Official Report: Tuesday 16 September 2014

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Storey has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member will have up to three minutes to speak.

Mr Storey: Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I present the petition, which asks the Minister of Education and the Northern Ireland education and library boards to ensure that the education and library boards' policy on home education accurately reflects their legal status, duties and powers, and respects the parents' duty to provide an education. It is signed by 3,360 persons.

I present the petition regarding the issue of elective home education, which has caused much concern among many families who have chosen to exercise their legal right to educate their children other than at school. In recent months, the education and library boards have published a consultation exercise in relation to changes to the elective home education policies. I am at a loss to understand why the issue has emerged at this time, when it appears that the current practice within the boards has been, and is, working satisfactorily. I and many of my fellow MLAs have been lobbied about this issue. It has generated great concern among parents, many of whom have made a conscientious and positive decision to home educate their children. That is their legal right, and they now feel that they are being targeted for being responsible parents.

It is not clear from the consultation document why the consultation was initiated at this time, who initiated the process and if legal advice was sought on whether the revised proposals were consistent with article 45(1) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. Clearly, when the issue was raised with the Minister of Education in the Chamber on 2 June, he was keen to distance himself from the consultation exercise. He was also keen to stress that this exercise was undertaken independently of his Department.

My party and I support parental choice in all aspects of education. That is in keeping with article 44 of the 1986 order, which has been a fundamental tenet of our education system for many years. Our schooling system has been developed in accordance with that principle. Education, however, is not the same as schooling, and some parents wish to exercise their legal right to educate their children other than at school.

Many of them do so for religious reasons, and we, as a party, support and uphold that right.

Many of these parents, who are part of a wider international education support network, have no desire to be part of the current state schooling system. Indeed, there is no requirement in law for them to do so. I understand that it is for parents to become involved in schooling systems or to advise, or to seek permission from, state institutions such as the boards to undertake that activity. There is also no requirement for parents to seek permission to withdraw their children from schooling to educate them at home.

As I present the petition, I trust that the Education Minister will take seriously the issues raised, and I look forward to his response.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Mr Storey. I will forward the petition to the Minister of Education and send a copy to the Committee.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The motion will be treated as a business motion. Therefore, there will be no debate.

Mr Weir: I beg to move

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I proceed to the Question, I advise Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: As there are Ayes from all sides of the House and no dissenting voices, I am satisfied that cross-community support has been demonstrated.

Mr Ford (The Minister of Justice): With your permission, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement regarding a meeting under the auspices of the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) on cooperation on criminal justice matters, which was held in Dublin on Friday 27 June. I represented the Executive at the meeting, which was hosted by Frances Fitzgerald TD, the new Minister for Justice and Equality, who was attending her first meeting under the auspices of the IGA. It was the eighth formal ministerial meeting under the intergovernmental agreement since the devolution of justice in April 2010. As I previously said in statements to the House, I am committed to keeping the Assembly informed of meetings held under the auspices of the agreement on the same basis as North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) meetings.

The meeting provided us both with an opportunity to review final progress against the 2013-14 joint work programme as well as to formally agree a joint work programme for 2014-15, which will run through to the summer of 2015. It was gratifying to note the positive progress that has been made.

A hate crime-related seminar held in Sligo during May, which was hosted by an Garda Síochána and attended by the PSNI, was the result of the outworking of the criminal justice and social diversity project advisory group.

The sharing of information and training on programmes to challenge offending behaviour between the respective probation services, including exploration of opportunities for collaboration in interventions for domestic violence and violent offenders, are further instances of progress.

The PSNI has made strides on the development of a potential information-sharing agreement with an Garda Síochána covering domestic and child abuse, and this work will be further developed during 2014-15 in the registered offenders project advisory group.

Those are just some of the examples that demonstrate the excellent ongoing cooperation between criminal justice agencies across both jurisdictions on this island.

I have attached to the printed version of the statement a copy of the joint work programme for 2014-15 agreed during the meeting. The current joint work programme seeks to build on the 2013-14 programme and on the progress made last year. I intend to give a brief progress report in December following our next IGA meeting, which is scheduled to coincide with the fifth annual seminar on public protection issues on the island of Ireland. In the interim, progress against the actions will be monitored by the working group of officials.

Six project advisory groups provide the mechanism by which work is taken forward. They focus on the areas of public protection, registered offenders, youth justice, forensic science, support for victims of crime, and social diversity. Each of the project advisory groups has continued to promote and support cooperation across the broad spectrum of criminal justice agencies on both sides of the border.

Examples of cross-border cooperation that will be taken forward include work on the further development of a forensic partnership strategy and action plan covering the forensic science services of Northern Ireland, Ireland and Scotland; delivery of seminars by the police services on this island to marginalised groups of people, building on the seminars with the Roma communities in the South; ongoing discussion on the European victims directive in the support for victims project advisory group following the joint presentation by senior DOJ and Department of Justice and Equality (DJE) officials during the meeting; and the further development of staff exchanges and information sharing between the juvenile detention facilities in Northern Ireland and Ireland.

There continues to be excellent cooperation at an operational level between the PSNI and an Garda Síochána on the management of sex offenders. I am pleased to report that there remains good progress in supporting and promoting North/South cooperation to make the whole island a safer and more prosperous place for everyone.

As the House will be aware, the IGA is not purposely intended to provide for discussion of cross-border security issues. However, I used the opportunity on 27 June to briefly discuss with Frances Fitzgerald some general wider cross-border security-related issues. Those included the work being done in the areas of tackling organised crime, fuel and tobacco fraud, human trafficking and rural crime. I also relayed my appreciation to an Garda Síochána in supporting the work to tackle ongoing security challenges.

Finally, the intergovernmental agreement provides an extremely helpful framework for supporting North/South cooperation on criminal justice matters, but we are seeing the true benefits of cooperation when individuals in the criminal justice agencies have developed good working relationships with their respective counterparts. It is that real type of practical cooperation that the new Irish Justice Minister, Frances Fitzgerald, and I are both committed to further enhancing.

Mr Givan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): I thank the Minister for bringing the statement to the House today. Can he give any indication of whether the National Crime Agency (NCA) was raised in his discussions at this meeting in the context of tackling organised crime, fuel and tobacco fraud and human trafficking? What are the implications of the continued non-implementation of the full powers that it should have to tackle those very serious issues? Is there any indication that organised crime gangs in the Republic of Ireland are seeking to exploit the weaknesses that now exist in this jurisdiction, particularly because of the inability to cover civil assets that criminal gangs are obviously living off?

Mr Ford: I thank the Chair for his question. Certainly, the non-operational status of the NCA in the devolved sphere was mentioned in the meeting. However, his wider questions go a bit beyond the meeting's remit. I can confirm that I have meetings arranged over the next few days with most of, if not all, the other Executive parties, and I certainly hope that they will enable us to make progress on the basis of the document that I circulated last week. It is absolutely clear that we are losing out because of not having the NCA to deal with major issues such as environmental crime and civil recovery. However, I cannot give any specific information at my level on the question of cross-border activities that exploit the opportunities that are presented by the absence of civil recovery powers at this stage in Northern Ireland.

Mr McCartney: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an ráiteas sin. I thank the Minister for the statement, which I welcome. In particular, I welcome the ongoing work on cooperation and harmonisation. However, does the Minister intend to look some time in the future at legal highs? The recent legislation that was passed in the Oireachtas allows for legal highs to be dealt with more speedily and to be identified and prohibited as quickly as possible.

Mr Ford: I thank the Deputy Chair for his question. The issue of new psychoactive substances, which are more simply called legal highs, is of concern on both sides of the border. I have certainly discussed the approach taken in the Republic, but the reality is that the issue is not currently devolved here and we are bound by changes that are happening at Westminster. We are expecting the review from the Home Office sometime this autumn, and I hope that that will enable us to make progress in Northern Ireland, because it is clear that we need to see the most robust action taken against those who are seeking to promote legal highs in a way that is seriously damaging to public health.

Mr A Maginness: I welcome the Minister's statement. The Minister said in the penultimate paragraph:

The Minister then went on to identify some of those issues:

Is that apposite because is not the reality that, when one talks about cross-border security issues, is one not talking really about dealing with paramilitary activities, subversion and activities of that nature rather than crime per se? I would have thought that fuel laundering, for example, would be a totally appropriate subject for both Ministers to discuss in an official capacity and to deal with directly.

Mr Ford: I appreciate Mr Maginness's point. The specific way the IGA was set up was a matter for the UK and Irish Governments; we operate it as best we can in the devolved sphere. When the Member raises the issue of paramilitary concerns, issues of concern relating to paramilitary terrorist activity are discussed in a general way but are not the primary responsibility of this. There are also clear indications of the involvement of some paramilitary organisations in crimes such as fuel laundering, tobacco smuggling and potentially even human trafficking.

That is where there is a clear crossover between what would be seen as terrorist activity and what is seen as organised crime. It is important that we see the agencies on both sides of the border cooperating across that range of issues and not producing artificial separations.

Mr Elliott: I thank the Minister for the update. Although he indicated that it is not the purpose of the IGA to provide a discussion on cross-border security issues, I was just wondering whether any new initiatives were suggested or are coming forward in relation to fuel and tobacco fraud.

Mr Ford: I thank Mr Elliott for the question. The key issue around fuel fraud is more the issue of laundering than anything else. Work is ongoing, led by the Revenue Commissioners in Dublin and HMRC in London. I am expecting to receive an update shortly from HMRC in the context of the Organised Crime Task Force, which brings together local and UK-wide agencies in Northern Ireland, where a number of subgroups have cross-border cooperation.

Work is ongoing about developing a different marker, which, it is hoped, will make laundering if not impossible then potentially uneconomic. Tobacco smuggling is a classic smuggling operation, and we need the best possible cooperation across a number of agencies, and not just on this island. Given the way that smuggling can tend to operate across Europe and further afield, we need the widest possible international reach, which is, of course, another point where the National Crime Agency may come in as well as the good work that is being done by agencies cross-border.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Minister, for the excellent cooperative work that you are doing with your Irish counterpart. In the statement, you made reference to a forensic partnership strategy between Northern Ireland, Ireland and Scotland. Is that new or ongoing work between those forensic agencies?

Mr Ford: The forensics cooperation has been ongoing for some time. I signed an agreement shortly after I came into office with Alan Shatter as the Irish Justice Minister, but the three forensic science services have been cooperating for a number of years looking at how they can promote cooperation and provide resilience between them.

There is now in place not just a bilateral agreement between Northern Ireland and the Republic but a trilateral agreement involving Scotland. What is clear is that changes to the forensic science services in England and Wales have made it more important that we cooperate across the public sector with the agencies on either side of us, regardless of constitutional status. It is clear that significant help is being given between the three jurisdictions.

Mr Wells: The Minister is aware that the Leinster House Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality has unanimously agreed to recommend that the purchase of sexual services in the Irish Republic become a criminal offence. He raised the issue of human trafficking. Is he aware of that Committee's report, and was the issue discussed during the meeting?

Mr Ford: Yes, it was. I thank Mr Wells for giving me the opportunity to point out that, alongside the issue of human trafficking, the issue of sexual offences in general was raised. Frances Fitzgerald is considering the evidence that has been put to her before she considers the way forward for her jurisdiction in the same way that I will consider the evidence from the research that is being commissioned in Northern Ireland before I consider the best possible way forward in this jurisdiction.

Mr Lynch: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an ráiteas sin. Minister, in relation to the management of sex offenders, you say that there is excellent cooperation between the two services on the island. Has there been any progress on the development of an all-Ireland sex offender register?

Mr Ford: I thank Mr Lynch for giving me the opportunity to point out the level of cooperation. There is a clear and significant benefit to both jurisdictions from information sharing because of the ease of travel between the two jurisdictions. The Member talks specifically about a single register, but we also need to look at the fact that it is equally easy to travel between this island and Great Britain and then into Europe. The important issue is that we have ensured that sex offenders who travel notify the police or the Garda of the details. In that context, we have good arrangements.

I will look at whether anything can be done to ensure that the border is not used to allow people to escape justice. There is not necessarily any more benefit in having a single register rather than the two that we have, which fully cooperate and engage in information sharing with the registers in GB.

Mr Humphrey: I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome the cooperation between the police in this jurisdiction and the police in the Irish Republic.

The Minister will be aware that sex offenders, human trafficking, fuel laundering, tobacco smuggling, drugs and paedophile activity are huge issues facing Northern Ireland. I have written to the Minister on a number of occasions about the National Crime Agency, and I also raised the issue with the Secretary of State on a number of occasions. The SDLP today raised the issue of paramilitary activity, and Sinn Féin raised the issue of sex offenders. What progress is the Minister making with both those parties on getting their agreement to the installation and extension of the National Crime Agency to Northern Ireland?

Mr Ford: I am not sure whether Mr Humphrey was in the Chamber when I answered the first question, which was from Mr Givan. I made it clear that discussions are ongoing: indeed, I have a discussion with his party in my diary for this afternoon. I am keen to have discussions with all parties to see what progress can be made on the basis of the letter that I issued last week.

I hope that we will be able to reach agreement on the basis of the significant mechanisms for answerability and accountability in Northern Ireland, which do not exist in other parts of the UK, so that we can get the benefit of the NCA in the fight against crime.

Mr Ford: Mr Humphrey may point across the Chamber, but we need to ensure that we have agreement around the Chamber.

Ms McCorley: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas agus as a fhreagraí go dtí seo. In the Minister's discussions with his counterpart in the South on human trafficking, was there agreement on how to prosecute offenders, to prevent human trafficking and to protect the victims of human trafficking?

Mr Ford: I take Ms McCorley's point about getting the maximum possible cooperation. Of course, the precise mechanisms for things like support are not exactly the same. We have, however, a good system of support for victims in Northern Ireland. We have very good cross-border cooperation on that, as we do on a much wider front.

It is important that we ensure that we get the best possible information so that, if people are being trafficked across the border, across the North Channel and into mainland Europe, as we know they are, we ensure that people report their suspicions, tell the police, the Garda, Crimestoppers or whomever so that action can be taken to rescue those who are vulnerable and are being trafficked and ensure proper protection for them.

It really is important that the good work being done by the agencies be matched by good work between the agencies and the general public in both jurisdictions.

Mr Anderson: I thank the Minister for his statement.

Minister, you have highlighted the fact that that there continues to be excellent cooperation between the PSNI and an Garda Síochána at an operational level on the management of sex offenders. Can you outline the current position regarding the potential loss of the European arrest warrant (EAW) and whether that has been satisfactorily resolved, given the significant operational benefits that it would have for Northern Ireland?

Mr Ford: Members seem to be very good at getting nearly any justice matter that they want to talk about into questions on these statements. I can happily say back to Mr Anderson that the specific issue of the European arrest warrant is one of those that was discussed as part of our general summing-up of cooperation. I have concerns that we have not yet seen full clarity between the UK and the European Union on the opt-back-in measure for the European arrest warrant, which no doubt is more significant for Northern Ireland than it is for other regions of the UK and is particularly significant between Northern Ireland and the Republic. It is important that we have the EAW back in operation, not just for sex offenders but for a range of criminals. I hope that the British Government, having made their opt-out plans clear, will ensure that they tidy up the loose ends on opting back in so that we do not have a gap in our arrangements later this year.

Mr Attwood: May I return to the wider conversation that you had with the Justice Minister in the South about organised crime? Given that the biggest illegal waste dump in the history of these islands was found outside your own city a couple of years ago, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker; that the police say that they did not have any intelligence or information on it; that the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), the predecessor agency to the much-applauded National Crime Agency, says that it had no intelligence or information on it; that the Organised Crime Task Force (OCTF), of which you were a member, Minister, did not have any working group on it; and that those responsible got £50 million out of the illegal waste dump, can the Minister confirm what conversations he is having with the Minister in the South about organised crime, what conclusions he has come to and what actions he is taking?

Mr Ford: Mr Attwood correctly raises the point that waste crime is one of the significant issues of organised crime. Sadly, some of the follow-up work on and part of the investigations into that particular waste dump had to cease when NCA officers were unable to continue on the basis of the change in status from SOCA to NCA last year. That is one of the reasons why I want to see the NCA fully operational. However, we also clearly need to get intelligence and ensure that it is properly shared North/South, because many of the waste dumps have had a cross-border element. We need to ensure that we get that sharing. We also need to depend on public information.

There was a very useful meeting between officials from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) and the Organised Crime Task Force, which is merely a coordinating body, not an operational one. That gave the opportunity for a range of agencies to hear from the NIEA on that issue. We cannot set up a subgroup of the OCTF for everything, but what we can ensure is that we get the maximum possible cooperation between the agencies. I believe that we have now got that, perhaps as a result of that discovery.

Mr McCarthy: I thank the Minister for his statement and for his ongoing commitment to keeping the Assembly informed of the work being done under the intergovernmental agreement.

Victims have already been mentioned. The Assembly is aware that the Minister has placed the needs of victims at the centre of his reform agenda. Can he tell us whether the commitment to meeting the needs of victims is also at the centre of the cross-border work that is being carried out under the intergovernmental agreement?

Mr Ford: Whilst I thank Mr McCarthy for the question that he has asked, I will say that the precise detail of how matters are carried out in the Republic is clearly not something for me. However, I do believe that there is significant work being done. Of course, the European directive affects all of us, and there is work going on to ensure that both jurisdictions are in line with that. I believe that, in terms of the victim and witness strategy in Northern Ireland, we are well ahead of it, but it is certainly an issue that, as I understand it, is of significant concern to the DJE. Perhaps the fact that Frances Fitzgerald is, like me, a social worker means that we have an interest in the needs of victims across both jurisdictions. The key issue is the cooperation that is being carried through by officials and the work that is being done to ensure that people learn lessons from others' achievements and that we share best practice across the island.

Mr Dallat: The Minister may not be aware that today is the 40th anniversary of the murder of Judge Rory Conaghan and his colleague Martin McBurney. Can the Minister assure me that there is maximum cooperation between North and South to ensure that Irishmen such as judges Conaghan and McBurney do not lose their lives in the future carrying out their jobs to change society for the better?

Mr Ford: Mr Dallat brings us back to some of the very serious points that confront us even on this day, never mind looking back 40 years. I cannot give any assurance about what happened 40 years ago, but he asks about seeking to ensure that work is being done to protect Irishmen whichever side of the border they happen to be on, and I believe that, from the reports that we receive, as Ministers, from the Garda Commissioner and the PSNI Chief Constable, we have an extremely good set of cooperative arrangements North/South at the moment.

We can always make cooperation better, but I believe that we have it at a high level. It will be the task of the new Garda Commissioner, as opposed to the acting Garda Commissioner, to see how that works in the future, but from what I see in the reports that I receive from the PSNI and from my discussions with Frances Fitzgerald I believe that we have very high levels of cooperation. Very significant work is being done, particularly as far as we are concerned, in the Southern jurisdiction, and that is aiding the fight that the PSNI is leading against the kind of terrorist crime that the Member referred to, which, sadly, could still happen today and not just 40 years ago.

Mr Allister: The Minister has been very effusive in praising North/South cooperation and, indeed, has highly commended the Garda, yet, yesterday, the chief coroner in Northern Ireland had occasion to be highly critical of the total lack of cooperation from the Garda in the preparation for the pending Kingsmills massacre inquest. What actions has the Minister taken to raise that issue with his counterparts? That is a disgraceful situation. If he has not done anything, why has he not done anything and will he now seek to engage on that important issue? The coroner says that he wrote to the guards in February and April looking for cooperation and has had no response. Is the Minister prepared to sit back and allow that to continue or will he get active on that issue?

