Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I am delighted to welcome the junior Ministers, Mr Bell and Ms McCann; and officials, Joan Hardy and Margaret Rose McNaughton. You are all very welcome. Ministers, would you care to make some opening comments?

Ms J McCann (Junior Minister, Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister): First, thank you for the opportunity to update you on the age discrimination legislation. The written statement from the First Minister and deputy First Minister on 19 February gave the commitment to extend legislation protecting people against unfair age discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services to those aged 16 and over. It also announced the intention to bring forward a consultation document setting out proposals for legislation. Our proposed consultation is a first step towards ensuring that anti-discrimination legislation is brought forward as soon as possible to protect people over the age of 16 from harmful and unjustifiable age discrimination.

It is important to say that there are a lot of very challenging issues for people between the ages of 16 to 18, and we recognise that this is a step forward. We also recognise that the decision on the scope of the proposed legislation has come as a big disappointment to some people and organisations that represent them, and we will continue to work with a wide range of people within the children and young people's sector to redress issues affecting children under the age of 16. Our proposal to extend age discrimination protection to those aged 16 and 17 represents a significant improvement on age discrimination legislation in place in Britain and the South of Ireland, which excludes under-18s from protection. It will also bring protection from age discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services for this age group in line with the protections that are already in place in employment and vocational training. Subject to ministerial and Executive approval, we hope to issue the consultation document as soon as possible after the election. I will hand over to Jonathan.

Mr Bell (Junior Minister, Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister): Thank you for the invitation to be with you. The consultation document will be drafted on the basis that the proposed legislation will apply, as Jennifer said, to people aged 16 and over. Those responding will be encouraged to express their views on our policy proposals, and we will ask them to think carefully about the impact they would have. We will ask them to tell us whether our proposals are the right ones and, if not, how they should be changed. The consultation will last for a minimum of 12 weeks. The equality impact assessment (EQIA) will be completed in line with section 75 and schedule 9 obligations, and Equality Commission guidelines, and will consider the impacts on each of the nine groups and on various categories within section 75. On age, consideration will be given to the impact on those not covered by the proposed legislation.

Our officials will meet key stakeholders over the next few weeks to discuss the development of the EQIA, and we are keenly aware that many stakeholders are anxious to see legislation outlawing age discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services progressed as quickly as possible. Prior to consulting on our policy proposals, there can be no guarantee that the legislation will be delivered in this mandate. At the conclusion of the policy consultation process, we will consider all options available to us for bringing the legislation before the Assembly. Members will know that the Assembly will have control over the timetable for the passage of the legislation. We are happy to take any questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Thank you both very much. I certainly have questions, but I will pass in the first instance to Chris Lyttle, the Deputy Chair.

Mr Lyttle: Thanks, Chair. Thanks, junior Ministers, for your presentation. It was a welcome and overdue statement that we are having the consultation process. Having participated in the Pensioners Parliament on a number of occasions, I am aware of just how big an issue this is for the older persons' sector. Although a lot of people will welcome the commencement of this consultation, they will probably be somewhat concerned by the lack of a guarantee that it will be delivered prior to the Assembly election in 2016. As you suggested, many are disappointed by the exclusion of people under 16 from legislation to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of age in the delivery of goods, facilities and services. What was the evidence base for excluding that age group from the proposals?

Ms J McCann: I have said publicly to the sectors and in the Chamber that I share that view. I would have much preferred to have been able to say that we were dealing with legislation that excluded nobody. Having said that, I hope that this will be a first step. I believe that any research that was done was in favour of including everybody. In my opinion, to discriminate against a particular group is not a good way to go forward with anti-discrimination legislation. Unfortunately, we did not get the political consensus.

All that I can say is that this goes a bit further than the legislation that is currently in place for goods, facilities and services in the South of Ireland and in Britain. I believe that it is a first step. We will certainly look at working with the sector to enable it to go to a place where we will be able to get agreement to include everybody.

Mr Bell: It is a very good question. I also endorse the work that the Pensioners Parliament has undertaken. It has been one of the most robust groups presenting coherent and intelligent arguments in favour of this legislation. There are things that I can control and timetables that the Assembly controls. I dearly hope that, in 2016, we can look back, having delivered on what we told the Pensioners Parliament we would do. There will be no lack of commitment on our part to try to ensure that that happens.

