24/06/2013 Stormont Today

Today. On tonight's programme: An image our leaders won't want

broadcast around the world. Sinn Fein's Gerry Kelly comes under fire

from unionists after this video was recorded at the weekend. Economic

growth versus preserving our environment as the future of

planning is debated in the Assembly. Economic investment is already a

material consideration, has been for as long as I know. It is already

part of the narrative around planning decisions. And I'm joined

by our political correspondent, Gareth Gordon, to discuss another

Belfast on Friday night, but the incident Sinn Fein's Gerry Kelly

found himself involved in made a brief appearance at Stormont today.

Unionists have accused Mr Kelly of trying to prevent a police officer

from carrying out his duty. Sinn Fein said he was trying to diffuse a

tense situation and an Orange Order parade. Either way, it's not an

ideal start to the marching season and unionists raise this -- raised

this issue at the start of proceedings. The parading season has

got off at the weekend to a relatively peaceful start, but the

House will be aware of an incident in north best fall -- Belfast, where

a Sinn Fein MLA has been videoed, it would appear, to be impeding a

police officer in the carrying out of his duty. The police ombudsman

has a direction and system to investigate police officers, but can

you advise what we as a House can do to ensure that we investigate fully

what appears to be the attempted physical impeding of a police office

officer by a member of Sinn Fein in this House. Order, let me deal with

this point of order first of all. Members will know in dealing with a

procedural matter I would also advise members to go to the business

office. I am not going to go into the issue on the matter of the day

submitted to the business office, which is -- I have made a decision

on. Please talk to the business office. That's where we should leave

this issue. If it's an issue around procedures very happy to take it.

Thank you Mr Speaker. Can you confirm to this House that under the

code of conduct of members, it is stated as our public duty that MLAs

should uphold the law, therefore given the loutish behaviour of Mr

Kelly last Friday what investigation will be conducted... Order. The

member knows this issue rests with the committee. That's where members

should be directed to as well. Order. Let us move on. Well, I'm

joined by Gareth Gordon. What's been the fall out from this incident?

you heard, the Speaker managed to close down that debate inside the

Assembly chamber, but it's not been so easy outside. It's been raging

all day, all weekend indeed. It's another example, no matter what the

rights and wrongs of what happened on Saturday night, or Friday night,

that what happens on the streets does impact the political process.

Practically already Jim Allister has made a formal complaint against

Gerry Kelly. A DUP MLA has questioned the fitness for office of

Gerry Kelly. An the culture minister, who was injured in that

incident, the most significant development today the First

Minister, who was at an event this afternoon, was asked about what

happened. He said he believed Gerry Kelly's actions were reckless and

ill advised. Sinn Fein couldn't let that go. They have accused the First

Minister of making politically motivated comments. We see quickly a

period with positive headlines which have been flagged up, suddenly

replaced by negative ones. This incident curd just hours after the

first and deputy first ministers appealed for calm ahead of the

marching season. It's almost as if they anticipated trouble. They put

out a joint statement on Thursday night for Friday morning. I was at

the council meeting in Derry on Friday, where the two men, it has to

be said, they appeared as relaxed in each other's company as I've ever

seen them. They were making gentle jokes at each other's expense. They

were singing from the same hymn sheet, making appeals for calm and

respect ahead of the tour of the north on Friday night. Yet, quickly,

all the good work, as they would put it, they have accused us in the past

of being too negative, they say so many positive things have happened

and the success of the G8, it shows you how quickly that can unravel.

Now we have Peter Robinson saying Gerry Kelly was ill-advised and

reckless. We have Sinn Fein's response. It will be interesting to

see what happens when the two men appear together in public and see if

that happens. The mood music will be very interesting indeed. Indeed.

Thank you very much. Now, back to business on the hill. The planning

bill designed to modernise our planning system. The aim is to speed

up planning decisions, deliver faster and fairer appeals and

toughen up when it comes to enforcing planning laws. The bill

sparked a marathon debate he the consideration stage. Several

amendments have been tabled. Here's a sample of the early exchanges this

morning. Planning is fundamental to everything we do in society. How we

plan our towns, cities and rural areas is key to our health and well

being. That's why it's important to get it right. My concern about

elements of this bill and indeed, some of the amendments that we're

going to debate today, is that we're in a rush to seek to get planning

quickly at the expense of getting it right. There is no-one who would

argue with making planning more efficient. There's no doubt that our

track record in this regard has been poor. I think there are any number

of examples and I appreciate that some of those examples may be more

about speed and may be about lack of speed and a lack of efficiency

within the planning system, but I think there are Newham rabble

examples of where nebz around this chamber can point to examples in

their own constituency where the planning system has impeded economic

development. It has cost Northern Ireland jobs, at a time when

Northern Ireland desperately needs jobs, at a time whenever thousands

of people from these shores are emigrating from anywhere around the

world to get employment. I've listened carefully to the two

previous contributors, in relation to their support for clauses two and

six and talking about Northern Ireland being open for business.