Mr Ford: There are a number of points in Mr Allister's comments. First of all, I do not operationally direct the PSNI, and I need to be very careful about suggesting that I might operationally direct an Garda Síochána in those circumstances —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Ford: Let us be absolutely clear; it is a major difficulty to resource the issues of the past, whether it be the work of the police in the Historical Enquiries Team and other matters, whether it be the work of the Office of the Police Ombudsman on its historical issues, or whether it be the work of the Coroners' Courts in this jurisdiction. We have significant financial problems in dealing with that with a budget that is only for today and which is being cut at this stage whilst some of those issues are enormously expensive. So, we need to be realistic about the expectation as to what a Minister in this jurisdiction could do to enforce anything on a police service in a different jurisdiction.

Mr Allister: Do nothing.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. That concludes questions on the statement.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister of Justice, Mr David Ford, to move the Bill.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are two groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn.

The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1 to 13 and amendment No 19, which deal with the appointment and guidance of the director of legal aid services. This group comprises amendments to appoint a director of legal aid services rather than designate a civil servant to the post; to remove the requirement for the director to comply with departmental direction; and consequential amendments to related provisions of the Bill.

The second debate will be on amendment Nos 14 to 18 and 20 to 22, which deal with Assembly scrutiny of rule-making powers and other technical amendments. This group comprises departmental amendments requested by the Justice Committee on the advice of the Examiner of Statutory Rules to upgrade the Assembly statutory scrutiny mechanism for significant rule-making powers to draft affirmative procedure, and two technical amendments to change the name of the Legal Services Commission to Legal Services Agency in related legislation.

I remind Members intending to speak that, during the debates on the two groups of amendments, they should address all of the amendments in each group on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on each group is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. The Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 to 13 and amendment No 19. This group comprises amendments to appoint a director of legal aid services rather than designate a civil servant to the post; to remove the requirement for the director to comply with departmental direction; and consequential amendments to related provisions of the Bill.

Amendment No 1 is a paving amendment for amendment No 2; amendment Nos 13 and 19 are consequential to amendment No 2; amendment Nos 4 to 8 are consequential to amendment No 3; and amendment Nos 10 to 12 are consequential to amendment No 9.

I call Tom Elliott to move amendment No 1 and address the other amendments in the group.

Mr Elliott: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Elliott: Thank you for outlining that process and procedure.

The main purpose of the Bill is to dissolve the Northern Ireland Legal Services Commission and transfer its functions and staff to an executive agency that is to be established within the Department of Justice. The Bill also makes provision for the transfer of staff from the commission to the employment of the Northern Ireland Civil Service.

Clause 2(1) states:

I have personally been a long-time advocate of having Senior Civil Service positions more open to public competition. Therefore, it is no surprise that I have concerns that this position will be an in-house appointment instead of being for open competition. My amendment is not designed to exclude existing civil servants from applying for the post. It is designed to allow for an open competition. Indeed, Department of Justice officials were questioned at length about that in Committee. When asked by the Chairperson, Mr Givan, whether there would be an internal or external competition, the official reply was clear:

Obviously, there are some ambiguities around whether it will be an internal or external position.

Again, when pressed by the Chairman of the Committee on the matter, the official again replied:

That indicates that there is no requirement for an open competition and that it could be just an in-house post.

There was also an acceptance by the Department that, although it may not be the normal way of doing it, there is a mechanism to have an open recruitment process and not just confine it to civil servants. The Department indicated:

Again, I assume from that statement that the current chief executive of the Legal Services Commission would be transferred to the new agency as its director.

While the Department is looking at the potential of the retention of experience in the new agency — I totally understand that — there is a concern that this process is just about rearranging the deckchairs. I think that, more importantly, this needs to be future-proofed to ensure that such appointments are not made on a basis of moving senior civil servants around, either within a Department or between Departments, in the future. While there has been an indication from the Department that the appointment may be as the result of an open competition, that is not assured. All that I am seeking is an assurance that there will be an open competition for the director's post.
I have serious concerns about amendment No 3, which relates to clause 3(1)(a). That clause states:

Other amendments in this group are also connected to this matter. I am sure that the Minister will indicate that he, or any other Minister, has a general power of direction to civil servants in relation to decisions. If that is the case, why is there a need for this clause? If that general power of direction is there, why do we need this separate clause? We are aware that the Minister is effectively the Department, so I do not see any difference in saying that this is a Department's power and not the Minister's power. As far as I am concerned, one is of the other.

During the debate, there may be specific reference to amendment No 5, which proposes removing the option for the Department to give direction in carrying out those functions in relation to an individual case. I proposed that amendment on the basis that we were removing the other clause that gave direction, but I am willing to listen to the Minister's view. If Ministers have a general power to give direction anyway, I am prepared to reconsider that particular amendment and allow that to remain. However, that will not dilute the overall aspect of why we should add the powers to the legislation that a director must comply with a direction from the Minister.

There are also provisions in the legislation for the Department to give guidance to the director. I have no difficulty with that whatsoever; indeed, I would expect that the Department or the Minister would give guidance to the director. I fully support that and have no issue with it at all, but there is a significant difference between the director having to comply with the direction from the Department and the Department giving guidance to the director. There is a major difference there.

I have clearly set out the issues as simply as possible for Members to consider, and I am willing to address any further issues that Members have.

Mr Givan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): Before addressing the amendments, with your indulgence, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a few general remarks about the Bill in my capacity as Chair of the Justice Committee. The Bill forms part of the wider programme to reform the legal aid system in Northern Ireland and, as such, it is generally supported by the Committee. There have been ongoing issues in relation to inaccurate financial modelling and forecasting of criminal and civil legal aid spend; a lack of accountability; and significant budget overspends for some considerable time, and it is imperative that measures be taken to address the situation.

The change of status of the Legal Services Commission from a non-departmental public body to an executive agency of the Department of Justice provides an opportunity to improve the governance arrangements relating to legal aid and increase transparency, accountability and efficiency.

As part of the deliberations on the Bill, the Committee sought evidence from key stakeholders, as well as the Department of Justice. Written submissions were received from 20 organisations, and the Committee held an oral evidence event on 14 May this year. Seven organisations attended that to discuss various issues relating to the Bill, particularly the requirement for the Department of Justice to designate a civil servant in the Department as the director of legal aid casework, and whether there are adequate and sufficient safeguards to protect and ensure the independence of decision-making once the executive agency is established and the director appointed to take decisions. I will address those specific issues shortly in the context of Mr Elliott's amendments.

At the request of the Minister to keep the Committee Stage as short as possible to enable the Bill to receive Royal Assent in the autumn and allow the agency to be formed shortly thereafter, and given the fact that the Bill is largely technical in nature and that supporting subordinate legislation will also be required, which will provide opportunities for further scrutiny, the Committee completed the Committee Stage in 10 weeks. Despite the short timescale, the Committee scrutinised and considered all aspects of the Bill in a thorough manner. I thank the members for their diligence and contributions. I also thank the witnesses, who provided useful written and oral evidence, and the departmental officials, who provided additional information and clarification for the Committee throughout the process. I also thank my Committee staff, who, as always, served the Committee with their professionalism.

Turning to amendment Nos 1, 2, 13 and 19: issues regarding the requirement for the Department of Justice to designate a civil servant in the Department as the director of legal aid casework were highlighted in the evidence the Committee received. Views were expressed that it may be better for the post to be filled by someone outside the Civil Service with no pre-existing loyalties in the Department. Members explored that point further with departmental officials when they appeared before the Committee on 28 May this year.

Members sought clarification, given the way clause 2 is worded, regarding whether the post could be filled by someone external to the Department or whether it had to be filled by a civil servant. The officials from the Department indicated that the post, which will be a Senior Civil Service post, did not necessarily have to be filled by a civil servant but that a person employed in an agency is normally a civil servant. Therefore, the person to be recruited would be appointed to the Department first, and the Minister would then designate them as the director of legal aid casework. The officials outlined that the post could be filled in a number of ways, such as direct recruitment, competition in the existing grades of staff across the Senior Civil Service in all Departments, or a more managed move of a particular person in the Department or, more generally, across the Senior Civil Service. They also indicated that the Department had no plans to hold an external competition and stated that consideration needed to be given to the current chief executive of the Legal Services Commission and the potential for retaining the expertise over a transition period and then considering how to fill the post in the future.

When considering clause 2, some members were of the view that it could be better worded to ensure that there is not a perception that a person in the Department must be appointed to the post of director of legal aid casework. Other members, however, noted that it did not preclude the recruitment of someone from outside who then becomes a civil servant.

Briefly, before moving on to the other amendments, I will speak on behalf of the Democratic Unionist Party. This was an issue that I pressed a number of witnesses on when they came before the Committee. I asked them about the process of designation as opposed to a public appointment process. Obviously, I share a number of the issues that Mr Elliott raised. I think that the Committee was of the view that this should be ventilated as openly as possible. However, when I pressed a number of the witnesses, I did not see material evidence brought to the Committee to substantiate why there needed to be a different process from the designation.

Issues were certainly raised about the need to present by way of perception that there was no conflict of interest, but, in my view, evidence was not brought to the Committee to demonstrate where, indeed, there have been issues in the past in respect of the Legal Services Commission. For that reason, I will be interested to see what the Minister of Justice has to say about Mr Elliott's amendments. We are open to listen to those arguments that are coming forward, but at this stage I have not seen material evidence provided to the Committee that sufficiently assures me that such a change is necessary. We remain open to be convinced at this stage of the debate.

I move on to the amendments relating to clauses 3 and 4 in my capacity as Chairman. One of the primary concerns raised by stakeholders was whether there are adequate and sufficient safeguards included in the arrangements to protect and ensure the independence of decision-making once the executive agency is established and the director of legal aid casework appointed to take decisions on individual cases and the grant of civil legal aid. Issues were raised regarding the need to ensure the independence of the director and the potential for a conflict of interest given that the director would be designated as a departmental official who would have to adhere to the Civil Service code.

Questions were also raised regarding whether the arrangements are suitably robust to provide the operational independence required in making individual decisions, whether the director will be able to challenge directions from the Department and whether individual decisions could be compromised through guidance from the Department in relation to a certain class or category of legal case, which may have the potential to impact on a particular case.

Some stakeholders were, however, satisfied that the legislation reflects the independent role of the executive agency from the Department in considering individual legal aid applications. In response to the issues raised, the Department set out for the Committee the range of safeguards covered in the legislation to protect the independence of individual decisions on the grant of civil legal aid. These include a requirement that the Department not give direction or guidance in relation to an individual case, that directions and guidance must be published, the establishment of an independent appeals process and the imposition of a duty on the Department to ensure that the director acts independently of it when applying any guidance or direction to an individual case.

The Department emphasised that any direction or guidance could not override the provisions of the relevant primary or secondary legislation and might be challenged in the courts, as can any funding decision by the director of legal aid casework by way of an application for judicial review. It also expressed the view that the requirement to publish any directions and guidance would ensure transparency and provide a robust protection against any attempt to influence the director’s decision-making in an inappropriate manner. The Department indicated that, under the proposed new arrangements, the independence of the director’s decision-making in any individual case would be no less than the independence of the Legal Services Commission’s decision-making under the current arrangements, and it is not the intention to place the primary duty of the director as obedience to departmental direction but rather that all the safeguards are of equal importance.

When considering clause 3, some Committee members noted that the requirement to follow directions and guidance issued by the Minister already exists and were satisfied that any direction could not override the provisions of the relevant primary or secondary legislation and that individual decisions by the director will be made on the basis of the statutory tests. Other Members did express reservations about the proposed framework to ensure the independence of the director in relation to decisions in individual cases and whether adequate safeguards were in place. The Committee is clear that the independence of individual decisions on the granting of civil legal aid by the director must be protected. The key question is whether the Bill as it stands delivers that or whether Mr Elliott’s amendments are necessary to strengthen the safeguards. Having heard Mr Elliott’s explanation of the purpose of his amendments, I await with interest the view of the Minister on them.

Mr McCartney: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I will take the amendments in the two groups as they were presented by Tom Elliott. I think that all of us in the Committee raised the issue of the appointment of the director, and some of the points that Tom Elliott raised and which the Chair touched on were reflected across the Committee discussion.

When we initially asked the question, the Bill was perhaps not as clear as we wanted it to be, in that it looked like this would be an internal competition only. However, I think that the officials, to their credit, said that there have been instances — and this would be one of them — in which there would be a wider, and what you might call an open, competition.

Obviously, I will listen to what the Minister says, but, at present, and if we get the assurances from the Minister —

Mr Elliott: I thank the Member for giving way. I accept that there was an indication that it could be by open competition and process, but there was no assurance of that. Is that fair to say? Do you accept that there was no assurance that it would be by open competition?

Mr McCartney: I suppose that you could say that it was not as explicit as you and others, including us, would perhaps have liked, but there have obviously been situations in which someone external was recruited to a position. The fact that such individuals had to be covered by being members of the Civil Service has been brought through. I think that, again, it is a matter of listening to the Minister and satisfying ourselves. If we then feel that the Minister is saying that it will only be internal, your amendments will better come into play.

Similarly, concerns about clauses 3 and 4 were laid out this morning. We have to ensure the independence of decision-making in relation to legal aid and the granting of legal aid. It is very clear that the Minister has no role whatsoever in individual cases, and quite rightly. When it comes to policy and so on, the Minister is guided by legislation and other regulation, so we are satisfied with that. What we need to do — I think that there is provision for this — is ensure that whatever guidance or direction comes from the Department and the Minister is open to consultation with and scrutiny by the Committee. Should we feel that there is any encroachment into an area of policy that the Department is trying to skew in a particular way — I am not suggesting that there would be — there are mechanisms in place to protect from that.

We will listen to how the Minister addresses those issues, but, in the main, we were satisfied enough with the Bill after scrutinising it. We are certainly willing to hear what the Minister has to say.

Mr A Maginness: In general terms, the SDLP welcomes the change that the Bill will bring about in establishing an executive agency in the Department to deal with legal aid. Clearly, the previous commission had become unfit for purpose, particularly its forecasting and financial assurance. The commission failed, and failed quite badly. Now, there is an opportunity for a new body to deal efficiently and effectively with legal aid. We hope that that can be achieved through the changes.

We have already indicated our support for the Bill, but the amendments tabled by Mr Elliott raise a number of interesting points about the director of legal aid casework. His amendments are certainly very well intentioned, because their purpose is to ensure that proper independence is established in the exercise of this new office. He emphasised the importance of a fresh incumbent being brought in to this very important post. That incumbent could be a civil servant but could also be somebody from outside the Civil Service. I agree with him: I think that that is a very strong point to make. He is not being prescriptive; he is not saying that there shall not be a civil servant or that there should be an outsider but that there should, at least, be an opportunity for an outsider to come in.

Given the way in which the body has been run for so many years, I think that it is important that there is a new leadership. I understand what the Minister says about a transition. I think that it is important that there is, at least, a continuity in the transition to the new body. I accept that the current chief executive would be appropriate in that position, although how long that transition would last is a matter that should, in fact, be clarified. The important thing, however, is to allow an opportunity for this House and members of the Justice Committee in particular to be reassured by the Minister that there will be an opportunity for non-civil servants to compete openly for this position at some time in the near future.

That is the intent of Mr Elliott's amendments. I understand that there is some concern in the Department that Mr Elliott's amendments will not achieve that purpose and will, in fact, undermine it because, at this moment in time, there are open competitions. For example, I believe that there was an open competition for a permanent secretary in the Northern Ireland Civil Service recently. The question for me and, I think, for others in this House is this: does the current system permit that to happen in this instance, or is it necessary for Mr Elliott's amendments to be made to bring that about? I think that that is the question that we have to ask ourselves. There are indications coming from the Department — I will put it no stronger than that — that Mr Elliott's amendments could, in fact, undermine that. It would certainly be unintended and extremely unfortunate if that were to be.

Again, as the Chair stated, one awaits the Minister's reply to Mr Elliott's very cogent arguments on his amendments. It is difficult for Members to make up their minds now without hearing the Minister. It might even have been appropriate to have the Minister speak immediately after Mr Elliott so that we could, in fact, evaluate the Minister's arguments.

The other aspect is the independence of decision-making. The Minister and the Department have indicated a number of assurances, reassurances and safeguards on individual decision-making by the legal aid casework director. However, when you are outside a Department looking in and you see things like directions and guidance and so forth in the legislation, you begin to wonder whether independent decision-making is, in fact, safeguarded. That is the problem for us as legislators. What Mr Elliott is doing in his amendments is emphasising the point that there has to be that independent decision-making. That is the intent of his removal of direction. I am informed, again by the Department, that that could, in fact, have the opposite effect and confuse the whole business of the independence of decision-making. I am uncertain as to whether that would be the effect. If that would be the effect, obviously Mr Elliott's amendments should not be favoured. So we are in a quandary. I ask the Minister to provide clarity for the House on Mr Elliott's amendments.

Could I make one further point, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker? It relates not to individual decision-making but to the power of direction in relation to a category of cases. I know that the Law Centre in Belfast was quite concerned about this, as were others from the Law Society and the Bar Council, and individual practitioners. Take as an example the Department running short of money, or something of that nature, and deciding to direct that the legal aid fund should not fund judicial reviews taken against public bodies and governmental decisions. That would be a very powerful instrument in the hands of government to prevent ordinary citizens without proper funding from taking action against the Administration, the Executive or some public body. That would, in my opinion, have a detrimental effect on civic life and could occasion injustice. I would like the Minister to tell the House whether, in dealing with that category of cases, and in those circumstances, that could actually happen. Could that category of cases, whether it be judicial review or any other type of case, be prohibited from being considered by the legal aid fund? It is very important that the Minister reassure the House and those outside the House who have raised the issue before the Committee.

I will conclude there. I look forward to the Minister's comments on Mr Elliott's amendments. I commend Mr Elliott for bringing forward the amendments, because they do exercise one's mind, and the mind of the House, and raise important and quite fundamental issues in relation to the Bill.

Mr Dickson: I place on record my thanks to the staff of the Committee, who have worked with us and assisted us in the process of getting to where we are today. I also thank all those who came to us, from the Department and other places, to talk about the content and import of the Bill. I thank Mr Elliott for bringing his amendments to the House. As Mr Maginness just said, these are complex areas of law and it is important that the House does what it is doing today: debate the issues and points and come to a conclusion. We are doing what we were sent here to do by the electorate: to legislate.

That is very important, so I value the amendments that Members table.

Mr Elliott's concerns regarding the designation of a director are important. However, in the Department's evidence to the Committee during the clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, it confirmed that there are a number of ways in which posts could be filled that would not prevent external recruitment. The person recruited will be appointed as a civil servant, but the point at which he or she will be appointed as a civil servant will be a matter for the process, and he or she could be appointed as a civil servant after his or her appointment. The words "must designate a civil servant" do not prevent the appointment of someone who is recruited externally and who then becomes a civil servant. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain that to the House in much more cogent detail than me, and other Members asked the Minister for a clear and open explanation of that point. That, I hope, will assist Mr Elliott's understanding of the import of what the Minister and the legislation are trying to achieve. I hope, therefore, that it will encourage Mr Elliott to support the Minister's proposals.

Mr Elliott's amendment Nos 3 to 12 focus on preventing the Minister from issuing directions to the director of legal aid casework about the carrying out of the director's functions. Those amendments have the potential to cause concern. Amendment Nos 5 and 7 are key.