I believe that the legislation will take us to a far better place than where we currently are. If your question about under-16s is whether there is work to be done, the answer is yes, there is. There is a lot of work to be done. As we all know, the one thing that does not stay static is our age. By the time this Committee meeting is over, we will all have aged, and probably more by the way I am speaking. That is the reality. There are a number of complexities, and I want to make sure that we actually get it right.

As Jennifer pointed out, the Republic of Ireland's Equal Status Act 2000 and Equality Act 2004 outlaw discrimination for over-18s. In the rest of the UK, in England, Scotland and Wales, the Equality Act 2010, again, outlaws age discrimination for over-18s. There are various examples. In Australia, the legislation covers all ages. In Canada, provision varies depending on territories. We want to make sure that we get the legislation right, with the relevant exemptions that are needed for under-16s. We will take it to a better place than where we were before and than anywhere else in these islands. I regard this very much as a step that we are taking in the right direction. We will continue. We have had very positive — critical, but constructively critical — communication with the Children's Commissioner's office and some of the youth organisations. We will continue dialogue with them to take this forward. As I said, I hope that we could get this legislation passed within the mandate of the Assembly and that it will take us to a better place than anywhere else in these islands. We will continue to work constructively not only with the groups but with the Committee to see what we need to do with regard to under-16s.

Mr Lyttle: I welcome that. I am sure that the Assembly and the Committee will work in a timely fashion to support its passage in every way that we can. In fairness, that was not really my question. It was not about what work needs to be done but the work that has been done to provide an evidence base and a rationale for the exclusion of people who are under 16.

Mr Bell: The work that we have been doing is not only with the children's organisations but with some of the legal experts in the field. We have also been looking at what exemptions are necessary for young people to take them out of the legislation. I would suggest that the evidence is leading us towards the necessity to have more exemptions to protect children. That is the work and evidence that we are working on.

Mr Lyttle: That is something to go on. When we took evidence, there were strong arguments to suggest that exemptions could be delivered and were deliverable to avoid having to exclude under-16s, and that that could be part of the legislative process. Is there any consideration of that taking too long in the legislative process? Can you help us to understand further why you did not decide to make inclusion of the exemptions part of this legislative process and avoid excluding under-16s?

Mr Bell: We looked at it holistically. We also had to look at where we could strive for perfection and where we could strive to get what was possible. I was conscious of very strong arguments within the age sector. A number of different views were expressed. In particular, one was that we should do something, do it now and get legislation in place. I also had people saying to me that we should withhold the legislation until we had an absolutely perfect model that could apply to everybody. It was a question of timescale, ensuring that we got the legislation right and political consensus. There were different views. I am very supportive of a lot of what the children's sector brought forward to us. I would like to see that work progressed. There is no bar to further legislation in this area, and that needs to be comprehensively looked at. However, with the level of agreement we have, the necessary drafting has been thought through on what we can do and what it is possible to do within this mandate. In that context, I think this Bill is the best that we can deliver. It was on that basis of political consensus that we brought it forward.

Mr Lyttle: OK. This is my last question, Chair. As someone who supports the extension of legislation to all ages, is there a timetable in place for the likely delivery of the inclusion of young people in the legislation if and when appropriate exemptions can be achieved?

Ms J McCann: You asked about the evidence base and the research that was used. We had very long discussions with the likes of Robin Allen QC, the Equality Commission, the Children's Commissioner and the Older People's Commissioner. The Equality Commission and the Children's Commissioner brought forward their views and made a good argument about the inclusion of everybody, as did Robin Allen. The exemptions and everything else were discussed. It will be no surprise to the Committee that that was the reason for the delay in bringing this forward. We were trying to get to a place where we could make it work, where everybody would be included and where the exemptions that were needed could be put in.

In my view, and I can obviously only speak for myself as junior Minister and the party that I represent, we are very determined and committed to trying to work through this to include everybody. We see this as a first step. Even getting to 16 was positive, because we started with a position of including over-18s only. I see this as a work in progress, and I hope that it will not be too long before we have legislation that includes everyone.

Mr Lyttle: OK. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): You have both made it clear that, since the announcement on 19 February, you have had engagement with spokespeople for children and young people. It would be very worthwhile and useful if you could give us a real flavour of what they have said to you so that we can be assured that you got the same message as we have as individuals and party politicians.

