Stormont Watch: Better Late Than Never

[Stratagem]

There was good news and bad news yesterday for the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Min..., who were discussing the accelerated passage of the Financial Assistance Bill with Junior Ministers Jeffrey Donaldson and Gerry Kelly.

The bad news was that the Executive currently does not have the necessary authority to make an effective financial response to a crisis and could, according to Jeffrey Donaldson, be “sharper” when it comes to dealing with poverty. This is why the new Bill needs to be rushed through the Assembly – without it, the Executive is unable to make the supplementary fuel poverty payments promised last month by Nigel Dodds. Worst of all, the gap in Executive powers has been recognised for some time, but remedying the situation was delayed by the Executive’s failure to meet.

The good news was that not only will the new Bill allow the Executive to act more efficiently to protect people from hardship in the event of a crisis, but they will be better able to deal effectively with unacceptable levels of poverty – such as those revealed by the Save the Children report on child poverty last year.

So, we can rest assured that next time, at least, the Executive will be ready for action.

[Alan Sheeran]

By seeking solutions whose aim is "embedding the profits" in the NI Economy, are we not potentially risking the opportunities offered in economies of scale etc. by working through GB or ROI companies.It smacks, rather, of imperial preference.

One problem in seeking parochial solutions to major structural problems, such as energy, is that the outcome can be restricted by the limited horisons of a local business. At some level there has to be a distinction between the desired outcome - is it the provision of local business, or the improvement of heating efficiency with its attendant improvement in fuel poverty. Has anyone done the sums?

[John McMullan]

Quintin, on 'the money'. I made the same point when responding to Stephen Farry's point the other day:

If rather than building a new road, we invested the £ms on a regional upgrade in the energy efficiency, intallation of renewable technology, efficient heating systems, greater access to natural gas in our housing stock, such an investment would stimulate the economy through creating work for small local engineering firms - the backbone of our economy and creating employment that matched the skills pool profile within our current unemployment pool. It would certainly be better than paying multinational construction companies who most likely take the profits off-island anyway. It would even offer an oppertunity for social enterprise to engage and develop as service delivers. Additionally, the more efficient consumption of energy, reduces emmissions, contributes to security of supply and tackles social priorities such as fuel poverty.
I heard Obama make this point about an national programme investing in domestic energy efficiency as a way to boost the USA economy, so it must be right!

The difficulty is we are seeing only the Executive's response to the Minister's (Taskforce's) short-term reccomendation, there should be and I suspect are others dealing with the aspects you have mentioned - We're still in grandstanding mode!

Joanne makes an important poiint about 'economy proofing' but the process should include an assessment which programmes embed the profits as well as the spend in the NI economy, we should build this into the public procuremenrt process, move our thinking beyond an economic landscape populated by only the public and private sectors and create space of models of social enterpise, which provide cost effective and efficient services - but then I would be saying that!

[Joanne Stuart]

This highlights the importance of economy proofing to be part of any decision making process within the executive to ensure that we get the best return for every £ of public spending. Each decision should be evaluated against a number of criteria, i.e.,
1.Increasing productivity
2.Improving employment
3.Increase investment in R&D and promote innovation/creativity
4.Promote and encourage enterprise
5.Developing the right skills for future employment opportunities
6.Developing a modern infrastructure (transport, energy, telecoms, water and sewerage etc) in place to support business

[Quintin Oliver]

Good points, John. It also misses the opportunity of making any long term impact on fuel poverty, beyond the one-off payment - whther that comes as a cash payment to the individual householder, or as a driect payment to the electricity provider.
For example, some of us, including your good self, have been arguing the case for some decades about proper insulation, draft-proofing, efficient central heating systems, thermostats and so on, which not only improve efficiency, thereby increasing well-being and comfort, but also help the struggling industry to survive these credut crunched times!

[John McMullan]

Clearly the accelerated passage process provides a significant advantage but at least in this case has been part of a strategy to keep Richie in the background - CHILDISH. More importantly, it looks almost certain that the payment will be made as a cash benefit payment like Winter Fuel Allowance (WFA) and as such an opportunity will have been lost to use the £15m to provide enery credits and to force the industry to consider discounting against bulk purchasing on consumers behalf by Government.

I've written recently to Dodds seeking clarification, as I understanfd the original Richie proposal indicated the provision of energy credits - see extract below:

Payment as a credit ensures that the award is targeted at the intended outcome – energy purchase and not as is often the case with WFA frequently used for other purposes. But in arguing the case at the Taskforce I stressed the point that by developing a new approach it gave officials the opportunity to broker with energy suppliers a bulk purchase discount based on the £15m purchase of an energy credit for vulnerable consumers. I had hoped that the payment would be flexible, in that it could be directed to the form of energy used to actually heat the home (Oil, Gas, etc) but accepted given the time constraints that electricity may be the most realistic option, as it is used by all consumers, although less frequently as the heating source.

I know this is difficult but the principle is one well worth establishing, as it provides taxpayer benefit and value for money. However, I have asked for clarity from officials on whether or not the award will be made as a credit, as there was ambiguity in the initial announcement but as yet have had no confirmation. The real danger is the longer the uncertainty goes on the more likely the easier option to pay as an increase in benefit payment will be adopted

Another opportunity lost I suspect.