Amendment No 5 would remove the instruction that the Department must not give directions about carrying out those functions in individual cases. That, coupled with the fact that the Minister is already subject to direction by Ministers under the general law — Members referred to that — has the potential to lead us into very difficult and perhaps even dangerous territory. The Minister could become involved in individual decisions about granting legal aid. That would be contrary to the recommendations of the access to justice review, which envisaged a system in which decisions would be taken without the involvement of the Minister. Similarly, in Mr Elliott's amendment No 7, the proposed removal of the Department's obligation to publish any directions given when the power to issue directions exists in general law has the potential to compromise openness and transparency. That, again, is contrary to the recommendations of the review and the wider strategic objectives of the Bill.

Like other Members, I will listen carefully to what the Minister says, but when officials came to the Committee, they persuaded me and, I hope, others that the course that the Department and the Minister propose to take is the right one. I hope that Mr Elliott understands that I value the amendments that he has tabled. I am fascinated by the debate, and I think that it is important that we listen to all the arguments and to what the Minister will tell us.

It would be unfortunate if we were to pass amendments that, on the surface, have good intent but that would actually have the effect of reversing that good intent. I believe that the Bill has been carefully designed as a package to work well within the existing general statutory framework and that the amendments have a potential risk of damaging that design. On that basis, I am not inclined to support the amendments.

Mr Allister: I wish to make a contribution to the debate, which of necessity, the House may be glad to hear, will be brief. I am due to meet a Minister in a few minutes, and I do not wish to keep him waiting unduly. On that basis, I apologise in advance to the Minister in the House for not being able to stay to hear his reply.

It seems that the Bill, in its general intent and direction, is about tightening the noose of control by the Department over legal aid and all such related matters, yet there seems to be a reluctance to acknowledge that that is so. That becomes pretty clear when you look at the response in the House and, I suspect, the response from the Minister as foreshadowed by his party colleague in the debate to the very modest but I would say necessary amendments by Mr Elliott. That response, which ripples across the House, seems to be, "Yes, we might sympathise with you, and we think that you are raising good points, but we do not want to tie the Department's hands in any way, because we are so deferential and compliant with the purpose of the Bill that we want to give the Minister as free a hand as we can to tighten that noose over legal aid". That is the sense that I am getting from the debate.

I must say that Mr Elliott's amendments are modest and sensible, because they are saying that, if someone is going to be in the position of director, that should be a proper appointment, not just a matter of putting in a placeman who will act as a puppet on a string. It will be hard enough for the director to stand up for himself or herself in the climate that the Minister and the Bill try to create. That will be hard enough, but, if someone is put in as a placeman, or placewoman, not even with the authority of having been recruited in an open competition and therefore having some status in that regard, that person's opportunity and inclination to be anything but that puppet on a string is going to be considerably reduced.

Mr Elliott's second set of amendments are also right, in that there should not be facilitated a situation in which the Department, which is the Minister, can overtly and obviously pull the strings by giving directions. Guidance, yes, but directions are something mandatory. They must be followed, and they totally reduce the discretion of the occupier of the office, who is told what to do. The very fact that there is a reluctance, I suspect, by the Minister to give up that power confirms the likely intent as to how it will be used. If the Minister says, "No, I would not be doing that", he does not need that power. Minister, you have residual powers of direction anyhow. So, I fail to see what is the downside in Mr Elliott's considered amendments. They seem to me to bring some modest degree of control to the Bill and somewhat restrict the stranglehold that the Department wishes to exercise over the dispersal of legal aid.

I would be very concerned at the idea, in clause 3, that there could be guidance, or, as the Bill stands, "directions". It is said in the Bill that directions are not given in individual cases, but nowhere does it say "not in respect of a class of case". That is why, as the Bill stands, it would be more than open for the Minister to give a direction that, for example, in view of whatever circumstances, we are no longer going to fund, as Mr Maginness said, judicial reviews or tripping cases, or any selected class of case. I think that that affords far too much power and control to the Minister.

Therefore, I strongly support the amendments that Mr Elliott tabled.

Mr Ford (The Minister of Justice): I certainly appreciate the fact that Tom Elliott has given us the opportunity for more debate at Consideration Stage than looked likely last week, when we merely had some agreements between the Minister and the Committee for the amendments that will appear in our second group. I trust, however, that that does not mean that Members are going to think up awkward points to raise on the second group.

I listened carefully to Tom Elliott's comments and, indeed, to the comments of a number of Members. It is clear that the two issues are almost the same. It is about opening up the appointment process and ensuring the independence of the director. Looking at amendment Nos 1, 2, 13 and 19, it is clear to see that the intent is to open up the Senior Civil Service by requiring that the post of director of legal aid casework be filled by an open competition. If I understand his point, however, such a competition will be open to internal candidates as well as to external candidates. However, as has been highlighted, I think, first, by Mr Maginness, steps are already being taken to widen the recruitment to the Senior Civil Service generally. Already this year, there has been a competition for grade 3 entrants and a competition for grade 5. Those were open to external as well as internal candidates. A point was also made about a permanent secretary post that has been subject to open competition.

All being well, things will be fine So, normal practice in the Civil Service is widening up in that respect, generally by generic competitions rather than by going to the expense of running individual competitions. However, I have to highlight one appointment that predates the establishment of the Department of Justice. A few years ago, the appointment of a director to the Youth Justice Agency was run on the basis of a competition by the Civil Service Commissioners to appoint somebody to the Civil Service who would then be appointed as director of the Youth Justice Agency. The problem is that the amendments would run counter to that because they do it the other way round or back to front. So, I believe that there are better ways to achieve Mr Elliott's aim. There is a real potential that, if these amendments are accepted, there will be the opportunity for confusion and uncertainty.

As it stands, the Bill makes power for me as Minister to designate a civil servant as director of legal aid casework. I think that there is common cause amongst the House, including with Tom Elliott, that, once in place, the director should be a civil servant. If, however, we accepted the four amendments I highlighted — amendment Nos 1, 2, 13 and 19 — and if I appointed a non-civil servant who then became a civil servant, there is no clear way to do that under normal Civil Service appointment procedures. It has to be on the basis of recruitment to the Civil Service and, then, a civil servant, regardless of whether they have been appointed five minutes ago or 30 years ago, becomes the person in that particular post. If the amendments were passed, they would do nothing to introduce any greater opportunities. I fear that they would create a degree of uncertainty and confusion that would have to be addressed elsewhere and which would run contrary to the normal procedures for appointing civil servants. There is nothing in the Bill that precludes the post being offered to somebody from outside the Civil Service on the basis of that open competition. Each time the post falls vacant, consideration will be given to the best way to fill the post, and the provisions that are in the Bill would facilitate that open competition, regardless of how it is.

I am not sure that there is any difference, in effect, between whether I "appoint" or "designate" a director of legal aid casework. Either way, they will have the same safeguards regarding their independence, which are written into the Bill; either way, the Department will have to ensure —

Mr McCartney: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Ford: I will give way.

Mr McCartney: In the interests of clarity, is the Minister saying that there can be an appointment external to the Civil Service by an open competition?

Mr Ford: If it is common ground in the Assembly that the person would be a civil servant whilst they are the director of legal aid casework, there can be an open recruitment competition, which will be open to people internally as well as externally. We could not run it to exclude internal applications. It would be completely open on the basis that the person would be appointed to the Senior Civil Service, and, once they were a civil servant, they would be appointed to the director's post. It would ensure that the Department looked to see about the right blend of skills and experience for that post, regardless of whether they came from internal or external. I believe that the current wording will avoid the difficulties that will arise from the use of the word "appoint" in terms of bringing that person into the Department, because there is the danger that it suggests that you are going outside the normal Civil Service recruitment procedures when, in fact, it is somebody who is to be a civil servant.

The last thing that I want to do is see us fall foul of the Civil Service Commissioners' rules on the recruitment of civil servants. So, I believe that the amendments are unnecessary and would lead into uncertain territory without providing any specific benefit.

Mr Givan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Ford: I will.

Mr Givan: Maybe Mr Elliott can address this in his winding-up speech as well.

On the actual wording of the amendment, has the Department taken a view on whether, if the Assembly went with Mr Elliott's amendments, that would automatically require a public appointments process by way of appointing rather than designating? Does that then automatically require a public appointments process to take place?

Mr Ford: I take the Chair's point. I am reluctant to suggest that I could give a definitive opinion, which might, some day, have to be given by a judicial ruling, but it is my understanding that the words do not necessarily guarantee external appointment but merely create confusion about the process.

The designation of somebody who either has already been a civil servant or is recruited to the Civil Service with a view to being designated to that post is a much clearer and less confusing way of making the appointment.

On that basis, whilst I accept Mr Elliott's wish to have openness, I do not believe that what he is proposing is beneficial in doing that and that it adds anything to what is in the Bill as it stands. I urge the House to reject those amendments on that basis.

The second set of amendments — amendment Nos 3 to 12 — is all about limiting the Department's responsibilities and abilities to guide rather than direct the director of legal aid casework on the carrying out of those functions. Whilst I understand entirely the intent to ensure independence, I believe that the amendments would compromise the measures that were carefully constructed to prevent any interference in individual decisions. This has already been mentioned, but I just want to be very specific. Article 4(1) of the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which established working devolution, states:

So, the power that Mr Elliott seeks to remove from clause 3(1) is in fact there in statute anyway and cannot be removed by that measure.

The important thing, I believe, is that we need to read clause 3 as one single unit. While subsection 1 says that the director must comply with general directions and "have regard to guidance", subsection 2 of the same clause makes it absolutely clear that there must be no guidance or direction about an individual case and that the Department must ensure that "the Director acts independently".

Subsection 3 states:

So that is an open process that is clear and transparent, and it ensures that the general guidance and direction powers do not apply to a specific individual case.

Mr Maginness and then Mr Allister, who used rather more flowery language and is no longer in his place, raised the potential for directions about a class of cases as opposed to an individual case. Article 12(5) of the 2003 order proscribes, in schedule 2, the services that the director of legal aid casework may not fund as civil legal services. Article 12(6) provides:

Article 46(5) of the order provides that any regulations made under article 12(6) are subject to Assembly control by way of draft affirmative procedure. So, it would not be possible for the Department to give the kind of direction or guidance reflecting the scope of cases that may be funded in the way that Mr Maginness politely and Mr Allister in slightly different language highlighted as possible changes without the approval of the Assembly. I trust that Assembly Members regard Assembly powers as being a reasonably clear way of ensuring that those matters are carried out properly. We have the general case of directions from the Department — or from the Minister, if others wish to say it — and the normal rule that Ministers can direct civil servants in any respects, subject to the law. We then have it clearly set out that individual decisions on the grant of legal aid are not affected by that.

That makes it absolutely clear. Indeed, it is something of the interplay between Mr Elliott's amendment Nos 3 and 5 that makes that point. The Bill was carefully drafted to ensure that we kept matters clear on that and to ensure that the provisions work in harmony with existing and more general statutory provisions in the 1999 order. It is in line with existing powers to give directions and guidance to the Legal Services Commission.

As it is drafted, the Bill has a number of safeguards for specific points that I want to raise on the power of giving directions. First, the Bill expressly prohibits me or my Department from giving a direction or guidance in relation to an individual case. Secondly, any directions and guidance must be published and will be subject to consultation with relevant stakeholders and scrutiny by the Justice Committee, which is the position under the current arrangements. Thirdly, if the director refuses an application for funding or further funding, he or she will be required to set out clearly the reasons why the application has been refused. Fourthly, any such funding decision by the director will be subject to appeal to an independent panel.

As noted in the Justice Committee’s report, any direction or guidance issued by me or my Department cannot overrule the provisions that I have highlighted in relevant other primary or secondary legislation. I believe that the effect of accepting Mr Elliott’s amendments would be to compromise those safeguards as they are constructed. Let us be clear: applications for civil legal aid will be considered on their merits and dealt with individually.

Mr McCartney: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Ford: Yes.

Mr McCartney: Alban Maginness made a point in relation to the class of cases. You are stating clearly that for any class of case to be changed — judicial reviews were mentioned, along with Coroners' Courts — that would have to come through the Assembly for approval.

Mr Ford: Yes, I can confirm to Mr McCartney that it would not merely have to come to the Justice Committee. Because it is subject to draft affirmative procedure, it would have to come to the Floor of the Assembly and not just to the Committee. That is a double safeguard in that respect.

It may be helpful to give Members an example of where I might want to consider a direction under these powers. Under the current arrangements, the Department has a role in decision-making on applications for exceptional legal aid in individual cases. The relevant statutory provision is article 10A of the Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. As Members will recall, the Bill includes provision to give effect to a recommendation of the access to justice review that Ministers should no longer have such a role. It inserts a new article 12A into the Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003.

The current statutory provision from 1981 is supplemented by a direction, 'Direction 1 — Representation at Inquests'. That direction was issued by the Lord Chancellor in 2005 and remains in operation today. In brief, it requires the Legal Services Commission to fund representation on behalf of the immediate family of the deceased at an inquest concerning a death occurring in police or prison custody or during the course of a police or other security services arrest, search, pursuit or shooting. To date, it has been utilised in particular to secure the funding of next-of-kin at certain legacy inquests.

However, notwithstanding the change of approach reflected in this new provision, it may be considered appropriate, in order to fully discharge, for example, the state's obligations under article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, for my Department to give a direction to the director of legal aid casework. Such a direction would be in broadly similar terms to the current 'Direction 1' which I have already referred to. Moreover, as I stated earlier, any such direction would be subject to consultation with relevant stakeholders and scrutiny by the Justice Committee.

I will add a further point on the issue of inquests and the current ministerial role. In a number of cases recently, I have received submissions relating to the granting of exceptional funding for inquests for preliminary stages. In light of the access to justice review and of what we are proposing for legislative change, on each of those I have taken the initial decision and left it to the director of the Legal Services Commission — effectively the future director of legal aid casework — to take the decision on the merits of granting further funding. That is not grabbing power or looking for a "puppet on a string", or whatever airy-fairy language Jim Allister may choose to use. That is putting the responsibility where it lies, which is on an independent official acting on the merits of a case and removing the political influence from it.

On that basis, I am delighted to recommend the Bill as drafted and ask the House to oppose the amendments suggested.

Mr Elliott: I thank all Members who participated in the debate. As the Minister said, it caused at least a little more interest in the Bill than might have been appropriate this time last week. I hope that Members and the Minister accept that I tabled the amendments with the best of intentions and with what I believe is the proper —

Mr Ford: Will the Member give way?

Mr Elliott: Yes.

Mr Ford: Sorry, I thought that I had made it clear that I appreciated Mr Elliott’s intentions. I am happy to repeat that, if he did not hear it first time.

Mr Elliott: I thank the Minister for repeating that. I did hear him the first time; I was only making the general point that I hoped that Members accepted my intentions.

I genuinely believe in my amendments, which I raised in Committee. I will deal, first, with the point that Mr Maginness and then Mr Allister raised about the classes of cases. That issue is not covered in my amendments. It was raised by one of the stakeholders, but I cannot remember which. I think that Mr Maginness said that it was the Law Centre. I did not bring an amendment on that because I did not feel that it was a sufficiently significant issue for legislation.

I am still determined that I will pursue my other two principal amendments because I believe that they are right. The Minister did not say, even in answer to the Deputy Chair, Mr McCartney, that there would be a guarantee or assurance of an open competition for the post of director. He said that that decision would be taken at the time. The Chair of the Committee, Mr Givan, asked whether it would be a public appointments process, but I do not believe that it necessarily would be. At Committee, officials said that there was a mechanism for making appointments to senior positions through the protocol that allows for open competition. Indeed, the Minister and others said that this has already been used in, I think, the appointment of senior civil servants and maybe even the most senior civil servants in Departments.

So there is a process, but I am looking for an assurance that it will apply to this post, and I do not have that. That is why this is important. If we allow this to go through as it is, the process will be directed by the Department, and, dare I say it, internal processes for the appointment of the director will be more likely. I have heard no assurance otherwise.

Mr Ford: Will the Member give way?

Mr Elliott: I will give way in a second. At this stage, I do not want to make the process any weaker than it is. I believe that my amendments would strengthen the process. I will give way to the Minister.

Mr Ford: I appreciate the Member giving way — I am trying not to jump up and down all the time. My point in response to Mr Elliott is quite simple. He says that I am not giving a guarantee of an external appointment process. My advice is that his amendment would not create that situation either. Therefore, an amendment that adds confusion but does not produce his desired result does not seem to me to add any benefit to the Bill.

Mr Elliott: I thank the Minister for that, but the point of my amendment is that it would not guarantee that the person appointed had to be a civil servant. There may be an issue with how my amendment is worded or whatever, but the Minister has not dealt with that. If he wanted to deal with the questions asked in Committee by the Chair, I think, and the Deputy Chair, he should have done so at that stage by bringing better wording to the legislation, but that did not happen.

On the issue of the direction that can be given to the directors, the Minister quoted article 4(1) of separate legislation that gives power to the Minister. If that power is already there, why do we need it inserted into this legislation? We do not. If it is already there, we do not need it.
I noticed that Mr Dickson, who I assume has taken the same view as the Minister, seemed to have difficulties only with amendment Nos 5 and 7. Amendment No 5 would mean that the Department could not give direction in individual cases, while amendment No 7 would mean that there would be no requirement to have a report on any direction given. If those are the only two amendments that there is a difficulty with, I am willing to reconsider them and to not move them. If that is the only problem that there is, I am more than happy to do that. You have my undertaking on that.

I believe that my amendments in general will strengthen the Bill and will make matters much more open and equal for the wider community by enabling an open competition

One of the proposals from the stakeholders suggested that any person appointed should have a legal qualification. To be fair, I did not include that, because I do not think that it is an absolute requirement. It may help, but I did not put it in as a requirement. I am trying to ensure that this appointment is not just for a civil servant who goes into one of these positions that goes round in a circle; I want to see a much wider and open competition.

I believe that amendment No 7 provides strength by ensuring that there is not a requirement on the director to comply with direction given by the Department.

I thank those Members who participated in what was a useful debate. I also thank the officials from the Department and the Committee for their work in the process, which was extremely helpful.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that it is a paving amendment for amendment No 2.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I will not call amendment Nos 4 to 8 as they are consequential to amendment No 3, which has not been made.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I will not call amendment Nos 10, 11 and 12 as they are consequential to amendment No 9, which has not been made.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I will not call amendment No 13 as it is consequential to amendment No 2, which has not been made.

The Business Committee has already made its arrangements to meet at 12.30 pm. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. Thank you for your cooperation, Members.

Dr Farry (The Minister for Employment and Learning): In further education, my Department provides financial assistance to students through further education awards and hardship funds, which are administered respectively by the Western Education and Library Board and each of the six colleges. Over the last five years, there has been a net increase of approximately £800,000 in the total amount available in the combined funds, with the budget set aside for further education (FE) awards rising by over £2 million. While the drawdown of resources in the demand-led hardship fund may have decreased by just over £900,000, the spend on FE awards has increased by £1·5 million.

The funds are advertised extensively through a variety of media by the board and the colleges. Further education awards are promoted on the Western Education and Library Board's website and through a television advertising campaign run during May and June each year. In addition, each college promotes both funds through the following channels: prospectuses, websites, prominently displayed posters, and a variety of funding guidance literature, including flyers, mail drops and information in college diaries, which are provided to students. Funding advice is also provided at induction sessions. My Department consults with the Western Education and Library Board regarding the content of its advertising campaign. To ensure consistency across the colleges, my Department provides good practice guidelines with regard to the publicity of the hardship funds.