Mr Bell: We have met the Children's Commissioner, Include Youth, Opportunity Youth and other groups formally as Ministers. Many of us have also met them informally whilst wearing our party political hats. I doubt very much that those organisations would give the Committee a different perspective from what they have given us, as they have a proven track record of integrity. Overwhelmingly, their desire is to strongly outlaw age discrimination at any age, and there is a feeling that the necessary exemptions can be obtained to protect children.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Would that include an expression of disappointment?

Mr Bell: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): OK.

Ms J McCann: I would say that it is extreme disappointment. I would also add that they have told us that they feel that it is discriminating against young people who are under 16. They have said that very clearly.

Mr Bell: The way that it should be framed by us all is that it is a work in progress. We will have delivered more for the 16 to 18 age group — I think that the last census recorded that there are about 49,000 young people in that age group — than has ever been done before. We will have the most progressive legislation anywhere in GB or the Republic. There is a strong commitment to a work in progress. As Ministers, we have agreed with all the organisations that our door remains open to them to work through the issues.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Mr Bell, I was taken by your reference to the equality impact assessment. Is it possible that that assessment will say that it is illegal to do this?

Mr Bell: We looked at it and we got the political consensus to take it forward within the time frame. It is our understanding that we can do it. I do not want to speak in advance of the impact assessment being undertaken, but we understand that it is possible for us to do this.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Does that mean that it is also possible that they could say that you cannot or should not do this?

Mr Bell: I think that both of those are possible. The information that I have at the moment is that there is nothing to say that this is illegal. Obviously, I would not have brought it forward if that were the case. However, if there is going to be a negative impact, which is a concern, we have to look at what measures could mitigate that impact or look at other measures that could be taken to achieve better equality of opportunity. Without prejudging, I think that there will be, because a measure of disappointment has already been expressed to me. I also think that there will be a strong desire not only on our part but on the part of other groups to see what we can do to take that forward in further legislation.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): For those who are looking to the EQIA as some sort of saviour for the under-16s, it is not a question of the EQIA necessarily saying yes or no; there is a kind of middle ground where it might say, "Yes, but" — the "but" being mitigating actions.

Mr Bell: Yes, that is possible.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): OK. Thank you.

Ms Fearon: Thank you very much. First, we have to welcome the protections that this will bring forward for older people, who have been waiting a considerable time for it, but it is disappointing that this has not happened for all. There is a huge amount of work to be done to include under-16s. In my opinion, that could have been done now, and it is disappointing that it was not. It has already been said that it makes absolutely no sense to discriminate by laying a piece of anti-discrimination legislation, but that is where we are. Will we see future legislation to ensure inclusion, or, if support is not there for it now, will support be there for it down the line?

Ms J McCann: Once the consultation goes out, the EQIA will look at the section 75 groups, and obviously young people will be one of those groups. The scope of the legislation now has political consensus, albeit that it would have been preferable for it to be different, but it is where it is. Once the consultation is agreed and goes out, going back to what the Chair said, people will then have their opportunity, and I am sure that the legal people will also put their views across. We will then have to look at that and see what the people are telling us. That is what a consultation on anything is about; it is for people to have their say on something and for everything to be taken into consideration as we go forward. That is all I can say. I hope that we will, sometime soon, be in a place where we can have age-discrimination legislation for goods, facilities and services that includes everybody. I cannot give a timeline for that, but that is certainly what I will be working towards. We have discussed that with people in the sector — both sectors. It is very important to remember that at no time did any of the older people's sectors want to see the exclusion of anybody. I just want to clarify that point. They, too, wanted this to include everybody. Nobody said that they wanted a certain age group to be excluded, and I think it is important to put that on the record.

Mr Bell: Megan, I share some of the concerns that you outlined. Can we make progress on it? I think that we can. Some things were originally suggested to us on the concerns of parents, groups and people who provided care for children. When we went through the process of teasing those out — Jennifer and I spent hours on this with the likes of Robin Allen QC and with other experts — we were able to see where we could put in a necessary exemption for some of the concerns that existed that would both support parents and children and let us be able to properly get a piece of legislation. We are not there yet but I am confident that we can make progress on it.

Ms Fearon: In terms of the consultation process that was referred to, will we see questions around children and young people? Will that sector be consulted?

Ms J McCann: I have no difficulty with that; any question can go into the consultation.

