that can be positive. He talked about his story about the photocopier, although that is not the duplication that other Members were talking about.”
“I am happy to say that we should proceed with caution in anything that we do, but I must agree with my colleague that nothing can be off limits. Even bodies that fulfil an important function should not be off limits in terms of reforming or restructuring them. That is something that we need to look at during a review. <BR /> <BR />Mr McGuigan, in an intervention, pointed out that the SDLP amendment is only calling for a review of financing. Mr Attwood called for a more fundamental and radical review, but, as has been pointed out by a number of Members, the amendment is not particularly ambitious. He talked about the gender imbalance on bodies, which, again, is something that other Members have talked about. <BR /> <BR />Mr Lynch said that he supported the review.”
“That is what is important. It is much the same as the realignment of Government in Northern Ireland: whilst we created fewer Government Departments, the functions simply transferred. So it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that some of the functions of existing bodies could be under a different umbrella or a different name, and it is important that we acknowledge that.”
“As I said, we will be doing that moving forward. He also talked about value for money and reducing budgets. It is important to acknowledge that, whilst there will, of course, be savings if we rationalise the number of ALBs, they will be quite modest. They can certainly become more efficient and effective in what they are doing through shared services and expertise. That is why there is an onus on us to look at doing that. <BR /> <BR />Mr Attwood, proposing the amendment, talked about a battering ram being taken to ALBs. That is a little bit of a conspiracy theory, given the text of the motion. He talked specifically about the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission. I will resist commenting on specific bodies, but getting rid of certain bodies or amalgamating them does not mean that their functions disappear.”
“Any change needs to reflect a specific policy focus and deliver a key objective measure in terms of public well-being. <BR /> <BR />It is already a requirement in the management statement of all public bodies that they are subject to periodic review. The Executive will ensure that future reviews maintain the focus of delivering PFG commitments. <BR /> <BR />If I may, I will turn to comments made by Members during the debate. Mr Logan began by acknowledging that there is an important role for arm's-length bodies in the present conditions. He said that delivery was a critical function. Of course, we want our ALBs to be a critical friend of government, fulfilling, at times, a challenging function and, at other times, delivering on behalf of the Executive. He talked about monitoring performance against the PFG.”