Higher education support funds are administered and publicised, by the higher education institutions and the colleges delivering higher education, to help students experiencing financial hardship. My Department provides the funding and copies of the conditions booklet to the universities and colleges. We also place information and the conditions booklet on the NI Direct and the Department for Employment and Learning websites.

Mr McKinney: I thank the Minister. Minister, given the recent publicity and media attention on this, are you reviewing to any extent the level of funds available?

Dr Farry: I thank the Member for the question and the opportunity to clarify that a lot of the media commentary around this has been very ill-informed. It has looked solely at the issue of a reduction in spend in hardship funds without appreciating that there has been a complementary increase in FE awards and, indeed, that the overall package has increased. That said, I am happy to look at how we promote the schemes. In saying that, however, I exercise some caution in that we have seen an increase in applications to the funds in recent years, which indicates that the message is getting out there. Where further work can be done to better signpost, to streamline that and to make it more efficient and effective, we are, of course, always open to learning lessons. I am more than happy for us to have some internal discussions in that regard to see whether we can do things even better.

Mr Swann: Minister, you said that you would look at the funding available. In the briefing you gave to the Committee last Wednesday, you indicated that there would be a £3·5 million reduction in student support provision across several demand-led programmes, which included those that were means-tested as well. Will you give clarification to the House now? Are you going to look at increasing, or are you looking at a £3·5 million reduction, which you told the Committee about last week?

Dr Farry: I thank the Chair of the Committee for his question. It is important that we draw a distinction between what is set in the budget and what is actually spent. The key consideration in all these issues is the spend, which is increasing.

The Chair is referring to the indications I gave to the Committee regarding how we are going to manage the in-year cuts that have been asked of us during this year. We have indicated that we are likely to see some underspends in some areas of student support, including the FE awards. We will have a budget allocated to that. We may not draw down all the money from that, which would create an underspend. Rather than returning that to the centre, we have the ability to offset some of the cuts through what would otherwise be an underspend. However, that in no way, shape or form means that we are reducing money from the front line. This is a demand-led process; where demand is there, it will be met. If we happen to overshoot what is now in a revised budget, we will look for other funds elsewhere in the Department to meet that demand. There is a clear commitment from me that we will meet the demand that comes our way.

Mr F McCann: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. Can he advise the House whether he is approaching the forthcoming meeting with the National Union of Students - Union of Students in Ireland (NUS-USI) with an open mind to reconsider his decision to transfer money away from the hardship fund?

Dr Farry: I approach every meeting with an open mind, but let me be clear: we have not taken a decision to transfer money out of hardship funds; they are part of a demand-led initiative. We have redirected money to FE awards, which are allocated in advance of the academic year. So, in that circumstance, a student has the support at the beginning of their studies rather than having to apply in a reactive way to hardship funds. I would have thought that, in all walks of life, it is better to intervene early and give people protection and certainty as opposed to leaving them uncertain. I find it bizarre that people are saying that we should take money from elsewhere and go back to a policy of investing in hardship funds when we have a better means of providing support to students. I have to say that people are looking at only one aspect of a budget, and they need to be very careful about drawing conclusions without looking at the full picture.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I inform Members that questions 7 and 14 have been withdrawn.

Dr Farry: The South West College is working closely with Fermanagh District Council with a view to being a partner in a proposed shared services project at the Western Health and Social Care Trust's former Erne Hospital site. Fermanagh District Council is leading a development group which is seeking to create a public sector shared services hub on the site. The first stage of the plan is that the council will purchase the site from the health trust when demolition work, contamination surveys and title issues have been resolved.

The college is developing a draft business case, which has as its preferred option a new build as a replacement for its Fairview campus. The next stage will see the college submitting a business case, which includes a proposal for the purchase of part of the site from the district council for the development of a new college campus. The Department awaits firm proposals from the college in relation to the availability and viability of purchasing the site. This cannot be completed until the Western Health and Social Care Trust has completed the site transfer to Fermanagh District Council.

Officials from my Department and the Strategic Investment Board continue to support the project. Planning NI has indicated that the redevelopment will be acceptable in principle and will meet planning policy, subject to the normal site-specific planning and environmental criteria. No funding commitment can be made until the business case has been approved by me and by the Department of Finance and Personnel.

Mr Elliott: I thank the Minister for that response. How confident is he that the progression of the new college will happen, and what time frame will he put on that?

Dr Farry: I thank the Member for his question. I am optimistic that it will go ahead. I appreciate that it has perhaps taken a little longer to come to fruition than had originally been planned. I think that that reflects the complexity of the outgoing site and its former use. That has brought some challenges with respect to demolition and the environmental aspects around all that.

I expect to be in a position to receive and clear a business case during 2015. While there are other projects in terms of the FE estate that we are keen to advance, I am certainly minded to make a bid to the Executive for this particular project. I appreciate that the shared services site in particular provides potential for synergies across the public sector, so there is a strong case for this proposal.

Mr Flanagan: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. I will take him back to the last point that he made about the shared services site. Does he accept in principle that it makes sense to locate a college that has plans to become a rural university on the same site as a public library and a jobs and benefits office? If so, will he try to work with other Departments to make the proposal a reality?

Dr Farry: I think that the Member can take considerable consolation in that there is a lot of interest in this particular site across a number of Departments and Ministers. Indeed, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister visited the location a number of months ago, which is an indication of the collective interest that there is in this regard.

Obviously, the more that the site can be used the better it will be for building up different types of relationships. Not every two particular agencies will have a natural partnership, but there will be enough to make the site viable. In turn, that will have further multiplier effects on the local economy, particularly the service sector, given the number of the people who will be working in that vicinity. So, there will be a wider benefit for the town of Enniskillen as well.

Mr Dallat: I appreciate that the focus is on the south-west, but I am sure the Minister will agree with me that there are pressures right across Northern Ireland. Can the Minister assure the House that, despite all the pressures he has, he can guarantee that vocational education, which played an absolute blinder in providing education to people who perhaps missed out the first time around, is bestowed with equality? Can he also guarantee that the capital projects will not simply be put to the end of the queue and that other, greater priorities will not be made?

Dr Farry: I can certainly give the Member an assurance that I am very keen to progress a wide range of capital projects, including in further education. I certainly believe that a modern FE estate is entitled to an assurance that we are investing in the skills agenda. As I am sure the Member will agree, the FE sector is incredibly flexible and diverse and covers a wide range of interventions, from essential skills to the provision of higher education.

That said, I have to put on record my concern about the current funding decisions that are being taken. While vocational education is incredibly important to our economy, the Department of Education's budget has been given protection by the Executive but that of my Department has not. That is not a plea from me that my Department should be protected as well; it is rather that I think that we have to reflect on the fact that, when decisions like that are taken, certain inequities will be created in the system. A particular inequity relates to what happens for those young people aged between 16 and 19. Those young people who are at school will benefit from protection, but those who are in further education or training programmes will not. We have to be conscious that some 40% of young people aged between 16 and 19 are in education and training outside of the school sector and that the socio-economic background of that cohort is different to that of the population as a whole. So, that is something that I think we all have to reflect on when considering the future of our budgets to ensure that money is well spent and that we take equality considerations into account.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Alex Easton is not in his place.

Dr Farry: I have been actively encouraging and facilitating the development of higher-level apprenticeships. Higher-level apprenticeships enable young people to benefit from working with important employers in Northern Ireland, as well as to gain a recognised qualification at level 4 or above.

I am currently supporting a number of pilots. For example, in ICT, we have 15 apprentices employed by the McAvoy Group, Allstate and Core Systems who are undertaking training at South West College. In engineering, 15 apprentices working with Terex, Kiverco and the Quinn Group are undertaking training at South West College as well. PricewaterhouseCoopers has employed 18 apprentices in professional services, 14 in taxation and four in audit. In finance and accounting, recruitment is currently under way, with expressions of interest received from a range of accountancy employers, including FPM Accountants, ASM Horwath and BHP Accountants Ltd. The training will be provided by Belfast Metropolitan College and the Southern Regional College. In industrial, chemical and life sciences, recruitment is currently under way through Norbrook Laboratories, with training of around 14 apprentices through the Southern Regional College. Those are but a few examples, with further pilots planned in engineering and aeronautical engineering with major employers, including Bombardier.

A further exciting development that I have promoted is the extension of higher-level apprenticeships to the public sector. In June, alongside the Regional Development Minister, Danny Kennedy, I announced a higher-level apprenticeship for around 10 apprentices in civil engineering. Proposals from the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service, the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service and the Police Service of Northern Ireland are also anticipated.

We know that the demand for skills at levels 3 to 8 — that is, A level to doctorate — is set to increase significantly. My vision is that, through the apprenticeship strategy, higher-level apprenticeships will play a major role in meeting that demand.

Mrs Cochrane: I thank the Minister for that very positive information. Can he give us some further information as to what progress is being made to implement the new apprenticeships strategy?

Dr Farry: I thank the Member for her questions. As the House will know, we released Securing our Success, our new apprenticeships strategy for Northern Ireland, in June 2014. It is certainly not sitting on a shelf — if anything, it is very much the opposite. A lot of work has been conducted already. We are working through our implementation plan. Over the coming weeks, I will chair meetings with employers with a view to establishing sectoral partnerships. That is a key means of ensuring that we have buy-in from stakeholders in particular industries. Those groups will be used to effectively plan the roll-out of apprenticeships in some current areas and indeed some new areas.

One of the very encouraging things that we have seen, even in response to the fact that we were discussing a new strategy on apprenticeships, is that a lot of businesses and colleges have begun to vote with their feet and come up with new and innovative ideas. Indeed, our strategy has actually been moving to catch up with what has been happening on the ground. I believe that Northern Ireland has a very promising future with regard to apprenticeships. They will become a very effective means of ensuring that employers are getting the right people for their organisations in the future. Indeed, young people will be skilled in areas that are highly relevant to the modern economy and will have much better prospects of securing and sustaining jobs.

Mr P Ramsey: I welcome very strongly the Minister's response to Judith Cochrane's questions. I know how relevant and important it is in my constituency. Alongside the public sector bodies that he has mentioned, is he encouraging or motivating any other sectors to try to bring them into higher-level apprenticeships?

Dr Farry: Yes. We are very keen to work with employers right across Northern Ireland, including in the north-west. Indeed, there may well be potential for things to happen on a subregional basis. Discussions have been taking place with a number of employers in the north-west. We are not at the stage yet to publicise that, but the Member will indeed know who the main players in the local economy are. It is also important to bear in mind that, given the profile of employment in places such as Derry, we seek to develop the public sector as a means of apprenticeships. There will be areas of public sector employment that are highly relevant to that type of training. We are seeing that through a number of organisations where technical skills are relevant that have expressed interest and had discussions with my officials. I think that that will be a very lucrative route in future months.

Mr Dunne: I commend the work that the Minister has done on the apprenticeships strategy. Considering the failure of Sinn Féin to agree on welfare reform, does he have any concerns about implications that a lack of funding may impact on his strategy?

Dr Farry: I will certainly say to the Member that I have considerable concerns about funding. There are a number of pressures out there, of which the failure to date to come to terms with welfare reform is the major one. That will have implications for what we are doing with regard to skills.
As the House knows, investment in skills is perhaps the key economic driver in the transformation of the economy in Northern Ireland. To date, we have sought to act in a strategic way and to avoid hitting areas that are of crucial importance to the transformation of the economy, such as apprenticeships. We also have support from the European social fund in that regard. How long we can sustain that, particularly in the context where the cuts become even deeper, whether that happens this year or in subsequent years, remains to be seen. We will seek to act responsibly in that regard.

What I do fear is that, particularly as Northern Ireland emerges from a very deep recession and when we have a lot of international goodwill, the potential to bring inward investment into Northern Ireland and the potential to grow jobs locally, due to cuts to key economic drivers, whether they be in my Department or elsewhere, we will simply fail to capitalise on those opportunities. There is a real danger here that we will collectively shoot ourselves in the foot and miss the absolutely open goal that is there for us with regard to future investment and job creation.

Mr Kinahan: I thank the Minister for his answers. It is good to see apprenticeships getting such a high profile. Will he explain what due diligence checks his Department takes to ensure that anybody offering apprenticeships has the necessary ability and accreditation to deliver for students?

Dr Farry: I thank the Member for the question. Again, if he refers to the apprenticeship strategy, he will see that quality assurance is absolutely fundamental to the approach that we are taking. That applies particularly to the qualifications network and the off-the-job training that is provided. I am very sensitive about not chasing numbers or trying to label something as an apprenticeship for the sake of it. This has to be driven by quality. Young people and businesses need to respond based on quality and have the assurance that they are investing in something credible. There are no shortcuts. We have to ensure that we can stand over what we are investing in and that people can have confidence in it.

Dr Farry: The relocation from Jordanstown to Belfast will see the vast majority of activities transferred to Belfast by 2018. The exceptions will be student residences, the high-performance sports centre and the fire safety engineering facility. The development in Belfast will cost £250 million. My Department is providing £16 million, while the university has secured a £150 million loan from the European Investment Bank as well as a financial transaction capital loan of £35 million. The remaining funding is being raised by the university from a variety of sources.

Good progress is being made with the development across many fronts, and the university remains confident that the project will be delivered on time and within budget. The demolition phase was completed on schedule, and the physical structure of the new university buildings is beginning to emerge. The university is finalising the procurement process to appoint a contractor to construct the main campus building. The university is engaging with the local community in the vicinity of the new campus to ensure that it is involved in a meaningful way, so that the new campus will provide tangible benefits for the local area. The Department is working closely with all stakeholders through inclusive implementation structures to ensure a coordinated approach to the relocation and to maximise the opportunities arising from the development.

Mr Beggs: The loss of university courses at the Jordanstown site will result in the loss of jobs for lecturers and a wide range of support staff. Will the Minister advise us what action he is taking to encourage the university to develop alternative job opportunities at that site? In his answer, I did not hear him specifically mention the business incubation unit that was used in the past by spin-out companies. That site and the adjacent Trooperslane site are excellent for such high-tech companies, and both are shortly to have their communication links with Belfast upgraded in the A2 upgrade.

Dr Farry: I am happy to reflect on the comments made and to pass them on to the university for it to consider directly. As for jobs, this is not a reduction in provision; it is a relocation of the vast majority of the Jordanstown campus to Belfast. It is an investment for the future. That said, universities are obviously in a very difficult situation at present. A wider funding challenge predates the current Budget situation facing the Executive, and this year I have had to pass on to the universities cuts approaching 4%. That will be for them to manage, and they will be under a degree of pressure in maintaining existing services. It goes without saying that, when we are talking about cuts of that magnitude, there will be pressures on employment. People need to be very alert to that. However, we will reflect on what the Member said about the future use of the Jordanstown campus. Indeed, I will encourage the university to do so as well.

Mr Hilditch: Mr Beggs raised employment issues, but will the Minister indicate what future the Jordanstown campus holds for higher education?

Dr Farry: As I said in answer to the main question, a number of areas will be retained on the site. However, to be fair, the vast majority of the site is being relocated to Belfast. That will have implications for the east Antrim area, north Belfast and the wider city. There is obviously a wider issue, which the Member will be familiar with, on the future of the site as a whole, which is very large. No doubt he and his colleagues will want to make representations in that regard.

That is part and parcel of the local responsibilities that MLAs and councillors have.

Mr A Maginness: The Minister referred to the local community. Would he urge the university to maintain a sustained and meaningful dialogue with the local community, particularly around assistance, not just with jobs but in using the university's facilities and services?

Dr Farry: Yes, I am very happy to follow the approach suggested by the Member and to encourage the university to deepen its existing efforts. We want to avoid a situation in which we build a university in Belfast — in north Belfast in particular — but it is detached from the community. Looking elsewhere in these islands and, indeed, internationally, we can see examples of universities that are in cities but that are detached from those cities and much better examples of such universities that are very much integrated into local communities. We obviously want to see the latter happen in Belfast. More work can be done to ensure that that becomes a reality.

A few weeks ago, I met a delegation of traders from the Antrim Road and the wider vicinity. They made a number of useful points that we are reflecting on. The university should be encouraged to continue and widen its efforts in that regard, particularly as it moves towards the completion of the site in 2018, the successful opening, and commencement of studies in the area.

Dr Farry: At present, the level of tuition fee loan available for local students who wish to attend courses in non-publicly funded higher education institutions, or alternative providers, is dependent on both the location of the provider and the nature of the course. Following the Executive’s decision to freeze tuition fee levels here, I have ensured that all local students attending higher education providers in Northern Ireland, whether they are publicly funded or not, are eligible to the same maximum tuition fee loan of £3,685. Alternative providers are not, however, subject to fee caps and may charge more than that amount.

When the alternative provider is based elsewhere in the UK, the level of loan available is dependent on the nature of the course. Local students who attend a designated course that is owned by a recognised UK degree-awarding body but delivered by an alternative provider are entitled to a maximum tuition fee loan of up to £9,000. Local students who attend a designated course that is owned and delivered by an alternative provider and simply validated by a recognised UK degree-awarding body are entitled to a lower rate of tuition fee loan of £3,685. That aligns with the maximum loan that is available to students who study in Northern Ireland. It is not uncommon, however, for providers to charge over and above that amount.

The current student support package available to local students, including those who attend alternative providers, is being considered as part of my Department’s review of higher education funding. We are working within a context of constrained public resources, and a major challenge during the review will be to decide where our funding priorities should for student support. A public consultation on the review will commence towards the end of the year.

Mr B McCrea: The Minister may be aware that the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure recently visited the Andrew Lloyd Webber school of performing arts in Chiswick, where it was informed that the school is the premier location for such activities in the whole of the United Kingdom. Does the Minister accept that, when a citizen of Northern Ireland wishes to attend such a premier institution, it is a little unfortunate that he does not get the support that he would get if he lived elsewhere in the United Kingdom? Will the Minister undertake to look at that case in exception?

Dr Farry: It is difficult to make exceptions. Every case could make that argument, and we have to make decisions that are based on an agreed policy. The case that the Member has outlined is not unusual, and we receive correspondence from a number of MLAs and, indeed, directly from students about similar situations. That is why we are considering the issue as part of the current review of higher education funding. However, whether we are going to be able to close that gap remains to be seen, as it will be dependent on resources.

We decided, back in 2011, when we last looked at issues around higher education funding, that it would be unfair to provide a higher tuition fee loan to Northern Ireland domiciled students attending alternative providers than to those attending our own public providers in Northern Ireland, especially when we are asking those local providers to find efficiency savings. That was a collective decision taken by the Executive. So there is a balance to the argument, but I can certainly confirm to the Member that we are giving it full consideration and are open to a change in policy.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: That brings us to the end of the period for oral questions. We move to topical questions.

Dr Farry: Yes, I am happy to do that. Good progress is being made and, with luck and no unexpected delays emerging over the coming months, we look forward to construction being completed by next summer. Hopefully, the facility will be open and available in the autumn of 2015 to students and, crucially, to the public for the performing arts.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his answer. Can he give us an assurance about the long-term sustainability of the project? Is he confident that it will provide the much-needed theatre facility for north Down?

Dr Farry: Sustainability will depend on resource funding coming through my Department. Obviously, that will be under increased pressure over the coming years. That said, this is the new investment and we want to make sure that it is a success.

We encourage the college to make as much public use of the facility as it can and, in doing so, the facility can become a theatre and a performing arts space for the wider community in Bangor and elsewhere in north Down.

I can certainly assure the Member that what is being constructed is a full spec theatre. It will have all the facilities that one would expect to see in that type of environment. This is being driven to provide a real-time experience for students, in terms of the whole range of skills involved in the performing arts, whether they are onstage or backstage activities, and the various digital and media support. That full range of activities is going to be provided, and we want to have a world-class facility to enable students to learn in that type of environment. The local community will benefit from that.