Mr Bell: By the nature of a consultation, it is open. We have reasonably regular engagement with the children's organisations. They are a constructively critical friend of ours. That is the best relationship that we can have, and we intend to continue that.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Can I ask a couple of follow-ups on the consultation? Will the Committee get sight of the consultation paper before it is issued?

Ms J McCann: The officials will meet people from the sector next week on the draft consultation to get their views before it is finalised. We are hopeful that, once that meeting takes place, the Committee could certainly have access. It will obviously be a draft. It is protocol that you deal with the sector first.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Thanks. We appreciate that. The second point is on the hard-to-reach groups. Do you have any thoughts on how you reach out to those people?

Ms J McCann: As it stands, it will be a 12-week consultation period. As with previous consultations, we have made officials available and have been at events ourselves to answer questions. We will go out to people. It will be a live document, and we will go out to explain it to people and allow people to ask questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Will it run over the summer?

Ms J McCann: I am not sure. There is a difficulty at the minute with the election because of the protocols with that. A lot of work has been done, and I have to praise the officials because they have done quite a lot of work on this. The political consensus has been agreed on taking this forward, and we are looking at trying to get that work completed and get it through. Once the Executive agree for it to go out, it will.

Mr Bell: You made a good point about how we reach hard-to-reach young people. We engage with a number of organisations. The difficulty is that you do not want to mention one organisation because a lot of good work is being undertaken, but some of the specific outreach work is with hard-to-reach young people. As Ministers, we will make ourselves available to groups, particularly those sections that are hard to reach. To give you an exact time frame, we hope to have the consultation document finalised in the next couple of weeks, and we then have to take it to the Executive to seek approval to consult. We cannot consult before the election, but we hope to have the document out shortly afterwards. I think that everybody in the room knows this, but any option to take forward the legislation in this mandate would require the accelerated passage procedure, which can only be done with the support of your Committee, Chairman, and with the approval of the Assembly.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): That was my next question. You may ask for accelerated passage?

Mr Bell: I think —

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): At this stage, do you think that you will ask for that?

Mr Bell: Let us have the consultation first. I do not want to prejudge that. Everybody is listening to many of the groups in the age sector, and the people I have been speaking to are unanimous in wanting to have something done within this mandate. I think that we would fail them terribly if we dissolved in 2016 and had fresh elections without putting that legislation through, particularly given that, through accelerated passage, it is within our gift to do it within this mandate to take us to a better place than in 2011 and a better place than in GB or the Republic.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): As you say, let us not prejudge the consultation. After all, you can expect that older people will react, and, as you say, they did not want the under-16s excluded. We can assume that anybody representing under-16s is likely to call for it. There may be an overwhelming call for change.

Mr Maskey: I think we are all in a quandary in terms of where we are at. I appreciate the political sensitivities between the junior Ministers and how they respond to questions and present their arguments. I understand all that and do not expect them to be anything other than diplomatic, as they have been today, and sensitive to each other's position.

I have engaged with a wide range of people, and I have no doubt whatever that there will be overwhelming support for all-inclusive anti-discrimination legislation. In fact, my conversations with some of the senior citizens' representatives made it very clear to me that they wanted it to include all age groups, but they were reluctantly of the view that, if there cannot be agreement to do that, they would at least like to have something for the senior citizens they represent.

I understand that. I use the Committee meeting this afternoon to call for the public, particularly all the stakeholders, to make a very strong representation to the consultation. I do not see a shred of evidence that defends the imposition of legislation that excludes a range of age groups, such as everybody of 16 years or under. I do not see any evidence at all to defend that position. It is purely a political position, which is fair enough, but it is not justifiable. I certainly do not agree with it.

First of all, I hope that we get a strong representation of groups responding to the consultation. I am not sure what the scope of the consultation might be. I know that you addressed it earlier, but I would like to have it clarified today whether the terms of the consultation allow people to say, if that is what their position is, that they want this legislation to include all age groups. Is that facilitated in the legislation? I do not know whether it is or not. People are saying that they would like to maybe think about that later. I am in the same quandary as everybody else; I very much welcome legislation that brings some people into the protection of the law under GFS, such as this proposed legislation, particularly in relation to people from 16 years up. That, clearly, is a breakthrough, and it is very welcome in itself, but, by the same token, I am worried that, if you do not pass it in this mandate and you pass it in the following mandate, that means that you are talking about at least six years before you are coming back to legislation again. I cannot see you bringing in two separate Bills in the next mandate on GFS. Clearly, it would be doable, but I am flagging it up that you could conceivably be kicking it back for a number of years.