However, it is a sad reality that there are many brownfield sites

within development zones. There are numerous empty premises in terms of

commercial and industrial comem iss. There are many of -- premises. There

are many shops and town centres that are already empty. It is

questionable as to whether or not planning in itself is the Seoul

driver for economic development. do welcome at this stage and support

the overall principle of this planning bill coming forward. I know

what many people in society, whether that's developers, objectors an the

planning service themselves, want to see is a speedier planning process

and, at times, it has been very frustrating for all those involved.

The principle of this bill at this stage is obviously very welcome in

that it is hoping to improve that. In light of some of the amendments

tabled at the last minute to the bill, I feel I'm speaking with a

heavy heart. In fact, as I have previously stated, I do not think

the minister should have moved consideration stage today. This

would have allowed everyone the opportunity to assess the amendments

cooked up by Sinn Fein and the DUP working closely together behind

closed doors. If it transpires by the time this review commences that

some disastrous decisions are made on the basis that the so-called

economic benefits have been given preference over the environmental

damage caused and we're facing a situation in three years' time

whereby fracking is taking place across Fermanagh or even in Belfast

city centre is now proposed, a Nuclear Power Station has been

constructed across Belfast loch from Titanic Belfast and every town and

village in the north contains a waste incinerator, will those

developments be closed down? Will efforts be made to repair the

damage? Or will we be told that it's too late? It is my view that issues

around the environment are already promoted, in terms of protection,

and legislated for or in terms of practice and policy, accommodated,

within the planning system. If this isn't actually going to give any

greater weight to the economic materials, then what is the purpose

of the bill and the two clauses? think that's a fair question. It

might even be a question that you might want to put to your colleagues

in the executive. It's questions that might be put to other members

of the executive, because I didn't go out of my way to seek in the bill

anything further than what was in the act. Given, I would suggest,

that economic considerations, economic development is a material

consideration, has been for as long as I know, it is already part of the

narrative around planning decisions. You may argue, I don't, but some may

argue that somehow or other these words on the face of the bill

enhance that requirement. I don't agree. But Any Currency -- but in

any case economic requirements have been part of the planning system

forever and a day I presume. Reaction to that bill so far, I'm

joined by economist John Simpson and environmentalist James Robinson.

Welcome to the programme. First of all, John, you think this bill is

long overdue. This bill is absolutely necessary. I'm not saying

that it needs an absolute statement about the economy being a priority,

but it needs to bring the economy into play in a way in which economic

issues can be put into the balance sheet. If we were now to amend the

bill to take that out the reputation for Northern Ireland for being a

difficult place to get planning permission would be made worse. We

do have a bad reputation because planning permission an the

principles behind it have been slow. This bill would tidy it up, improve

it and I hope it can be done in a balanced way. I hope that will come

out of this debate, which is still going on. You're not so keen now.

Economic prosperity has always been part of the material considerations

which are there for planning applications. This is not something

new. We've always argued that it should be balanced against things

like living our environmental limits and creating an equal and just

society. So taking planning decisions which account for all of

these things is surely the best way of creating a sustainable future so

future generation cans benefit from what the decisions are. The balance

was already there,if you like, in the programme for Government, around

sustainable development, the environment and economic issues. Why

are economic issues suddenly to the fore. There wasn't a bill with a

clause that said economic issues were a material consideration. We

might even disagree whether they were taken into account. So long as

we actually take a language of there may be occasions in which something

has a strong economic motivation in which any environmental issue might

be minor or vice versa, then we will have a planning decision where we

can defend the outcomes on the basis we put responsibility. I hope we

actually put the responsibility on the minister of environment and that

we don't alter that responsibility, which is still for discussion.

think it's a bad thing to have the first and deputy first ministers

take some of the planning powers to their department? If the first

ministers want to have particular bits, it sounds as if they're trying

to create an enterprise zone philosophy. Let's have those roles,

if they can find an appropriate areas on the rules, but leave it

with the department of environment and say to them, you've trained in

the past your town planners. You tell us you've been taking into

account economic issues. Let's make sure they're absolutely trained to

cope with the needs of the 21st century, which will require a

sharper training focus. There is the sense of frustration that the

environment is coming at the expense of jobs and investment. What do you

say to people who champion this bill? Absolutely. When the bill

first came out and we read it, the RSPB and other groups were

supportive of it. We want to see better planning decisions. We want

to see it quick. We want those decisions taken in the best way. If

you look back as far as 200#4, the planning commission was clear that

it was the public who were saying they needed a system they could

trust. With these new amendments we think that trust isn't going to be

there. Therefore we need to see a Planning Bill which will secure

sustainable development so future generations don't look back at the

decisions and think, actually, that was the wrong decision. Well, we

still have a few hours to go to make up their minds. Thank you very much.