Dr Farry: I thank the Member for his interest in the issue. Alongside my colleague Chris Lyttle, the Member has been very vocal in encouraging the Department to go down this route. We have responded to concerns to ensure we are facilitating opportunities at a much greater level for people who have some welding skills but have not been able to access employment in recent times due to the need for very specialist qualifications. The advertisement for the first cohort of people going through that has now closed and selections are underway. I hope that the course will be completed within, perhaps, a six-to-eight week window and that people graduating from that will then be eligible to work on projects coming through Harland and Wolff.

Mr Douglas: I thank the Minister for his answers to date and also for the leap of faith he took in supporting this initiative. Does he agree that there is the potential for more oil rigs to come into Harland and Wolff, and so it is vitally important that we train up those unemployed people in particular?

Dr Farry: I absolutely concur with that. The Member is aware that there are some advertisements appearing already for a project that Harland and Wolff is conducting at this time, so there is real-life evidence in that regard. That has come perhaps a bit too quickly to allow people going through the academy to avail of those opportunities but, through discussions between my officials and Harland and Wolff, we are very encouraged by the long-term prospects in this area.

The Member is familiar with the fact that an oil rig was in during the first half of this year.

My understanding is that the customers were extremely pleased with the quality of workmanship in that regard. It has placed Harland and Wolff in a good place for future work.

Dr Farry: It is important that we approach the issue of the living wage with a degree of caution. I encourage employers to consider the living wage. It is important that people are paid well. I think that we need to be slightly cautious about where we would go for a degree of compulsion for employers to pay a living wage. The first thing that we have to do is recognise that the best way of driving up wages in society is through investment in skills. On the back of that, we would have a productivity gain, and, arising from that, you would have a natural rise in wages.

Obviously, we have the national minimum wage, which is guided by the Low Pay Commission. I believe that there is a case for an increase in that. However, if you end up setting a threshold of wages that is way in excess of what is viewed as being the natural market rate, there may be a danger of unemployment or, indeed, an increase in the prices that a shop or business will charge for their goods, facilities and services, and that will have a knock-on consequence elsewhere in the economy.

We also have a number of employment programmes in which we are trying to get people out of unemployment and into work. We often offer subsidies to employers to take people on. For small businesses in particular, those are decisions that are made on the margins. If we were to shift the goalposts in that regard, a lot of employers would be more reluctant to take a chance on taking on an extra person and addressing our situation with unemployment, where we are making some very, very good progress at the moment. While I have sympathy with the concept, I think it is something that is best approached voluntarily. If we want to go down the line of compulsion, we need to be very alert to the unintended consequences.

Mr Milne: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his answer thus far. In light of what you have said, would you consider legislative changes as part of the forthcoming Bill on employment law? I take from your answer that you would not.

Dr Farry: It is probably not within my powers; indeed, it is not within the powers of the Assembly. We may have a discussion in the coming months, depending on what happens on Thursday around the further devolution of powers, or not as the case might be. That may well be something that will enter into that debate. Before we legislate, we need to be fully alert to the full economic picture. I have outlined some of my concerns to the Member. Short of legislation, we can encourage employers to invest in the payment of their workers. There can be benefits to the economy where that is done in a sustainable way. The Member should take some comfort from the fact that, when you look at a lot of the jobs that we have created and announced in the past months, you will see that, increasingly, they are paying higher and higher salary levels. That is an indication that our economy is moving in the right direction.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 4 has been withdrawn within the agreed time limit.

Dr Farry: At the risk of being contradicted by the Member in a few minutes' time, I will say that we work very closely with the education and library boards in that regard. That is not to say that work cannot be done to make guidance and forms simpler. We are certainly happy to take representations on how things could be done better, which, I suspect, the Member is about to make.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: This is your opportunity, Mr McElduff.

Mr McElduff: Thank you very much. I hope you are all keeping well. Will the Minister clarify one area, if not now, in writing? I would like clarity on an area that is causing uncertainty — students undertaking second degrees in courses that relate to allied health professional courses. There seems to be a different take at DEL and the Western Education and Library Board regarding the entitlement of students to avail themselves of student finance in second degrees relating to NHS or allied health professional courses. I invite the Minister to comment on that and explore that.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: You should have invited him with a question.

Dr Farry: It is a very cunning approach that he is adopting to it all.

A number of cases in this regard have been brought to my attention. The particular issue that is arising here is around an issue of double-funding, where, because we have a limited amount of money available for investment in higher education, our preference is to invest for one time in the students accessing higher education. Sometimes that may well be a year for somebody, which then leaves them in eligibility for two or three years, depending upon the nature of the course that they are applying to next. However, sometimes people, where they have done a previous higher education qualification, do not understand why they are not getting full access to funding for the full duration of another higher education course. It is something, again, that we are looking at in the context of the higher education funding review because, sometimes, there can be anomalies in that system and cases where someone really is investing in upskilling and there is a case for giving full support. Obviously, that will be governed by the availability of resources, but we are very much aware of the cases that the Member is referring to.

Dr Farry: The Member is very right to highlight the challenges facing young people. Thankfully, our youth unemployment is falling, but, like many other parts of Europe, it is a major challenge. It is worth emphasising that, in the context of Northern Ireland, unemployment is very heavily concentrated among young people. Almost a third of the people who are out of work fall in that very narrow range between 18 and 24, so there is a real concentration and a more disproportionate concentration than in many other societies. That highlights the importance of investment in work experience to enable people to get on the first rung of the ladder. It also reinforces the importance of good careers advice and the importance of investment in the new form of youth training and what we are doing around apprenticeships. Those are some of the structural changes that we are making in our economy to address youth unemployment.

To address the situation as we find it today, we have the youth employment scheme, which has been very successful in giving young people opportunities. As part of the more mainstream employment programmes, the former Steps to Work and now Steps 2 Success will also give support for young people to avail themselves of opportunities to get themselves into employment.

Mr Boylan: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answer. In light of what the Minister said, what discussions has he had with our newly elected and re-elected MEPs to look towards Europe about bringing in programmes and support to assist our young people in attaining employment?

Dr Farry: We are very happy to have ongoing discussions with the European Union, and, obviously, the MEPs are a very useful conduit in that regard. Already, we have access to the European social fund. That is set to be a bigger pot for Northern Ireland over the next seven years than has been the case previously, so that will create a lot of opportunities for us.

The Member may also be referring to the youth employment initiative, and, due to the way that internal boundaries are drawn for Northern Ireland in terms of what are called NUTS areas — maybe NUTS is an appropriate term to refer to them, but it is a French acronym that I will not bore you with — none of our subregional areas in Northern Ireland were going to be eligible to access that fund. We looked at a whole range of different scenarios as to how we could draw it down. We do have access to resources domestically and also through the European social fund that allow us to offer us a whole range of programmes. Obviously, we need to be mindful of coming budget pressures in that regard, but it is something that I believe should be a priority for me, and I know that it is for the Assembly as well.

Dr Farry: I thank the Member for his question. Obviously, the McConnell report gives the opportunity for a new start in the college. A new principal has been appointed, and I have appointed a new chair of the board of governors. I believe that strong progress has been made across the vast majority of the recommendations, and the college is very much seized of their delivery. The Department is keeping a close watch on this, and the Committee has had a close interest in the issue in the past. There will always be bumps along the road and tensions between stakeholders, but we will seek to be of assistance, where we can, to overcome those and ensure that we can invest in the college, which is a key partner in the delivery of the skills agenda in the north-west, which has not always been the case. As we look to invest, particularly in level 2 and level 3, in getting much greater numbers studying STEM subjects and at how we can develop a strategy for economic inactivity in the north-west, the college is a particularly important actor. It is important that we have a college that is fit for purpose and in which there are good industrial relations.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: That is the end of questions to the Minister. We must now move on to questions for the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Minister has given notice to the Business Committee that, due to departmental business overseas, she is not available for questions. The Minister of Finance and Personnel will therefore respond to questions on her behalf today. I thank him for that.

I inform Members that question 7 has been withdrawn. Mr Alec Maskey is not in his place.

Mr Hamilton (The Minister of Finance and Personnel): I thank the Member for his question. I welcome the recent announcements of new routes, including Iceland and Lithuania. I am also very aware that the ETI Minister is committed to improving Northern Ireland's air connectivity. She has already met the new managing director of Belfast International Airport and has also met a number of airlines to explore opportunities for improving our air access position. Indeed, she met a major airline during her recent visit to the United Arab Emirates. DETI officials are in regular dialogue with our airports and will support their route development endeavours by taking a Northern Ireland stand at the World Routes conference in Chicago later this month. However, discussions about specific routes and airlines are of a commercially sensitive and confidential nature.

Mr Lunn: I thank the Minister for his answer. Any air routes achieved are always welcome, but does he agree that the ones that we have at the moment are inclined to take tourist money out of Northern Ireland rather than bringing investment in? Obviously it would be beneficial to the efforts of Invest NI to have direct routes from trade centres such as those mentioned in my original question.

Mr Hamilton: I do not disagree that we want to develop our air routes, particularly into hub airports across mainland Europe. The Member drew attention to a couple of destinations in his question, and I do not disagree with the likes of Berlin; in fact, Germany as a whole is a priority for the Department, whether it be Berlin, Frankfurt or other destinations. I am sure that the Member is aware of efforts to get a route to Istanbul because of the strategic significance of its location.

I agree in some respects with the Member, but I do not entirely agree that the routes into Reykjavik and Vilnius are without commercial or tourism potential. Both have, perhaps to a greater or lesser extent, tourism opportunities in both directions. Vilnius, for example, is in the Baltic region, and the Minister and Invest Northern Ireland have been trying to increase trade into the area. There was a trade mission last year or earlier this year to the three Baltic states. Even though it may appear often to be marketed as a tourist route, there are business opportunities in that region. It is a growing area with huge opportunities for Northern Ireland businesses. I visited it and saw some of those opportunities for local firms. First impressions may be that they are focused on tourism, and, of course, some of the routes are, particularly those that were brought on board this summer, which are outward tourism routes. However, I think that the two mentioned in the question have commercial and tourism opportunities attached to them.

Mr McGlone: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin.

Thanks very much, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker — or Mr Speaker, as I should say now. I also thank the Minister for his response.

Can the Minister give us some indication — there is possibly an overlap in this, given that he is temporarily wearing two hats — of what discussions he has had with the British Government and, indeed, Executive colleagues about the reduction in air passenger duty for short-haul flights?

Mr Hamilton: The ETI Minister shares my position on air passenger duty, which is this: it is a tax that is not of our making and one that we would like to see done away with. The source of the tax is the Treasury in London. I think that there are ample studies and lots of evidence to show that it has a detrimental impact on connectivity into peripheral regions like Northern Ireland. That has been recognised by Treasury, which has given some allowance on APD for short-haul flights to the Highlands and Islands in Scotland. We would like to see that, as a minimum, extended to Northern Ireland, but, ideally, we would like to see the tax wiped out. Obviously, APD for long-haul flights is gone. The Executive pursued and got the power to reduce that to zero for long-haul flights, but, obviously, we would like to see it done away with for short-haul flights as well.

My Department and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment continue to work on an air connectivity study, which is very close to its conclusion. That will hopefully identify some opportunities to improve Northern Ireland's air access and will, of course, look at the question of APD. It will also look at other ways in which we can expand routes in and out of Northern Ireland, including better use of the regional connectivity fund, which I think is around £20 million and which the Chancellor announced in his recent Budget.

Sometimes there can be a fixation on APD as a silver bullet for all our connectivity problems. It certainly would be nice if it was done away with, but there are other factors. Sometimes selling the place and getting out and about in the way that the Minister is doing is, I would argue, as helpful as reducing APD.

Mr Kinahan: I wanted to come in with a question that is more in line with Trevor Lunn's. Do we have anyone who studies what we are good at here, like diagnostics in health? If so, we could use that to look at which countries we want to get into and then get airlines to open up routes to those countries. Is that part of your connectivity study?

Mr Hamilton: The connectivity study will look at a range of factors. Trying to dovetail with our broader economic strategy is quite important, although getting an exact alignment between what we are pursuing in terms of inward investment and what routes we are able to get is not always easy. To some extent, it is a commercial decision; it is not driven by us. The airlines that brought, say, the Iceland and Lithuania routes will have seen an opportunity in Northern Ireland. We support and welcome that, but it is not necessarily a matter of us going out and being able to say, "We want that one and that one". There are lots that we want. We want more connectivity into North America — absolutely — something into the Middle East — definitely — and more into mainland Europe, particularly the hub airports, and we will concentrate all our efforts on getting that.

Beyond that, it is very much a decision for the airlines and the airports themselves. Of course, we should not forget that the airports themselves have a route, and I am sure that I will get an opportunity in the not too distant future to meet the new managing director at the international airport. There is an onus on the airport as well, particularly with APD having been reduced to zero for long-haul flights. We have given that to them as an opportunity to go out and sell Northern Ireland. So, as well as DETI, they have a bit of work to do very much in conjunction with DETI.

Mr Hamilton: The ETI Minister will meet the new Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Paschal Donohoe TD, in the coming weeks, as soon as diaries permit.

Mr Ó hOisín: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht an fhreagra sin. Has the Enterprise Minister, working with her Southern counterpart on an integrated tourism strategy, thus ended the process of the marketing of the two parts of this island as separate little competing entities?

Mr Hamilton: As I said in my original response, the Minister has not had a chance to meet face to face the new Tourism Minister in the Irish Republic. I am sure that she will take the opportunity as soon as she can, and I am sure that she will want to discuss a range of issues around the subject of tourism. Without wishing to speak for the Minister or to pre-empt what she would discuss, I am pretty sure that her view would be similar to mine in that it is important that, while there are opportunities through Tourism Ireland to work together with our counterparts in the Irish Republic to market the whole of Ireland as a place for visitors to come to, there is a need for Northern Ireland to stand out and have its own strategy for attracting visitors here from all arts and parts. In that respect, while I am sure that she will want to learn from and work with her counterpart on a range of issues, she will still want Northern Ireland to pursue its own tourism strategy to sell the particular niche markets and specialities that we have in this part of the world.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his answers. In relation to cross-border tourism, will he give us an update on the availability of the new British-Irish visa scheme and the benefits that it will have for Northern Ireland?

Mr Hamilton: I thank the Member for his question. This is something that is quite interesting and even quite exciting. The Enterprise Minister is fully aware that the British-Irish visa scheme will launch this autumn. My understanding is that, under the first phase of the scheme, Indian and Chinese nationals applying in their country of origin will be able to visit the UK and Ireland using one visa, removing the need to apply for separate visas in each jurisdiction. That is transparently a good thing to have if it removes any doubt among visitors from India and China about where they can and cannot go. It is very good for Northern Ireland and will attract people from India and China, and I am sure that it will be expanded to other countries beyond that. If their entry point is the Irish Republic and Dublin, it will help to bring them north of the border on trips to the Giant's Causeway or Titanic Belfast. Of course, as we know and as the Minister has said repeatedly from this position, the Titanic brand, after Coca-Cola, is the most recognised brand in the whole of China. There are huge opportunities for Northern Ireland if there is increased Chinese tourism, as all the indicators show there will be. Anything that helps to get those people north of the border, if they enter the South of Ireland, should be welcomed.

Mrs McKevitt: If the Minister has plans to meet Paschal Donohoe in the very near future, will she put on the agenda the impact of the introduction of the road user levy for heavy goods vehicles on small and medium-sized enterprises located in and around the border areas?

Mr Hamilton: I am sure that the Minister's officials will have heard that point being raised. Although it is first and foremost a transport policy issue, which would be one of Minister Donohue's remits, it has an impact on the economy. I am sure that the Minister, in that capacity, will be happy to raise it with the Enterprise Minister or the appropriate counterparts.

Mr Hamilton: I understand that the Enterprise Minister met representatives from Down District Council, including officials, in February this year to discuss jobs and investment in Down district. I know that the Minister found this meeting, which covered a diverse range of issues, useful and informative. I assure the Member that the Minister and her officials are doing all they can to promote new job opportunities in the area.

In the last financial year, Invest Northern Ireland offered nearly £2·2 million in assistance to companies located in the Down District Council area. This assistance will help to deliver total business investment of over £8·4 million into the area, promoting 255 new jobs. This assistance included, for example, jobs fund support towards Finnebrogue, the local artisan food manufacturer, to grow and develop with the aim of creating 65 new jobs in Downpatrick.

Ms Ruane: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. As the Minister will know, and as I am sure his Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment will know, in recent years, the Down district has been blighted by a continual erosion of public sector jobs. Will the Minister outline what he and the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment plan to do about public sector jobs? I understand that a requested meeting on the issue did not happen.

Mr Hamilton: I attended and spoke at the launch of a brochure that Down District Council had in this Building. I think that Mr Hazzard sponsored the event. The document set out the benefits for attracting public sector jobs to the Down district area and particularly highlighted the public sector campus at the old Downshire Hospital site in Downpatrick.

Whilst I welcomed the brochure, at the launch, I said — I will say it again here, and I think that I said it in the Adjournment debate that Mr Hazzard secured — that, like any area, Down district should have more aspirations than just attracting public sector jobs.

The Member will be aware that her colleague the Minister of Agriculture indicated her intention to move some public sector jobs to Downpatrick. There are more public sector jobs in the Down district than in other parts of Northern Ireland: the average is 31%, and in the Down district at the minute, I think that it is 33%, which is slightly above average.

Like every area, the aspiration should be to increase the percentage of private sector jobs and not to rely on public sector jobs. Whilst public sector jobs are important, they are not the same driver of wealth and development as private sector jobs.

Mr Wells: Will the Minister join me in the delight that we have one of the top golf courses in the United Kingdom — Royal County Down — and will he give his assessment of the forthcoming arrival of the Irish Open there, which many on this side of the House welcome strongly?

Mr Hamilton: When the Member started off, I thought that he was talking about Ardglass Golf Club, a course that I used to play when I was young. In fact, in many respects, that course ruined my game. Anybody who has played it will understand why.

It is absolutely fantastic that the Irish Open is coming back not just to Northern Ireland but to Newcastle. Mr Wells is absolutely right. It is one thing for us to extol the virtues of Royal County Down or Royal Portrush, but time in, time out, Royal County Down is internationally recognised as one of the best golf courses in the whole world. It is one of Tiger Woods’s favourite courses, and he often drops in and plays unannounced if he is on these shores.

There are huge opportunities, particularly for Newcastle, which has developed tremendously well over the past number of years with investment in a public realm scheme. It has attracted events such as the Festival of Flight, which I went to in early August, which shows that Newcastle is more than capable of holding its own and hosting major events. It will be a great host town and course for the Irish Open next year.

The whole Mourne area will benefit considerably from that event. Anybody who is interested in golf already knows that it is a great course. After it hosts the Irish Open, many more people will flock to Newcastle to play on that course and other courses in the area. That will bring a huge economic boost at the time and have a legacy for many years to come.

Mr Rogers: I thank the Minister for his answers thus far. What measures, Minister, do you plan to put in place for public and private sector employment opportunities for disadvantaged areas?

Mr Hamilton: The Minister’s work and the Department's strategy are to try to bring investment into Northern Ireland globally. We want investment to be spread right across the country. This topic is regularly debated. There is hardly a Member who does not want more investment in his or her area, particularly the areas that have high levels of unemployment and deprivation.