Having said all that, I think that Margaret Rose suggested in one of the earlier evidence sessions that there were policies and strategies in there, short of legislation, that could be looked at, rebooted and refreshed that could redress some of the deficiencies out there in protections for people. I would like some commitment that that at least will be undertaken in parallel with whatever we do in terms of the legislation post the consultation. There is still a lot more that could be done. I find it incomprehensible. Conceivably, you could have a family with a senior citizen who will be benefiting from this legislation because they are getting rights, protections and certain access to health. That same family could have a young person under 16 who is being denied the same access. I cannot understand how we can say with a straight face to a family that that is what we have on offer.

I very much welcome the fact that we are potentially introducing legislation that will at least include people from 16 years of age up. That is a breakthrough. I do not really believe that there is any evidence to defend that position, ultimately. I want some assurance on two things: first of all, that the consultation will be open for people who want to respond on as wide a range of options as they feel appropriate to themselves. Secondly, what other policies and strategies can be looked at in conjunction with the young persons' sector to see how we can, even now, short of legislation, effectively redress some of the problems that they have identified? Some of them are quite severe.

Ms J McCann: I will pick up on the point about the consultation. There are no agreed questions yet for the consultation. Even what people are saying here today will inform that as we go forward. We need to wait until after the consultation, because you are totally right: people have to express their opinion. I have listened to very strong opinions from all sectors in and around the issue of excluding under-16s. I have listened to some MLA colleagues here making those opinions very strongly as well. We need to wait until the consultation. We will not be in a position until then to have that robust policy position either. It is a bit premature for us to come here and say, "This is the way it is going to develop and this is what is going to happen." We are very keen to wait until after the consultation responses come back, but your input and anything that is going to inform what questions are going to be asked is certainly welcome, as is anybody's. That is open, as I said, because the questions are not set in stone as to what is going to be in it.

Mr Bell: The consultation process will be open to all, and I share some of the concerns that have been expressed. If you are looking to see the consultation being open so that all people can respond exactly how they feel and how they wish, so that there is no barrier and nobody is going to say you cannot, then we will look at that. We will also continue a parallel process. What you were suggesting is that we continue a parallel process to work with our young people, listen to their voices and work with the relevant youth organisations through their representatives to see how we can continue to make progress in this area.

I see politics as the art of the possible. We have it within our gift, in the Northern Ireland Assembly, to pass a piece of legislation, through accelerated passage, that would take us better than either GB or the Republic of Ireland. It would be a more progressive piece of legislation and give people the protections that they need. We can continue that progress to look at what we need to do in the future for those who are under 16.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): To be fair about it, before 19 February nobody was getting anything. Now, with this announcement, at least some groups in our society, pending consultation and the rest, will be in a better place, albeit tinged with a little sadness and regret that others are not getting there.

I want to acknowledge the unique nature of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. You are a joint office, and inevitably there will be policy issues on which you cannot agree. What I would like to do, in finishing this section, is give you an opportunity to address anyone, particularly in the younger persons' sector, who might suspect: "Am I being used as a political football? Is there a trade-off somewhere else that has led to this compromise agreement?".

Ms J McCann: Definitely not. If that is what you are suggesting, no.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I am just giving you the opportunity to assure people.

Ms J McCann: Well, I have three teenagers. Like most people, what we are trying to do is bring legislation forward. In anything that we do we are trying to have the best impact for the most people out in our communities. It is about the quality of life for people and protecting the rights of people. I am very keen to move it forward so that it will include all young people. I have worked with young people for years and know the way that they are discriminated against. I know the way that young people, for instance, when it comes to mental health services, and when some of them go into shops, the way they are looked on and the way they are treated. I am keen that those young people have the same protections as everybody else, because they are entitled to it. There is a human right, in my opinion, for that. It certainly was not a trade-off. We are trying to do our best. We could not get the political consensus for anything beyond 16 plus, and we are trying to say to people that we realise, even between 16 and 18, that there are a lot of issues affecting young people. We are hopeful that this will go some way to help that. Certainly we are trying our best to ensure that all people have those protections. That goes for anything we bring forward.