The House continued to divide this evening as the debate on the

Planning Bill continued in particular causing controversy was a

DUP Sinn Fein amendment to create economically sufficient planning

zones to be administered by the first and deputy First Minister's

office. The amendment itself clearly states to create opportunities for

economic -- economics in the planning application. We're looking

at trying to create certain zones for economic beneficial planning

applications. It's probably on the same principle as simplified

planning zones. I just want to outline the reasons behind all of

this. I want to just state at the outset that this is not about OFMDFM

taking over this role. If the department of the environment

doesn't cooperate, then by order a draft can be laid and approved by

resolution of the Assembly, which is another way of saying that the

ruling DUP Sinn Fein kabal can override the department and force

their will. So, isn't it rather disingenuous to pretend this is

anything but a takeover? If it's about cooperation, would that be the

same sort of cooperation that the minister had in the announcement of

the schemes by the First Minister, which affect his department, in

which there was no consultation whatsoever? Can I thank the member

for the intervection. -- intervention. It states that in 8

br. I go back to the point dr 8 B. I go back to the point and why we're

offering there. The reality is this: Instead of us trying to look at

creating opportunities and creating jobs within our own constituencies

throughout the north, to try and keep our young people here, because

clearly, our young people are leaving and if they -- there were

jobs here they wouldn't be leaving. To say I was shocked when I saw this

amendment would be an understatement. To submit such a

substantial amendment with such far-reaching consequences right at

the deadline for submission is, in my opinion, unacceptable. At

committee I worked closely with my colleagues, including Mr Wear. They

were aware of the likely amendments I would seek. I think to not extend

similar courtesy to committee colleagues shows that this is Sinn

Fein DUP riding roof shooed over the Assembly and indeed, the -- rough

Shooed over the Assembly -- shod over the Assembly. We can use this

as an opportunity not to lose investments, you know, take a look

at our neighbouring jurisdiction, it's not just corporation tax that

they use to attract people in. They have the opportunity of using

quicker planning approvals and have used that there. On one hand, they

use the lower tax regime to attract people then they offer quick

planning approval in areas, that is something we should be zooing.

That's the examples in learning I'm prepared to learn from them. After

all the soft words and after Cameron, Obama and the G8, we are

back to the reality of how OFM DFM do business. This amendment proves

they don't want to work in partnership. They not only want to

have their way without consultation, they want to grab the legal powers

from DOE. Yet as others have said another power grab. Our political

correspondent, Gareth Gordon, who's been following this debate is back

with more analysis. This is a very controversial amendment tonight,

particularly the one around the first and deputy First Minister's

taking some of that planning power back to the centre. Now critics

describe this as a power grab. Is that a fair comment? You certainly

could describe it as that. It depends what side of the argument

you're on. There is the element of the political coup. It takes some of

the planning from the environment department and place it's right at

the heart of the OFM DFM. There's no secret of his displeasure in this.

Of course, the DUP and Sinn Fein were reporting earlier on how they

disagree vehemently about some of the parading issues, they have

agreed about this. It's a carve up and they have the numbers to push it

through the Assembly. Briefly, there has been ape development this

evening. We had been expecting a very late night, for all of these

amendments to be voted on tonight. That is now not going to happen.

Suddenly, the Assembly heard that there is a petition of concern. We

understand that petition has been brought by the DUP about amendments

that were brought by the Ulster Unionist Party and inserting the

word "environment" in some of the amendments. That means that the

whole debate has to close down. They will have to come back tomorrow. So

even at this late stage, it's not certain. Very much. The Education

Minister announced more places for newly qualified teachers through the

project delivering social change. But before the good news, the

minister had to defend his record on the controlled school sector.

minister in a written reply to a question I submitted on this issue

stated that in the Catholic maintained sector there were 182

additional places. In the integrated sector 63, in the Irish language

sector it was 38. It strikes me that the control sector is at the pure

end of your thinking. Do you accept that this is not a fair aloe

indication and distribution of the additional places allocated this

year. If the member is accusing me of prejudice, I have to say I take

it seriously. Outside this chamber to bring me to account and I invite

him to use either. Could the minister give his rational for not

giving additional places to maintain schools which have a history of

oversup scripgs, for example St Francis? I'm not sure how it's

associated with this question, perhaps more associated with the

previous question. I'm happy to respond. Considering that I have

been accused of being prejudiced, the member shows up two good

example. I torn down a school, a Catholic school in my own

constituency in relation to temporary variation. I don't see how

I can display more fairness than that. Why? Because the sums didn't

stack up. OFMDFM, delivering social change project is progressing well.