Every effort will be made to show the wealth of opportunities across Northern Ireland for investment. I understand that it is sometimes difficult to get inward investment companies to look at all parts of Northern Ireland, but I know that the Minister is keen for it to happen.

I was pleasantly surprised when I looked at the figures for Down district, a district that, in part, I represent. I was quite impressed, not just with the investment in events in the area and to assist our tourism economy but with the investment in the likes of Finnebrogue and others that was hoped to reap around 250 new jobs in the past year. So, there have been considerable attempts, if not always appreciated, to attract inward investment to some of the more peripheral parts of Northern Ireland and, more importantly, to try to grow indigenous companies that are embedded in those communities and are less likely to leave their area so that more opportunities can be created for local people, whether they are in deprived areas or not.

Mr McCallister: I welcome the Minister's earlier replies. He has been driving home the point about private jobs. Is he aware that Invest NI's contribution to tourism businesses in South Down was under £40,000, yet in Fermanagh and South Tyrone it was £840,000 and in North Antrim it was £400,000? South Down, as the Minister will know, has some excellent products, with the Brontë homeland, the Mournes and Saint Patrick's Trail. How will the Department address that clear imbalance when it comes to moneys going to South Down?

Mr Hamilton: You can take one area in which the Department is providing funding, and the Member has taken support for tourism businesses. There are a considerable number of tourism businesses in the broad South Down constituency, many of which, owing to the nature of the constituency, are well established. Some of the other areas that the Member mentioned do not have the same level of development.

Take the Tourist Board's support for events in the Down area in this year alone. It supported the International Bread Festival at the National Trust property at Castle Ward with £18,000. The Festival of Flight, which I mentioned before, was a very successful event that attracted over 100,000 people to Newcastle. It was given £30,000 of support from the Tourist Board. The Ballynahinch Harvest and Country Living Festival, which is in a couple of weekends' time, was given £18,000 of investment. The Hans Sloane Chocolate and Fine Food Festival in Killyleagh, which, although it is in the Strangford constituency, is in the Down district area, has received £9,000. Everybody is encouraged to come to Killyleagh this Saturday and Sunday for that. The St Patrick's Day Festival next year is due to get £30,000.

In all that, I am not counting the ongoing support that there will be for the likes of the Irish Open. That adds up to a considerable amount of support for events in the area, and that will draw visitors. The Festival of Flight is a good example, with thousands of people coming from all over Northern Ireland to Newcastle for that event and spending money in tourism businesses.

The Member has a narrow way of looking at it, which is direct support to the development of businesses. Arguably a better way of providing support is to support events that will bring floods of people into the area who will spend money in the businesses there. So, there are different ways of looking at it. I am confident from looking at the figures that the Tourist Board and the Minister are doing all that they can to support tourism and tourism businesses in the South Down and Down district areas.

Mr Hamilton: The Northern Ireland Tourist Board’s (NITB) international events fund for 2014 introduced a new model to support the development and sustainability of a number of events. The Ulster Grand Prix fitted the criteria for securing one- to three-year funding following a successful economic appraisal of an agreed business plan. As part of the three years of funding, the NITB commissioned an independent count and visitor attitudes survey for the Ulster Grand Prix in 2014. The results will be available in December.

Mr Givan: I thank the Minister for that response. I thank the Department again for its continuing support for the Ulster Grand Prix, which is the fastest road race in the world. To ensure its ongoing success and to build on a successful summer this year, will the Department engage with the club and the other private sector investors who came on board this year to put resources into the event to try to help enhance the facilities in order to take the event to the next stage and to continue to improve what is a fantastic day?

Mr Hamilton: I thank the Member for his question. I realised, while he was asking me that, that I could commit the economy Minister to all sorts of things in this position, and she is not even in the country. Given my other job, that might not be the most responsible thing to do.

It is worth putting on record again, if it needs to be put, the importance of road racing to Northern Ireland, not just culturally and in a sporting way but to the economy. I am sitting beside the Member of Parliament for East Londonderry, and he would remind me too of the importance of the North West 200 and other events around Northern Ireland including the excellent Ulster Grand Prix.

I think that the Minister will be more than happy to engage on the basis that Mr Givan outlined because of the previous success of the Ulster Grand Prix. I noted that, in 2011, it attracted over 16,000 visitors, some of whom were from outside Northern Ireland, and generated nearly £1 million for the local economy. You would absolutely want to support something that is as successful and as ingrained in the culture of Northern Ireland as that. I am sure that, as with all such events, the Minister will want to appraise this year's results. Subject to a business case and, of course, the availability of funds, I am sure that she would want to support the Ulster Grand Prix and other road racing events across Northern Ireland.

Mr McKinney: Will the Minister outline what discussions the Enterprise Minister has planned with Mr Donohoe's Department and others on supporting future bids for sporting events on an all-island basis?

Mr Hamilton: I could set the agenda for this meeting, and it has not even been put in the diary yet. I am sure that one thing that the two Ministers will discuss along those lines is the ongoing development of a bid for the 2023 Rugby World Cup. A lot of interest is starting to develop around next year's Rugby World Cup. There is a huge opportunity for Ireland, both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, to capitalise on the growth and development of rugby across Ireland by having a successful bid for the 2023 World Cup. I think that it would have huge benefits for Northern Ireland in particular. The Executive, have invested considerably, in particular into Ravenhill but also into Casement Park, as part of the bid. I think that there is a ground in the north-west that may form part of the bid as well. This has been agreed by both Governments in both jurisdictions. I am sure that it is something that, if it is not on the agenda of the first meeting, will be taken forward by the two Ministers in conjunction with the sporting and culture, arts and leisure Ministers.

Mr Hamilton: The Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a trade agreement that is currently being negotiated between the European Union and the United States of America. The negotiations do not constitute a devolved Government matter. It is the responsibility of the Westminster Government to work with the European Commission and other member states to develop a comprehensive trade and investment agreement that reflects United Kingdom priorities.

Mr Kinahan: The reason I raise this matter is because I saw a small document that had been handed out — I think, in the Lords — indicating that Northern Ireland has only one skill, namely aerospace. Yet, we have good health, agrifood, construction, IT, and high-tech skills. We have a whole mass of things going for us. If they see us as having only one high level skill, it seems as though we should be trying, in some way, to influence what is going on there. That is why I asked the question.

Mr Hamilton: I am not sure of the origin or status of the document that the Member is talking about. Perhaps he could furnish the Department with some details. If we are being portrayed on a global stage as having only one skill — whereas, as the Member rightly says, we have many more than that — then I am sure that the Department would be keen to try to correct that and make sure that a more accurate picture of what Northern Ireland has to offer is included in any documentation associated with the free trade agreement.

Mr Flanagan: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I am a bit startled that the Minister thinks that the devolved institution should have no role in this, given that TTIP could devastate our agriculture industry by allowing foods of a reduced standard and GM foods into our economy, as well as opening up the possibility of privatising the NHS. Does the Minister not think that such issues should be a matter for devolved Ministers? Certainly, if Ministers here are concerned about the NHS being privatised — and maybe your Health Minister is not — they should be raising that with members of the British Government and the MEPs.

Mr Hamilton: There is a difference between being interested in an issue and being in the lead on it. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, as important as it is to Northern Ireland, is not involved in taking a lead in respect of trade negotiations between the United States of America's Government and the European Commission. That is, of course, dealt with at a much higher level than DETI is at. But it is important that there is regular input from Invest Northern Ireland through its chief executive, who meets his counterpart in UK Trade and Investment regularly and is kept apprised of developments. Where concerns are raised about the nature of any proposed free trade agreement, just as I am sure there will be across the other 28 member states of the European Union, they will be taken up with the officials in Brussels as well.

I am sure that the Minister is acutely concerned about some of the issues that the Member has raised, particularly the suggestion that is being made by some that the proposed agreement will lead to the privatisation of the health service. It has been made very clear by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in London, which is in the lead at a national level on this, that the commissioning of health services remains the domain of individual member states, and, as a devolved region, we are at a further level down. So, the involvement of the private sector in the delivery of health and social care in Northern Ireland is and will remain a matter for the Assembly to decide upon.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: That brings us to the end of the period for oral questions. We move on to topical questions

Mr Hamilton: I think that there is an increasing awareness that Northern Ireland has huge potential in commercialising the opportunities flowing from considerable public investment in cancer research down through the years. As I understand it, there are roughly 130 life science and connected-health companies based in Northern Ireland that employ around 7,500 people and have an annual turnover of over £800 million. So, whilst we sometimes think of life sciences in the broadest sense as maybe being the area of one or two big-name companies, it is much broader than that and has a wider impact on the local economy than we perhaps think.

The Member specifically talked about development in respect of cancer, and this Department, along with the Department of Health, has engaged the MATRIX panel to undertake a foresight and strategy review for health and life sciences to determine how best to grow the overall sector. Cancer will be included in that. The Member will probably recall better than I will that there was an announcement last year of a £13 million partnership to accelerate cancer-focused drug discovery in Northern Ireland. That was between Queen's University and Almac, one of our leading life sciences companies, and, as part of that project, up to 60 ovarian cancer patients will be trialled with a new locally developed drug. So, there is a growing understanding and appreciation that, as awful as cancer is, there are opportunities to tackle it in a global fight and that Northern Ireland can play a role where we punch above our weight.

Mr McKinney: I thank the Minister for his positive approach. In that context, will he agree that the Health Minister's approach to rejecting 40 cancer drugs that are available in England and not making them available here could undermine that ambition? In that context, will he consider reflecting to the Executive the possibility of at least further and strengthened cross-departmental work, if not a separate subcommittee of the Executive, to look at this, given the health outcomes and economic outcomes that could flow from such an important decision as making this a centre of excellence for the whole region?

Mr Hamilton: We are at risk of the Finance Minister answering DETI questions but actually answering a question for the Health Department. We are going on a very circular journey. On the issue of what the Health Minister has and has not done, I do not think that it is a matter of him rejecting the use of particular drugs.

The Member will be acutely aware of the financial constraints that the Minister finds himself in, the difficulties that we have around meeting the huge demand right across the health service and the pressure that his budget is under — pressures that are not helped by a lack of progress on welfare reform that is denying him and the entire Executive much-needed resources. I know that the Minister has made clear his desire to get a cancer drugs fund established in Northern Ireland, and I support him in that endeavour.

I do not think that there is any denial of the ability of Northern Ireland to play a leading role, particularly in cancer research, as we have done already. We should pay tribute to the likes of Almac and other companies in Northern Ireland for the work that they do in that field. It is an area where there is huge scope for development, but a lot of work needs to be put in to support the companies that are already doing that work and also, importantly, to connect what we do in the public sector in the NHS. Sometimes I think that, allied to the type of scare stories that Mr Flanagan came out with about privatising the health service, and no matter what your views are about privatising, there is nothing wrong, in my view, with using the opportunities that are there and that have come from public investment to leverage in commercial opportunities that will create jobs on the one hand and, on the other hand, help to solve big problems around cancer and other serious illnesses.

Mr Hamilton: I saw and noted the report from PwC. The Member has highlighted an element of it that stood out, and the media coverage described it as a patchy recovery. In some respects, I do not disagree with that; I said that over the last year. I think that we are in full recovery mode now. However, there will still be elements of the economy that will lag behind a little.

In certain sectors — retail is one and construction is another — I do not think that you will see the same degree of growth or impetus behind growth as, perhaps, you will see in other sectors, including services and the manufacturing sector, which have done quite well over the last year and other years. I do not disagree with the assessment that there will be patchy elements to it, but, from listening to the coverage and reading the report, I do not think that we should be dismissive of the tremendous progress that has been made, particularly over the last 12 months. Unemployment in Northern Ireland fell by 1,400 in July, and that was the single biggest decrease in unemployment since October 1999; so it was since even well before the current downturn. Whilst our unemployment rate is a little higher than the UK average, it is still considerably lower than our neighbours to the south.

The Member mentioned wages, and I had hoped that we might get on to the living wage question earlier, but Mr Maskey was not in his place. For the last number of years, DETI has had, through Invest Northern Ireland, a policy of pursuing companies that are paying well above the median wage in Northern Ireland. That can be seen in the long list — the almost daily list — of new companies that have been investing here in Northern Ireland over the last couple of months, and the vast majority of them are paying well in excess of the living wage and paying well above the median wage in Northern Ireland as well. I think that the whole House is agreed that the way in which we will tackle some of the underlying problems of poverty in our society is by ensuring that not only are there jobs but that there are well-paying jobs in our economy.

Mr Hazzard: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. Given that at least 15 major reports since the 1957 Isles and Cuthbert report indicated that economic recovery will always be patchy in this state given our lack of control of our own economic destiny, will the Minister offer his support for the devolution of the necessary tools to allow us to carve out a sustainable and equitable economic recovery?

Mr Hamilton: I do support the devolution of necessary tools. The Member and I might disagree on what the necessary ones are. In the past, I have supported the devolution of air passenger duty for long-haul flights where there was a very clear need to do that in order to retain that direct connectivity into North America, and I still support the devolution of corporation tax powers to Northern Ireland. We all know that, when we get it — I remain optimistic that we will get it. We await news later in the week about another part of the United Kingdom and what it decides to do. However, I remain optimistic, irrespective of the result there, that the power will be extended to Northern Ireland, and then it is a matter of us deciding what to do with it.

When we do get it, it will be challenging. At this moment in time, that is to the exclusion of all other possible tools, which I am not as convinced would have as transformative an effect on our economy as corporation tax would have. That is the one that I remain focused on; that the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister remains focused on; and that the Executive as a whole remain focused on. If we get that power and take the decision to reduce corporation tax in Northern Ireland, then I think that it will have that effect. Whilst not being a silver bullet for our economy, it will have a transformative effect in a way that no other tax-raising or -varying power could have.

Mr Hamilton: The Member may be right to characterise that situation as seemingly remote and distant to the activities of this House, but when civil unrest or crisis happens in eastern Ukraine, it has an impact further afield. The Member is right to highlight the impact that it could potentially have on gas supplies, as so many natural gas supplies for Europe come from Russia and through Ukraine. As I understand it, most of the UK's supply of natural gas that is not our own comes from either liquefied natural gas or from Norway, but those ships can be diverted mid-sea to go to other places where that gas is needed or where a higher price is paid. That is something that we should be aware of. It may not be seen as a pressing matter in this place, but that is one reason why the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister and others in the Executive, including me, have long talked about security of supply rather than prices.

We need to continue to focus on achieving our Programme for Government targets for the diversification of our energy sources. I also note that we are on track to reach our target in terms of renewables. We also have to press ahead with improving our infrastructure. That includes the North/South interconnector, which will ensure that Northern Ireland's electricity supply can benefit from having better connectivity to the Irish Republic.

Mr Beggs: The latest power station proposal in Northern Ireland has been for a sizeable power station in the scenic Inver area outside Larne. That was initially floated as being a unit for renewable energy storage, although I have noticed that it requires a high-pressure gas supply and so would be heavily dependent on gas in the future. Can the Minister assure me, perhaps from his DFP background as well as while standing in for DETI, that no public funding will be used to create yet another gas-dependent power station, as the future of that supply is insecure?

Mr Hamilton: I do not know enough about the potential power station to pass any definitive comment, and I would be cautious about doing so either on my behalf or on behalf of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister. I will therefore refrain from passing particular comment on that. I am not sure what the status of that proposal is or whether the proposer has applied for public money. However, I am sure that officials will have heard the Member raise the query, and I will ensure that they write to him with more detail.

Mr Hamilton: I can certainly furnish the Member with any specific elements of existing strategies that deal with the issue of underemployment. However, sometimes we focus particularly on elements of unemployment, such as youth employment. Those are problems, but I think that we are making significant process in addressing underemployment. We are also making slow but positive progress in addressing economic inactivity in Northern Ireland. However, we must not forget that there are many people who, whilst they are in work, are defined as underemployed because of the hours that they are doing or the type of job that they are performing. I am sure that what will come back from the Department is that much of what we are doing in trying to attract investment into Northern Ireland and to grow indigenous firms is all aimed at ensuring that, whether it is unemployment, youth unemployment or underemployment, we are strengthening our economy and creating opportunities for everyone.

Mr Lynch: Go raibh maith agat. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for his answer. As Finance Minister, he will be aware that, as the squeeze continues on pay, more and more people become poorer and live in poverty. Can he provide assurances that DETI will deliver more permanent jobs? Otherwise, we will continue to experience increased emigration, underemployment and a growth in food banks.

Mr Hamilton: In response to Mr Hazzard's question, I mentioned the significant reduction that there has been in unemployment. There are still issues. It is still higher than the UK average, and although it is significantly lower than the EU average and the figures in Republic of Ireland, it is still higher than we would like. We need to see further progress and more bearing down on it, and we need to address issues like youth unemployment.

However, when it comes to creating permanent jobs in Northern Ireland, the Member need only look at the DETI website and the news pages to see the number of jobs that Invest Northern Ireland has supported over the last number of weeks. Thirty-one jobs were announced yesterday at Smiley Monroe in Lisburn, and 22 — these are just in the month of September — were announced at the Deluxe Group in Portadown. Thirty-five were announced at Webtech in Enniskillen, which is in the Member's constituency, and 47 were announced at Magellan Aerospace in Greyabbey, which is in my constituency. Three hundred and thirty-eight jobs were announced at Deloitte in Belfast. I could go on and on. Jobs have also been announced by Baker and McKenzie; Almac, with nearly 350; and Capita, with 400 jobs. There has been small, medium and large-sized investment supported by Invest Northern Ireland over the last six months that has amounted to a huge number of permanent new jobs coming into Northern Ireland. I think that these are things that we, on every side of the House, should be welcoming.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. I thank the Minister for standing in so capably for his colleague. Before we move to questions to the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, I ask Members to take their ease while we change the top Table.

Ms Ní Chuilín (The Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure): Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Member for his question. First, I acknowledge the tremendous success of all our athletes at the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow. Overall, we finished fifteenth out of 71 on the medals table, with over 6,500 competing athletes to win 12 medals at the games. I am sure that the Member will agree that that is a remarkable achievement. I hosted a reception here yesterday evening to celebrate the team's remarkable achievements. In addition, I met the chief executive of Sport NI last week to discuss the plans to build on that success.

I can advise that Sport NI will be carrying out debriefs with the governing bodies of each of the sports that had athletes competing in Glasgow. A review will also be undertaken using information that was collected as part of each of those debriefs. The review is intended as an appraisal of performance and as a mechanism to make recommendations to appropriate partners on what changes are needed to help all our sports to improve their performance. It is anticipated that that process and initial review will be completed by December of this year.

Mr Hilditch: I thank the Minister for her answer, and I welcome the reviews that were mentioned. We have seen some improvements recently in boxing facilities and that type of estate. Can the Minister give an indication of progress with any other capital schemes, perhaps including the velodrome or any other facilities?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. It will come as no surprise — the Member is well aware — that boxing continues achieve success despite the facilities, not because of the facilities. There has been some investment that has slowly started to take effect, but you could argue that the boxing performances well preceded the capital investment. At its board meeting at the end of the month, Sport NI will agree on how the capital programme will be brought forward. There is a long list of what is needed in terms of sports capital investment, which includes, the Member will not be surprised to hear, a velodrome.

I certainly think that we need to build facilities to help performances, and we need to build facilities in order to increase the aspiration and self-confidence of those athletes who have yet to present themselves to the sport of their choice.

Mr Ó hOisín: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht an fhreagra sin. What steps is the Minister taking to improve the spread of medals across the different participating sports?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Member for his question. As I said to Mr Hilditch, Sport NI is planning to have debriefs around each of the sports. That includes not only the athletes who competed in Glasgow 2014 but the governing bodies. Once that happens, a review will be undertaken using that information, which will act as an appraisal of performances and will look at making recommendations, particularly about what other support is needed.