Mr Bell: There have been no discussions; I can give you that assurance comprehensively, Chairman. I have just been calculating a rough figure and, if you look at the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) mid-year population statistics from round about mid-2013, the legislation that we are seeking to consult on, if passed, will protect some 1,496,526 of our people. There is a group out there of over 380,000 who are under 16, and we need to continue to progress work for them. Our commitment is to do that. There are no discussions in relation to this in terms of anything else.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): OK. I appreciate the assurance. We will be very keen to see the draft consultation questions because, as Mr Maskey says, it might be something that we would like to input into. Megan wants to come back in.

Ms Fearon: Sorry, I meant to get on to this earlier. Obviously, from the point of view of older people, this is a good news story. Can you give us a flavour of some of the protections that they will be —

Ms J McCann: On older people?

Ms Fearon: Yes.

Ms J McCann: Well, particularly in terms of older people, one of the main areas of concern, when we were talking to them and to the Commissioner for Older People, was health and social care. Certain people were going in and, because they were a certain age, they were not getting particular treatments.

Travel insurance — obviously the insurance end of it is not a devolved matter, in terms of Financial Services Authority (FSA) scrutiny over the like of insurance and that. They were also saying to us that they felt they were getting impacted on by having to pay higher insurance and so on. All round, people now cannot be discriminated against. We already have good anti-discrimination legislation, and this will add to it. Particularly in and around the health and social care sector, I know there was some, but it is right across education and voluntary activities. Everybody over 16 will be more protected through this legislation. Hopefully, once the legislation is brought in, it will include everybody, because that is what we are trying to do. We are just trying to make sure that protections are there for everybody.

Mr Bell: It is a good news story. While I am happy to put my hands up and say that there is much more work that we need to do in this area, I am delighted that we have a piece of legislation that takes us to a better place than we have ever been in and makes our legislation more progressive in comparison to GB or the Republic. The research is telling us that age discrimination exists around health and social care, financial services, retail services and accommodation. Older groups have raised with me the concerns that they have. Although they are perfectly healthy, travel insurance has just spiked for them, in many cases to a point where they cannot even get a holiday.

Legislation does one thing, but a secondary part of legislation is that it also produces a cultural shift away from entrenched attitudes and behaviours that discriminate against elderly people. The legislation will do its job, but it can also produce that cultural paradigm shift in how we view and celebrate our elderly people. The legislation prohibiting discrimination also brings us into line with many international obligations and principles, including the United Nations Principles for Older Persons.

Ms Fearon: The cultural shift is where intergenerational work comes in and is important. Hopefully, on the back of that, we can work together to try to improve on that and include everyone at the end of the day.

Mr Bell: A strong point. There may be a redraft following the discussion with the stakeholders on Monday. After that, it is our intention as Ministers to instruct the officials to get that document to you.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I appreciate that.

There is one other issue that I believe that you are willing to tackle, which is the minority ethnic development fund. As I think you are aware, one of your officials briefed the Committee on 18 March and gave the very clear impression that any group receiving funding in the 2014-15 financial year would continue to receive that funding until the 2015-16 fund is up and running. In fact, when he was challenged about the potential gap, he said:

We have since received indications from your Department that this is not the case, that the funding finished at the end of the last financial year, and that successful applicants will not be aware of whether they are successful or not until May, at which point they will have the gap refunded. First of all, why the change from what we were told on 18 March?

Ms J McCann: I am not sure who told — who was at the Committee on 18 March?

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Mr Fraser.

Ms J McCann: Ken, right. All I can give you is the situation as I know it now. I do not know — I am not saying that what you read out is not what he said.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Well, it is from the Official Report.

Ms J McCann: Yes, that is what I am saying. What is happening is that, because people were being funded under the minority ethnic fund, people who are currently being funded by that — obviously, that ended on 31 March; it ran out, basically. As with most organisations and groups that work in the community, if there is a gap in funding and you cannot get that gap secured, you are running your organisation at what is called "at risk". The people who are running their organisations at risk and are successful — we are hoping that successful organisations will be told in mid May, which gives about six weeks from 31 March — will have that money backdated to them. The groups that are not successful will not. Those groups that are taking the risk of running post 31 March without their funding will not be reimbursed if they are not successful in the fund. That is the way that it is working. I do not know why Ken would have said that at that meeting. I cannot speak for him — I will have to go back and ask him — but that is my understanding of it as it is now.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): OK; let us leave Mr Fraser to one side and let me ask you this. I understand that some groups that perhaps were in receipt in a previous financial year might be unsuccessful for the current year. That is fine. My concern is about a group that is running at risk and that will be successful. Why should they fund the gap, when you have got all the money and they do not?