The principles of the selected schools have taended information

sessions. The -- attended information sessions. The 230 recent

graduate teachers will be in post from September onwards. The project

will ensure extra support for children and primary schools to

achieve the expected levels of reading and maths. It will provide

tuition to pupils in post primary schools who are not predicted to get

at least a C grade in English and/or maths. I am funding an expansion of

this project adding an extra 36 posts to bring more primary schools

into the project and to ensure that every qualifying post primary school

has at least one fulltime teacher or increasing from one to two teachers

for larger schools. It's emerged the Health Minister

went against the advice of his most senior civil servient and ordered

two proposed health centres to be built by the private sector. The

information was revealed as the health committee questioned the

secretary. I was minded that they actually cancelled the session.

That's how annoyed I am. Over the last number of weeks, we have tried

to accommodate the department. Still papers have arrived to us late. We

have a responsibility and a job to do. I accept thaw have deadlines and

need to get committee papers cleared. I accept all that. But

especially on this issue, I gave another week and still, papers have

come to us late. The rules of Government pointed to doing this in

a way that kept the asset within the public service, owned by the people.

What the minister has done is set aside those rules and taken a

decision to run an experiment which means the asset will be privatised.

The rules of government include the prerogative of ministers to decide,

exercise their own judgment. financial rules. With the greatest

respect shall the rules, you're a counting officer, you will be hauled

in front of the committee with your ability to uphold the financial

rules. It said in these case it's was best to build something and that

the people of Northern Ireland would own it. The minister overruled that

using his powers as minister to say no, we'll privatise them. He has

decided to proceed with a third party development on the basis he

thinks that's worth considering. I wrong in saying that he overruled

it? It's overruling, advice, advisors advise, ministers decide.

That's with every decision taken. I'm accountable to advise in line

with object objective, evidence-based information in

relation to value for money. That was done. The business case is

there. It is entirely reasonable and appropriate for a minister to take a

different view. That's within the rules. The rules provide for that.

What we do know is that despite the minister's protestations that this

is not a charter for the stealth privatisation of the asset base,

that in fact, it is. If he continues to use ministerial direction and if

there's no legislation in place that puts a duty on you to point out to a

minister this is contrary to policy, all you can say to him is - it's

just against the financial rules. If you direct me to do other-wise, if

you say you want to privatise, minister, off you go. Policy is for

the minister and for the Assembly. Science, technology, engineering and

maths were the main topic in Question Time for the employment and

learning minister, Stephen Farry. He was asked how he intends to get more

students, particularly young women, to take them up. Science,

technology, engineering and maths are becoming increasingly important

to our economy. As such I'm providing an additional 1200

under-graduate places by 2016. ? Vment In recognition of the high

growth potential of the ICT industry, I have identified it as a

priority sector for my department. I chair a Working Group which includes

representation from employers, colleges, universities and other

government departments. We've had a significant increase in the number

of applications for compute irscience at both universities.

That's to be welcomed. There will come a point where capacity has been

reached. The ICT sector in Northern Ireland is growing. It is a major

area of indigenous growth. We're attracting inward investment. We are

poised to have tens of thousands of new jobs created over the coming

decade or longer. That is in the current context, where we don't have

a lower level of corporation tax, in the event that we did have to lower

the corporation tax level rnings the number of jobs we could create in

the sector would be hugely significant. Can the minister

outline to the House what discussions are ongoing to increase

the number of schools that actually offer computer science as a

qualification instead of ICT? believe that the new A-level that is

being offered in local schools from September is an important

development. It is important that we make a distinction between A-level

and computer science and an A-level in ICT. It is the build the

programme is makes a difference in terms of people's employability

down-the-line and it indicates what companies actually want to see in

terms of skilled young people coming through. Despite proportionally more

females participating in higher education than males, females

account for fewer than 30% of those graduating in stem subjects,

excludeing medicine and health. Over 70% of students in ICT and over 75%

of those studying engineering and technology are male. As part of a

strategy my department is working with organisations such as E skills

UK, Improve as well, which are promoting stem careers to females.