It really is incumbent upon us all to use the experience — the most recent that we have is from August — to try to build on and direct it in future. That is due to be completed by December of this year. In between times, I will be talking to the chief executive of Sport NI. Indeed, I will have a further meeting with the forum on the Sport Matters strategy, and I have no doubt that that issue will come up.

Mr McGimpsey: I thank the Minister for her answers. Can she assure us that, bearing in mind the great success that we had in Glasgow, not least in boxing, all boxing clubs will be able to access any grants that are available, access facilities and participate freely in those facilities and will not be subject to sectarian harassment, as was proven to be the case in the past with Sandy Row boxing club? Can she assure us that any grants and support will be tied to such assurances?

Ms Ní Chuilín: First, I refute any allegation — the inference in his question is that my Department or Sport NI have been responsible for the sectarian harassment of Sandy Row boxing club; that is not the case. That is not to say that it has not experienced it before in St Kevin's Hall. It was well documented, and the Member has consistently raised it. I need to put that on record, because I do not think that it is fair, given the way some programmes are edited, to suggest that Sport NI, me or anybody else has been involved in the sectarian harassment of Sandy Row.

Sandy Row boxing club, just like any other boxing club that wants to avail itself of this capital investment, knows what it needs to do. What it needs to do is become affiliated to a governing body in order to receive funding. That is the criterion; I am not changing it to suit Sandy Row boxing club or anyone else.

Mrs McKevitt: I apologise to the Minister for not attending the Commonwealth Games reception last night. It clashed with my meeting with the Down camogie team, which won the all-Ireland premier junior title on Sunday.

What support, financially or otherwise, is available to our young athletes who wish to compete in the 2015 Commonwealth Youth Games in Samoa?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I pay tribute to the Down camogie team; its success has been amazing. Samoa and St Lucia have been mentioned regarding the youth games. The Commonwealth Games Council has received funding. It is working with Sport NI. I cannot remember the date — it is soon — but I have a meeting organised with the chief executive of the Commonwealth Games Council to discuss this matter.

It is incumbent on us to support athletes competing not just in that forum but in other fora, because we need to ensure that their performance will be consistent. They need the confidence and contentment of knowing that they do not have to worry about funding. Their efforts should be focused on their performance.

I am due to meet the chief executive of the Commonwealth Games Council fairly soon, and I will meet Sport NI.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Members, I should have said that question 2 and question 10 have been withdrawn.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Member for his question. I recognise the significant contribution that the voluntary and community art sectors make to many aspects of life here. Pipe bands can introduce people to the appreciation of music and start some on the road to musical excellence. This year, the Field Marshal Montgomery Pipe Band won its tenth and fourth consecutive world title, which is a truly great accolade for the band and the pipe band sector.

In recognition of the importance of music making in communities, my Department, through the Arts Council, provides support for bands by contributing to the costs of the purchase of instruments. In addition, the Ulster-Scots Agency makes funding available to bands through its financial assistance scheme, which can provide funding for musical tuition.

Mr Anderson: I thank the Minister for that response. She has already congratulated the Field Marshal Montgomery Pipe Band for its success at the world championships in Glasgow. I record my congratulations as well. Will she now join me in congratulating the Bleary and District Pipe Band from my Upper Bann constituency, which recently won the grade 2 championships at Portrush?

I am sure that the Minister will agree that pipe bands are expensive to keep and to develop. There are a lot of young people in those bands, and I have been involved with some of the bands. To build on that success, it is vital that they get proper funding. There are a lot of family members in the bands, and it costs a lot of money.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I encourage the Member to come to a question.

Mr Anderson: Will the Minister undertake to give further support and funding to those pipe bands?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): That was a very long tune.

Ms Ní Chuilín: A very long tune with a short answer: yes, I absolutely congratulate the band from the Member's constituency. All politics is local. I am certainly keen to make sure that support for pipe bands and other bands involved in the purchasing and development of musical instruments continues. The Field Marshal Montgomery Pipe Band is probably the exception, but many bands have participated in competitions and won, and some bands may not have won competitions but are certainly getting there. They need to be supported, and the Arts Council and the Ulster-Scots Agency have continued to do that to their best efforts.

Ms McCorley: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagraí go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for her answers up to this point. Between the Arts Council and the Ulster-Scots Agency, can she give any figures on how much is being invested in the musical instruments for bands scheme? Are there any plans to review that?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Member for her supplementary questions. Since 2011, the Ulster-Scots Agency has invested over £852,000, and the Arts Council has invested over £605,000. I know that both agencies plan to look at value for money in every aspect of their work. I have absolutely no doubt that that, as well as other aspects of the work and the services that they provide, will be under review, particularly given the budgetary constraints that we all face.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Neither my Department nor the Arts Council has provided funding for the Ardoyne Fleadh for this August, although I do not preclude funding being made available to the fleadh in the foreseeable future.

Mr Humphrey: I thank the Minister for her answer, brief though it was. Given the appallingly sectarian, racist and hateful remarks by the Druids' singer at the Ardoyne Fleadh, does the Minister agree that those bigoted remarks have caused damage to community relations in north Belfast and have caused great offence to the unionist, Protestant and Orange community? What sanctions does she plan to put in place on funding for the fleadh next year?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Member for his question. I condemn any remarks that are sectarian or not befitting any community. I welcome the Member's sentiments. I look forward to his support when bands that are funded through the Arts Council or the Ulster-Scots Agency —

Mr Humphrey: Answer the question.

Ms Ní Chuilín: — parade in certain parts of our constituency and play offensive tunes outside places of worship. I hope that the Member will join me to say that funding and investment for those bands should also be looked at and scrutinised and, indeed, that the organisations that march with them and have responsibility for them should, too, be penalised and scrutinised. I have answered the question.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I encourage Members not to make remarks across the Chamber, please. You may not be all that pleased with me as a chairman, but I will do my best. All remarks must be made through the Chair.

Mr F McCann: Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Minister monitor funding that is made for festivals, commemorations and bands and, if any display of sectarianism, racism etc is proven, take steps to ensure that all funding is reviewed?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Member for that question. I am sure that he heard the answer that I gave to Mr William Humphrey. I will indeed. I want to take the opportunity to say again that I, too, was very disappointed and saddened by the remarks that the Druids made at the Ardoyne Fleadh. I was very content with the rebuttals in statements from the organisers and, indeed, from all politicians across the House.

We all need to be careful and cautious about the way in which Question Time is sometimes used for political point scoring. Sectarianism, regardless of where it occurs, needs to be condemned. We should do that regardless of where it happens. Certainly, there is cross-party support for ensuring that sectarianism is ended and that any support for people who take part in bands, festivals or other activities and are involved in what could be perceived to be sectarian behaviour needs to be scrutinised. Any action needs to be taken after careful review.

Mr A Maginness: The Minister has rightly condemned the sectarian behaviour of the Druids. Other Members have done so as well. Does she agree with me that the organising committee acted in a forthright manner in also condemning the remarks? Will she further allow an application by the fleadh organisers to extend cross-community outreach?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Member for his question. I totally agree that the work that the organisers of the Ardoyne Fleadh have done this year and in previous years has to be commended. It is regrettable that the Druids became the story of the fleadh rather than all the activities in the week leading up to that. The organisers do cross-community work. They are trying their best along with their partners in the Shankill and elsewhere. The organisers of the Ardoyne Fleadh and other cultural programmers and partners are coming together to look at ways in which they can make applications next year. I welcome that regardless of where or whom it comes from.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Member for his question. He should be aware that I have been advised that the recent fish kill at Brantry was a natural occurrence that it was not possible to predict or prevent and was brought about by a sustained period of hot, still weather. The conditions raised the water temperature and lowered the oxygen level in the water, resulting in fish mortality.

Inland Fisheries staff visit all public angling estate waters regularly to assess operational needs and respond to reports from other agencies such as the Environment Agency and, indeed, from members of the public. If angling is affected on any of the waters, anglers are informed through the NI Direct angling website.

In view of the ongoing fish mortality and reports of possible toxic algae bloom, the lough was closed for angling as a precautionary measure and a notice posted on the website. The Department also provided statements in response to a number of media enquiries. In addition, it erected a public notice at Brantry which advised of the possibility of toxic blue-green algae blooms during prolonged periods of sunshine and the risks that that could present.

Mr Elliott: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. She said that the fish kill was due to the water being hot and still for a prolonged period. I do not think that the temperature this summer was as hot as it was last summer. I wonder whether there was a similar fish kill last summer, because the temperature was even hotter last year.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I will have to take the Member's word for that. I do not know what the temperature was last year in comparison with this year. The fact that I cannot remember and that there seems to be no report of fish kills last year suggest that the temperature and the possibility of toxic algae in the Brantry added to the high level of fish mortality. I will try to bring the Member's question to my officials and get answers. I am sure that the Member will join me in saying that we need to do anything that we can to reduce the impact on angling in our public waters. I would be happy to receive any information about the river that the Member may have from anglers in his constituency.

Ms Ní Chuilín: The proposed cuts are not unique to the Arts Council. All business areas across my Department and its arm's-length bodies have been asked to closely examine their budgets to meet the reductions. I met the chair of the Arts Council to discuss the potential impact of reductions and examine how best to implement them, with a view to minimising the effect on front line services. However, it is not just the end users' enjoyment of the artistic product that may be affected if programming is scaled back. Organisations may have no choice other than to make savings from other strands of work, notably, perhaps, their outreach programmes, community ticketing schemes and staff or overhead costs, as suggested by them. In addition, marketing budgets may have to be reduced, leading directly to reduced income from a consequential reduction in ticket sales. The Arts Council board met on 10 September to consider its options, and organisations are being advised of decisions on budget reductions. I am conscious of the potential impact that those budget reductions will have on programmes, staff and services. I will continue to work with the sector during this difficult period, particularly as the final position emerges.

Mr D Bradley: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra. Will any of the £1 million allocated to cultural programmes in the June monitoring round be used to fund Arts Council programmes?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. The additional money is not to plug gaps in the Arts Council budget. It is additional money relating to legacy commitments that we made as part of the World Police and Fire Games and the City of Culture. As the Member will be aware, I made a statement in the city last November about commitments. However, it is not just for the city of Derry; it is for the neighbouring communities and villages. So, while an additional £1 million is to be welcomed, it is regrettable that some groups that have been recipients of arts funding for many years feel it appropriate to criticise those that have never received funding and are now doing so through the additional £1 million.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Building on additional funding I secured earlier this year, I submitted a significant bid to the June monitoring round to maximise the ongoing development of a social and economic legacy from the City of Culture 2013. I was disappointed that funding was not allocated to this bid. I remain committed to harnessing the momentum created by the City of Culture and realising the full potential of the culture, arts and leisure base to transform the lives of people.

Achieving that is not solely dependent on the allocation of new or additional funds. The DCAL family of organisations, programmes, facilities and services is already actively targeting and delivering interventions across the north-west. This week, for example, the CultureTECH festival, which is supported by my Department through NI Screen, will enhance the national and international profile of the north-west as a centre for innovation, digital technologies and creative industries. Inspirational programming as part of the festival will also engage over 16,000 schoolchildren.

Mr McCartney: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for her answer and welcome her continuing commitment to and delivery for Derry in relation to those projects. Will the Minister give me an outline of the current status of the development of sports facilities in the north-west? In particular, will she welcome the fact that planning permission is now being sought for the development of the Brandywell stadium?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Member for his supplementary question.

God bless you.

Sport NI has confirmed that phase one of the north coast sports village was completed by August. In relation to capital investment, as part of the legacy of the City of Culture, boxing projects in Derry have received £120,000 so far for equipment. In relation to the Daisyfield/Showgrounds project, I welcome the fact that Derry City Council has awarded planning permission for the Brandywell. Also in relation to that project, the Department will receive a business case from Derry City Council for that element of the Foyle valley gateway master plan and has been working very closely with the city council on that. On the basis of receiving that final business case, funding will be awarded. I imagine that that will be a seamless process.

DCAL is also still committed to providing the £2·5 million sought by Limavady Borough Council towards the development of a sports and community complex in the Dungiven area. Provision of that funding will also be subject to a business case, as the Member would no doubt expect.

Mr Eastwood: I thank the Minister for her answers thus far and her stated commitment to the legacy of the City of Culture. I want to ask her for some clarification though. One day on Radio Foyle, she talked about £1 million being there for the cultural legacy programme of the City of Culture, and she has made a commitment today. Is it intended that all of that £1 million will go to Derry and the legacy of the City of Culture?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I am happy to write to the Member and give him a full breakdown of what will be funded, where it will be funded, where the projects will happen and the duration of that funding and provide him with a status report of what I intend to bid for in the next monitoring rounds. I think that that is important, given that everybody is committed to ensuring that the legacy of the City of Culture is met but also to make sure that people have their facts right. I am not saying that there has been mischief, but some confusion has certainly been spun, either by certain media outlets or people on the media who are either really confused, deliberately confusing or who are really not in full possession of the facts. I am happy to furnish the Member with that information.

Mr Hussey: Does the Minister agree with me that Londonderry's position as the UK City of Culture was enhanced by the participation of those pipe bands and flute bands from the Protestant/unionist community that participated in and supported the events?

Ms Ní Chuilín: Absolutely. I am sure that the Member has been to the Walled City Tattoo, and if he has not, why not?

Mr Hussey: I have.

Ms Ní Chuilín: He has. I am glad to hear it. The story of the City of Culture, particularly with the bands, is something that we can learn from across the North and, indeed, across the island. The work of the bands and Cultúrlann Uí Chanáin has been remarkable.

I think that it is important that every aspect of musical and cultural heritage is celebrated — and celebrated within a context of respect. It is really important that we continue that tradition and heritage, not just for people who enjoy what we have now but to make sure that we pass it on to the generations behind us.

Ms Ní Chuilín: With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 8 and 11 together. I thank the Member for his question.

In relation to Ravenhill, the project is progressing very well, with all three stands now complete. The official opening of the stadium took place, as the Member knows, in May of this year. Completion of the remaining phases of construction work, on education and heritage facilities, is planned for early 2015. I expect that to happen in February or March 2015.

In relation to the IFA, construction at Windsor commenced on site in May after the Irish Cup final, and, provided that significant delays around any legal issues are avoided, the project can remain on programme, with completion of the construction works planned for October 2015.

The Member will also be aware that a judicial review is being heard regarding Casement Park, so it is not appropriate that I mention that.

Certainly, in benefits and integration with local communities, as part of the development plans for all the stadia, the governing bodies have been extensively engaged in consultation with local communities, and it is my intention that the stadiums will have the potential to be used every day, post construction.

Mr Spratt: I thank the Minister for her answer. In relation to the ongoing talks with community associations, at Windsor and Ravenhill, can the Minister update us on how far that has gone? I compliment the Department on the progress that has been made with community associations.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Member for his sentiments. I am happy to pass that on to officials in the Department. It has always been my intention — indeed, it has always been the intention as part of this development — that the opportunities for communities do not end with construction. They have to exist pre, during and post construction. It is important that those communities, that are neighbours to these stadia, are not outside looking in. They need to be involved. I am content that the discussions that have been had so far are good. Can we do more? Absolutely. I think that it is important that Members, such as yourself, have continually come forward with suggestions about how we can do that better. The ongoing relationship needs to continue with officials, regardless of who is in the Department, because it will be a 25-year relationship. All being well — if God spares us all, we will all be here, but certainly not in this place — the benefits for those communities will endure well beyond construction. Hopefully, construction will be completed in next year and the year after that.

Mr Sheehan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a freagraí go dtí seo. What plans have been developed to consult local communities on the socio-economic proposals and benefits that would best suit the needs of those communities?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Member for his question. He is probably referring to social clauses and community benefits, rather than the issues outlined by Jimmy Spratt.

There have been discussions, particularly in relation to the governing bodies and community groups. I intend, once I get the Casement Park issue resolved, that that should take on a different complexion. We need to have more engagement with other Departments and, indeed, with partners and partnerships around apprenticeships and the monitoring of those apprenticeships, to make sure that whatever commitment is made is honoured and to make sure that there are training places. Liaisons and discussions need to be ongoing with schools and the construction industry and with the community, voluntary and regeneration groups that exist in south Belfast in relation to Windsor Park and in west Belfast for Casement Park. It is really important that people do not feel that they cannot avail themselves of these opportunities that are based on their road. The worst thing that could happen is that opportunities become available when it is too late. We want to ensure that this happens and that it happens sooner rather than later. As I have said, once we get the decision regarding Casement Park, I will have a different story to report as to how west Belfast can benefit.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): That ends the period for listed questions. We will now move to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Your understanding is right. I have not laid them. I have not approved them to come before the House, because it asks for an additional 4% cut on top of what was already agreed. A 4% cut, on top of what was already agreed, will have a huge and dire impact on the Ulster-Scots Agency.

I think it is incumbent upon me and my colleagues in the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DAHG) to try to sort this out, because what you are looking at is having massive impacts, particularly on Ulster Scots.

Mr McGimpsey: I thank the Minister for that answer. I have to say that I am surprised to hear that the reason is to prevent additional cuts, since there already have been cuts. My concern, of course, is about how we manage this, how the accounting officer accounts for it, how these bodies are to continue to operate and to work their finances, how those are being evaluated and who is going to be held responsible for any potential overspends or underspends.

Ms Ní Chuilín: The Member is right to be surprised. It was a surprise to me that a decision was made by colleagues in Dublin to add additional efficiency savings, as they call them, on the language bodies which would have a huge impact on the Ulster-Scots Agency. They made a decision to split the money between waterways and languages, and they gave an uplift to waterways and left the languages to take the brunt. I am far from happy with that, particularly given what I have just said in my first answer to you. It will have a huge impact on the Ulster-Scots Agency. The Member will be aware that the payments that are being made are irregular. They are still legal. I am working on the basis that the draft business plans are going ahead, and it is business as usual.

Ms Ní Chuilín: In short, yes, I have done that. The Member may have been in the Chamber when I answered his colleague Raymond McCartney's question in relation to the legacy plans for Derry city and the north-west. To that end, I have a meeting organised with officials from Limavady Borough Council to see how we can progress the provision of sports facilities in that area.

Mr Ó hOisín: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. Will the Minister respond to and comment on the position on sports facilities in Dungiven as adopted, recently, by the new Causeway Coast and Glens Council?

Ms Ní Chuilín: It is regrettable that the Causeway Coast and Glens Council adopted the position that it has. I imagine that that position should be, and will be, sorted out with local representatives in the new council configuration and, indeed, with officials that are there. When I made my investment to Coleraine Borough Council, I was very clear that it was part of a north-west legacy plan. Maybe the officials there, or even the elected reps, did not fully understand the implications and the import of that. I urge all local representatives, along with officials from both council areas, to come together to try to get the matter resolved, because proper sporting facilities are required in the Dungiven area.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I have not received any invitations or delegations in relation to golf in the south Down area vis-à-vis Newcastle. Certainly, Sport NI is working with the governing body for golf, but I have no knowledge of, and I have not received any delegations around, additional or new investment to that area in particular.

Mr Rogers: Many groups and organisations in the south Down area hope to run fringe events, particularly cultural events, in surrounding towns when the Irish Open is on. What support will your Department give those groups?