Ms J McCann: They will not fund the gap. We will backdate the money to 1 April.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): But they have to cover between 1 April and when you make the decision. Why do they have to run at risk because of the inefficiency of your Department or your Department's inability to bring forward a new scheme in a timely manner?

Mr Bell: Our understanding of it was that officials had said that they were considering the options that were available, which included a funding extension for the minority ethnic development fund, when they came to the Committee on 18 March. A number of options were put to us and we decided that, on balance, it was time to open up a full year's funding for all of the organisations within the sector. There are many demands from those who have been funded — and obviously want to continue to be funded — and those who have not. It is important to know that we are under extreme financial pressure. Everybody is, and the Committee knows that. My pleasure is that we were able to confirm that the minority ethnic development fund remained at £1·1 million for the 2015-16 financial year. That does not include crisis funding of £100,000.

The minority ethnic development fund is open for applications. I think those applications will close on 27 April. The racial equality unit has this week been holding drop-in clinics for potential applicants in Belfast, Londonderry and Craigavon. We will try to ensure that decisions on the funding allocations will be made shortly after the closing date and that the groups will be informed by mid-May. That reaffirms, not only in financial terms, how we have gone about it and sought the year's funding, because many other groups wanted that length of funding.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Do you consider it a timely decision?

Mr Bell: I think it is the best decision to keep the funding where it is. There is a balance. We have met many of the groups, and some of them have different views on how they want it. We have to take the best decision for the future. The decision that we took was to maintain the fund at £1·1 million and to put £100,000 into a crisis fund to help those who are most in need. I think that shows and reaffirms a strong commitment to promoting racial equality, and we have said that, in order to prevent a gap in funding, awards, where successful, will be backdated to 2015.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Where do the groups get the finance to operate at risk over these weeks?

Ms J McCann: We are led to believe in that particular funding — I have worked in the community sector, and this happens right across the community sector. Is it timely? No, it was not timely. We have to say that it should not have happened and it should have been brought forward much quicker. I acknowledge that and apologise to any groups. I have spoken to some of the groups and had meetings with them. They were very concerned about what you are saying. The thing is that they work at risk in terms of those six weeks, or whatever, but we are led to believe that, with that particular funding, that will only be a handful of organisations. Now, that is still not good enough. It is still a handful of organisations, but they operate from their reserves. That is what they do, if they have them.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): So you cannot guarantee to me, Minister, that a group might not fold over that period?

Ms J McCann: I cannot guarantee that any group might not fold.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): But specifically through the lack of funding from the minority ethnic development fund.

Mr Bell: I think the best thing that we can say on where we are at the minute is that it is our understanding, from the evidence that we possess in the ministerial office, that there are only a handful of organisations that risk finding themselves in that position. The basis of that is that the pattern of claims that we have had for the minority ethnic development funding in the past suggests that it should not be problematic, because most of the organisations that claim do so no more frequently than on a quarterly basis.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): Would you like to tell us who is at risk, then, as you obviously have the research?

Mr Bell: What you are asking me to do, when there are drop-in clinics and decisions still to be made, is to speculate on what the outcome of those decisions are. What I can tell you factually is that it is our understanding that only a handful of organisations are at risk. We are saying that because funding in the past and the pattern of claims for that funding suggest that it should not be a problematic issue, because most of those organisations are claiming no more than quarterly.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): It seems to me that, because the financial year end is not a movable feast, it is highly predictable when a yearly fund runs out. You could, therefore, be timely in your assessments, and I accept that money is tight and that there are competing pressures.

Mr Lyttle: Obviously, it is not the first time that OFMDFM has failed to properly administer vital, albeit modest, funding for building a united community and achieving racial equality in Northern Ireland. What reasons led to the fund not being called for adequately in advance of the financial year-end?

Mr Bell: Can you give me an example of where money has not been issued appropriately?

Mr Lyttle: I said "administer".

Mr Bell: Where has it not been administered appropriately?

Mr Lyttle: There have been numerous issues with good relations funding.

Mr Bell: You made a statement there that money has not been administered appropriately. Can you give me one example?

Mr Lyttle: Properly administered.

Mr Bell: Give me one simple example.

Mr Lyttle: I argue that proper administration is when it is well enough in advance at year-end to allow organisations to plan properly.

Mr Bell: You made a statement that money has not been properly administered. Have you an example of that?

Mr Lyttle: If you need me to replace "properly" with "timely", I am happy to do that. I do not think that it changes the issue that we are trying to get to. My question is this: why the delay?

Mr Bell: I think that it is an issue, because if you are saying to me, without any evidence base, that money has not been properly administered, that is a serious charge, Chairman. It is something that you need to look on.

Mr Lyttle: If you need me to replace that with "timely", I will do that in order to get to what the issue actually is.

Mr Bell: I do not need to do anything, Chairman. You are the Deputy Chairman of a Committee. You made a very strong statement.

Mr Lyttle: I made a clear statement.

Mr Bell: You should review your statement and come back to me at a further stage.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I think that the Deputy Chair has reviewed it to "timely".

Mr Lyttle: Absolutely, Chair. To get to what the issue at hand is, I will replace that with "timely". I am asking what the delay was.

Mr Bell: You all understand the difficulty with the financial pressures that we are under. There has been the most difficult Budget round. We have looked at a loss of funding in significant numbers, and I think that what we have done is that we have protected the minority ethnic development fund at £1·1 million. We have put crisis funding in place. Yes, I accept that some organisations would like something done differently, and I think that there are some other organisations involved in racial equality and ethnic development that are using that fund that would like to do it this way. I am satisfied that we have had to make a judgement and that this is the right conclusion.

Ms J McCann: On the timeliness of the funding, I take your point on our responsibility because this is a fund that we oversee in OFMDFM, but there have been issues right across Departments. There have been issues with ESF funding in DEL and with funding in DRD. So there are issues with —

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): What funding in DRD?

Ms J McCann: Funding for services for the roads and maintenance and everything else. Constituents have come to me, and I have been told when I have approached organisations that are responsible for those services that they do not know whether they will get the funding at that stage to do the work that is needed for communities.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): That is slightly different than timeliness.

Ms J McCann: What I am trying to say is that we take responsibility for this. I have already said that it should not have happened. I am certainly apologising to the groups out there that need the money, because I know how hard-pressed groups in the community are. They do excellent, sterling work, and they cannot do the work. You are right to say that, sometimes, some of them do not have the money to do it at risk from reserves and everything else. All that I am saying is that these budgetary decisions are made right across the board in all Departments. That is the point that I want to make. I do take responsibility for this one in particular.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): I appreciate that.

Mr Lyttle: Are there organisations that have been doing vital work as a result of receipt of the funding that will not be able to survive the six weeks in which your process is asking them to operate under risk?

Mr Bell: I think that there are a number of organisations out there that are doing vital work, and there are also a number of organisations that were not successful in the initial bids to the minority ethnic development fund who also could be doing vital work. I do not prejudge the outcome of the assessments that are currently being undertaken.

Mr Maskey: I am trying to get a sense of it. I certainly share the view of the organisations. I have worked with a number of organisations that rely heavily on this particular fund. There may be some projects that may not continue if they are not funded. Does that mean that the core funding of an organisation will also go? I do not see it that way. I share the same concerns as the organisations that might have to run at risk and that may or may not get a successful outcome to their bid. I am just trying to establish the accuracy or scale of things here. I would not have thought that, if some of those groups do not get funding — it is more funding for projects that they are involved in, as opposed to their core funding as organisations. The question is whether organisations will go out of business. I am conscious that this is a public session, and I do not want to unnecessarily have it out there that well-established organisations may go to the wall because of this issue. It is important to clarify that for people. I am not saying that it is dangerous, but it is potentially very negative to indicate that organisations will go to the wall. It might be that very well-respected projects may not succeed, and we do not want to see that, but it is important to set the record straight.

Mr Bell: I think that I have said it three times, but I will say it again: my understanding is that only a small number of organisations will be affected. The basis for saying that is that most of the organisations claim quarterly.

A lot of good work has been undertaken and funded. I am also aware of a lot of groups that want to undertake essential work that were not able to get through the last time and that may or may not apply this time. I do not think that we can prejudge the process while it is being undertaken.

The Chairperson (Mr Nesbitt): OK members, we will cut it there. Junior Ministers, thank you very much. Joan and Margaret Rose, we appreciate your time. Thank you.