Ms Ní Chuilín: This is the first time that it has been brought my attention, so we need to find out exactly what is being run and what Sport NI can assist with, if at all, in conjunction with local government, particularly around the achievement of sporting events and participation in them. I am happy to hear representation from the Member on how we can do that.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Yes and yes. I think that it is totally regrettable that the hall was attacked in the way that it was. I did not see the whole footage, but I saw a clip of some of the stewards of the hall and people who have attended it for generations. I could see how visibly upset they were, and I have to condemn the attack outright. Hopefully, the community can come together and help the Orangemen to rebuild their hall.

Mr Hussey: Thank you, Minister, for your response. It was very clear from the reaction of the people there. One of the artefacts that the cameras focused on was a First World War memorial — very appropriately, as we are now into the centenary of the First World War. Will you be speaking at any time to your counterpart in the Irish Republic to see whether anything can be done to support this small and isolated community in Donegal?

Ms Ní Chuilín: To give the Member an assurance, I am happy, particularly on the basis of the intervention that he has made in topical questions today and on the basis that it is the right thing to do, to write to my colleagues in DAHG, and, indeed, to any other colleagues who have any influence or any potential investment, to see whether some support can be given to the area. I am certainly happy to do that, and I am happy to copy the Member in to any correspondence.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Mr Daithí McKay is not in his place.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I did not see the invitation that was sent out, and if you — or any Member — stopped yourself from coming because of what is on an invitation, I think that you need to grow up. There are lots of things that I encounter in my daily walk of life that do not reflect the community that I come from, but, to support athletes or to support people, you just move on and do your best. So, if you are preventing yourself from giving support to children and young people because of something that is said in an invitation from me, I think that you need to ask yourself questions.

Mr Anderson: The Minister signed the invitation, and, if anything, I would say that it is you who is being pathetically petty and politically immature by mixing your politics and republican dogma with sport. I think that it is deplorable that invitations are sent out and that the proper —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Will the Member please ask a question?

Mr Anderson: Why was this letter sent out to all individuals and all who took part in this reception with that term on the letter?

Ms Ní Chuilín: The Member made a decision not to go to the reception last night, so he made a decision to exclude himself from celebrating the achievements of the young people and the athletes who were involved in the Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2014. I did not exclude him; he excluded himself.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Not in recent times. As the Member will be aware, I was in the constituency some months ago, and I looked at motor sport in the vicinity. I am also aware that, through him and other colleagues, including his council colleagues, there have been calls for it to be part of the master plan for that area, given that it has not seen the investment that it needs, particularly in sporting activities. I am happy to meet the Member to see how we can take that forward.

Mr Hazzard: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her reply. Can I take it from her response that she is willing to meet in the weeks ahead to discuss the needs of the master plan and, indeed, what advantages this may bring to the area?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I am happy to do that, and I am happy to go back to try to get that organised. I am delighted that, particularly in an area that has not seen the investment, there is a master plan where Departments, bodies and statutory agencies are coming together to try to pool their investment to make sure that there is a better outcome for people in that constituency.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Member for his question and for his continued interest in Belfast central library. I have not yet received a business case; I am waiting for it to arrive on my desk. It will involve substantial public money — in the region of £30 million to £35 million. We need the business case to start the process of upgrading, regrading, rebuilding and redeveloping the library.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I call Mr Gordon Dunne. I apologise again and call Mr Maginness for a supplementary.

Mr A Maginness: Once the business case is received, what is the indicative time frame for giving the library the green light, as it were?

Ms Ní Chuilín: To follow up on the Member's original question and supplementary, I will find out the exact position: when I can anticipate the business case being brought to my attention and what the process and procedure will be thereafter. The Member is aware of funding constraints, but this is one of the projects that will add to the overall attractiveness of Belfast to tourists. Also, a city the size of Belfast needs a library at its heart, particularly as the central library is at the heart of quarters and areas of massive regeneration. That regeneration cannot happen without the central library being involved.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I now call Mr Gordon Dunne.

Ms Ní Chuilín: The subregional funding for soccer will not be made available until early next year. It was not supposed to become available until the next CSR, but I have started the process, in conjunction with the IFA, to try to bring forward a facility strategy. On the basis of that, we will do an outline business case and get all the bureaucratic stuff out of the way to ensure that, when the next CSR is agreed for 2015-16 and thereafter, we can start as soon as possible.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for her answer. Can she indicate the approximate amount of funding that will be available? When does she see clubs being in a position to bid for that?

Ms Ní Chuilín: The Member should be aware that a political agreement was reached on the three stadia. That involved some £30-plus million for Windsor Park and the remainder, also £30-plus million, should be subregional funding. That position has not changed.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Time is up. We must now move on to questions for the Minister of Education.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): We start with listed questions. Questions 1 and 4 have been withdrawn.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Education): There continues to be a very strong performance by pupils here at GCSE and A level, and it is important that we celebrate and acknowledge their achievements across the North. We should not forget the teachers and parents who supported them to reach this stage in their education.

GCSE performance was the highest since Joint Council for Qualifications figures first became available in 2002. There was a 0·2 percentage point increase at A* from 8·7% to 8·9%. There was also a 0·2 percentage point increase to 28·2% in Grades A* and A. Grades A* to C increased by 1·5 percentage points to 78·0%

In A-level performance, 83·7% of entries here achieved grades A* to C, which is a 0·2 percentage point increase on last year. The overall pass rate remained much the same as last year, with 98·1% of grades awarded at A* to E. Of those, 7·3% of grades were awarded at A*. The previous figure was 7·2%.

One of my priorities as Education Minister continues to be raising standards. These results are very encouraging, but we cannot become complacent. There remain unacceptable achievement gaps at all levels in our system, and I intend to do all that I can to tackle that.

Mr McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. Is there any early indication that the signature project involving newly qualified teachers had any effect on results in 2013-14?

Mr O'Dowd: It is too early to tell. The signature project will go through an evaluation, which will give us a more informed response to the Member's questions and, indeed, to other questions. However, on the generality of it, I have no doubt that putting additional resources to proper use in a school will assist young people in achieving their exam outcomes.

Mr Storey: I join the Minister in welcoming the results this year and the outcome for pupils. I think that that is an indication yet again of the quality of education provision in Northern Ireland. However, the Minister will be aware that the gap between girls and boys is still prevalent, with 37·6% of boys not attaining grade C or above in their GCSEs compared with 21·4% of girls in areas where there is the application of free school meals, which is worrying. Will the Minister tell the House what specific actions he and his Department plan to take to address that gap? He always refers to gaps in other sectors, but on the gap between girls and boys, what specifically can be done to address that problem?

Mr O'Dowd: It is a challenge that faces many education systems across the world: the improving results of girls compared with those of boys. I believe, however, that we have an advantage in our education system, because the flexibility of the curriculum allows teachers in classrooms to adapt the teaching and the coursework to the requirements of the students before them, including adapting a subject in a way that makes it interesting and lifts it off the page for boys as well. We continue to work at that; it is a challenge for us all. As I said, it is a question that has been asked of education systems throughout the world.

Mr D Bradley: Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra. Ba mhaith líom a fhiafraí den Aire cad é a mheas ar lion na ndaltaí atá ag dul don Ghaeilge i scoileanna Béarla ag an dá leibhéal atá luaite sa cheist. I thank the Minister for his answers. What is his assessment of the trends regarding pupils taking Irish at GCSE and A level over the last number of years?

Mr O'Dowd: Gabhaim buíochas leis an chomhalta as a cheist. I do not have the figures before me, but I am happy to supply them to the Member in writing. Over the last number of years, we have been seeking ways to improve the uptake of all modern languages, including Irish. I only recently signed off on more funding for further studies into how we encourage young people to take on another language, including, as I say, Irish. I am happy to share the exact figures with the Member in writing.

Mr Cree: Minister, what consultations is your Department having with schools, principals, governors and the like regarding the future of GCSEs and A levels? Do you recognise the importance of keeping our standards in line with those of the rest of the UK so that equal status is afforded to pupils?

Mr O'Dowd: Throughout the process of change, which was originally initiated by the then Secretary of State for Education, Minister Gove, in his day, I have been involved in detailed discussion and consultation with the education sector. I established a working group, which involved educationalists from my field, the further and higher education sector, the business sector and others, to study where we should move forward to with our qualification system. Throughout that, they have engaged with the education sector and young people.

A significant report was published around June or maybe even earlier this year. It set out a pathway and made recommendations that I have followed. That body will continue its work to look at the long-term programme of change, if required, to our qualification system. Core to that will be ensuring that our qualifications are recognised throughout these islands and that no young people will be disadvantaged in any way if they choose to travel with those qualifications, whether for further or higher education or for employment.

Mr O'Dowd: The most recent staffing survey across the education and library boards (ELBs) indicated that 166 educational psychologists are available across the five board areas. All the ELBs have recently reported that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, they are meeting their legislative target to complete the statutory assessment and statementing process within 26 weeks, subject to valid exceptions.

In addition, my Department continues to provide financial assistance each year for the doctorate in educational child and adolescent psychology (DECAP) course at Queen's University, a course that provides an output of six graduates each academic year. In October 2013, the DECAP steering group discussed the need for an increase in DECAP intake. However, after further discussions with the chief executive officers of the Belfast Education and Library Board and the South Eastern Education and Library Board, it was decided that that would not be necessary.

Mr Beggs: I thank the Minister for his answer, but does he not accept that a 26-week target is half a year of a child's education and an unacceptable delay? Will he ensure that there is a much faster process and that the multi-agency support team for schools, which is available to only some young people in some primary schools in my constituency, will be available to everyone so that all have the best opportunity to reach their full potential?

Mr O'Dowd: One of the reasons why I have been working through an education Bill is to reduce the timescale, admittedly to the maximum of 20 weeks, but I also want to ensure that the identification of special educational needs takes place much earlier, that there is a joined-up response to the needs of a young person and that those children who have to move forward to the new statementing process will be identified much sooner, thus trying to avoid any damage being inflicted on their education because of a delay in the recognition of their needs.

Mr McCarthy: The Minister will be aware of the ever-increasing number of youngsters with autism in our society. Is he happy that his Department has the resources to ensure that all youngsters with autism get the treatment and education they deserve as early as possible rather than having to wait an inordinate amount of time?

Mr O'Dowd: No. I am on record since coming into post as saying that the Department of Education is underfunded and that many of our services remain underfunded. Although we have ring-fenced and protected special educational needs and its resources, I can assure the Member that I would like to inject further funding into it. Special educational needs is one of the areas of increasing pressure on education across the education and library boards. Indeed, during the most recent monitoring round, I made a bid for £10 million of additional funding for the provision of special educational needs in the education and library boards. I was unsuccessful, which will place further pressures on my Department. I have never stated that the Department of Education is well resourced. We require further funding, particularly for special educational needs.

Mr Brady: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Minister outline any current plans that he has to bring forward special educational needs legislation?

Mr O'Dowd: As I said in response to one of the Member's colleagues, I am in the process of bringing forward legislation to the House on special educational needs. It will herald significant changes, at board level and in the classroom, in the way in which we deliver special educational needs provision. I have spent considerable time working through the detail of that legislation. I welcome the input of the Education Committee to its preparation, and I intend to continue to work with the Committee on that, because I am of the firm view that no one wants to have a political spat over the Bill. We want to make sure that the Bill is right and that it protects and enhances the educational needs of our young people.

Mr Rogers: Given that there is an increasing need for more effective interventions on behalf of children with special educational needs and the need to shorten the time between the referral and the first appointment with an educational psychologist, is it acceptable that, in the most recent academic year, 2013-14, 900 days were lost to the education psychology service through retirement?

Mr O'Dowd: I do not have the exact details in front of me, but I refer you to my original answer. In October 2013, there was a review of the number of child psychologists available to the boards. After discussions with senior executives from the boards, it was decided that the number of trainees going through the system was sufficient to meet demand at this time. That review was almost a year ago. I am more than happy to return to the subject to ensure that we meet the needs of young people ahead of the introduction of the SEN Bill, which I think will see a significant improvement in the delivery of the special educational needs service.

Mr O'Dowd: Churches and religious bodies have a long history of involvement in education here as the founders of schools and as transferors and trustees. As such, they have made a significant and positive contribution to our education system over many years and continue, through their involvement on boards of governors, to shape the ethos of our schools and play their part in helping every child to reach his or her full potential.

Mr Givan: In light of what the Minister said, would he like to take the opportunity to apologise to the Protestant Churches for what he said in an interview to the 'Belfast Telegraph' about how they needed to step up to the mark around their social responsibilities in education? Given the role that Churches — Protestant and Roman Catholic — have played in establishing education and the roles that they play as transferors on boards of governors, particularly in my constituency, where I can see that, among working-class communities and young, male Protestants, the Churches are to the fore in trying to tackle educational underachievement, would he now want to apologise for the insult that he made about them?

Mr O'Dowd: I in no way insulted the Protestant Churches. The Member should not take the story from the lavish headlines that news editors choose to print in their newspapers. The Protestant Church leaders and I had an interesting and informed debate on one of the radio shows the Sunday morning after that. I explained on and off air to the Church leaders present my view of their role. I did not insult them during the interview, in the newspaper or on the airwaves afterwards, but I listened to the Member quite recently stating that the pillars of society, government and state are open to challenge, as are Churches and Church leaders.

The challenge I put out to the Protestant Churches, the trade unions, civic society and other opinion formers was that they needed to take up the mantle of challenging academic selection and the ills that it brings to our education system and society. I continue to put that challenge out to all Churches and other bodies mentioned.

Mr Kinahan: I thank the Minister for his answers so far. Given that the RE syllabus in Northern Ireland has been approved by the four main Churches here, does the Minister recognise that there is a strong school of thought that any further religious instruction should be the responsibility of the individual Church organisations, parents and guardians and not the responsibility of schools?

Mr O'Dowd: The RE syllabus is under review, and there will be a report published in due course on how we believe the teaching of RE should move forward. Churches still play a significant role in the day-to-day lives of people. They play a significant role, as I said to Mr Givan, in our education system. As it is laid out, religious education should be delivered in schools and contained within the ethos of a school, which is set by the board of governors. There is significant autonomy for the board of governors to set that out. I believe that religious education, when delivered in a way that explores Christianity, Islam, Judaism and all other faiths that are out there, allows young people to approach life from a more rounded position than simply being taught one faith or the teachings of one faith, but it is a matter for the schools at this stage. As I have also said, the RE syllabus is under review, the results of which will be reported in due course.

Mr A Maginness: Does the Minister recognise the tremendous historic contribution by the Churches across the board — Catholic and Protestant — to education in Northern Ireland and Ireland as a whole and the current contribution that the Churches make to education? If so, will he affirm that?

Mr O'Dowd: I have never said otherwise. I attended a very interesting lecture given by your former colleague Dr Seán Farren in Queen's about a year ago. He outlined the history of education on the island of Ireland. It was a very informative and interesting debate. He touched on, as you would have to, given the subject matter, the role of the various Churches pre partition and since partition. They have clearly played an important role in our education system and will continue to do so. However, as I said to Mr Givan, Church leaders are open to challenge, and I reserve my right to challenge them in the same way as they challenge political leaders. It assists a healthy and democratic society if civic leaders can challenge each other in a respectful manner. That was the manner in which I challenged the Protestant Church leaders on this subject.

Mr O'Dowd: I have negotiated strongly to protect education from Budget cuts, in line with the protection afforded to health. I welcome the decision by the Executive, as part of June monitoring, to protect my Department from cuts.

The success of our economy and of society in general depends on there being a high-quality education service that can compete with the best internationally. Equally, all our young people have the right to a quality education that enables them to reach their full potential. That is a right enshrined not only in our own legislation but in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Following the outcome of the Budget 2011-15, it was clear that I would need to make over £300 million of savings across the Budget period to simply balance my budget. Whilst I sought to protect front line services, it was necessary to initiate a series of strategic cost reduction exercises that resulted in over 2,900 school-based redundancies and 450 non-school-based redundancies.

Although considerable efforts have been made to reduce the pressures on the education budget, the financial outlook continues to be very challenging. I have demonstrated a commitment to prudent budget management whilst maximising the use of the resources available to me.

Lord Morrow: I heard what the Minister has said. He gave a fair long answer, but I am not sure that he gave the answer that I would like to have heard. However, we will try it another way. Is the Minister telling the House that there will be no cuts as a result of the impact of the position that his party has taken on benefit cuts? Is he telling us that there will be no cuts, that the programme will go on as stated and that the penalties will have no impact at all?

Mr O'Dowd: I answered your question quite clearly. The Executive voted to protect the Department of Education's budget. I will continue to argue very strongly that that remains the case.

You should listen to the figures again. This is in the absence of anything to do with welfare. This is due to the Conservative Party's economic policy towards the Executive. There were 2,900 school-based redundancies, the majority of which were teachers. They are lost to our education system — lost. Those are not figures that have been produced to generate shock and awe in the media and among the general public; they are real. Those people have left education and are no longer available to teach our young people, assist our young people or promote good education. There were 450 non-school-based redundancies. Those people were support staff who worked in the education and library boards to assist the delivery of education.

So, the Department of Education has already suffered as a result of the Conservative Party's economic policy towards the Executive. What I am saying is that welfare cuts — I note that you are now referring to them as "benefit cuts", which is exactly what they are, as they have nothing to do with reforms and are cuts to people's living standards — will have an impact across the North. I welcome the fact that the Executive have said, "No, we are protecting our education system against any further cuts." I emphasise the term "further cuts".

Mr Hazzard: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Can I ask the Minister to outline how Westminster cuts to the block grant have affected his ability to oversee a fit-for-purpose education budget and the educational opportunities of our young people?

Mr O'Dowd: As I said at the outset, when I took over the post in 2011, the education budget was £300 million down from the previous budget, which was not fit for purpose by any means. I had to secure savings of that amount. In late 2011, I went to both the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the then Finance Minister and outlined to them in very graphic terms the type of education system that we would end up with if we had to continue with the £300 million of cuts. I had that conversation in 2011. The Finance Minister and the First Minister and deputy First Minister recognised that the education system could not cope with the scale of cuts that were envisaged and secured an additional £120 million for my Department over the next rolling years. That has ensured that the job losses in our schools are not in the region of 4,000. That has ensured that 1,000 non-teaching staff have not lost their posts.

Understandably, there has been a significant debate around the impact of welfare cuts. However, it is the Conservative Government's economic policy towards the Executive that is having the most detrimental impact. In 2009, the block grant was £10 billion — that term "block grant" sticks in my throat because it suggests that we do not pay taxes — and, in 2014, the block grant is £10 billion. That means that we are having to deliver our services with the same money that we had in 2009. So, while welfare cuts are significant, the economic policy being directed towards us is having the greatest impact.

Mr O'Dowd: I was pleased with the response to the call for expressions of interest for the shared education campuses programme and was able to announce the first three successful projects to be supported in July. The Western Education and Library Board has advised that it is working with CCMS and both Limavady High School and St Mary's, Limavady on preparing a business case to move the project forward.

Mr Ó hOisín: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht an fhreagra sin. Could I ask the Minister for an overview of the shared campus programme that was recently announced and, indeed, whether the programme is on schedule?

Mr O'Dowd: We had initially hoped to start off with 10 projects. While there was a significant interest in the programme — around 16 applications — only three meet the criteria at this stage. However, we have been in correspondence with all unsuccessful projects. My Department will be having conversations with them on how they can move their projects on to the next stage. So, it is a start and, I think, a good start.

A number of MLAs visited the St Mary's, Limavady and Limavady High School project along with the Chair of the Education Committee. Those are two schools that, like many other schools, have been involved in shared education for many, many years. The actual placing of shared accommodation is a natural progression for them. So, I am happy to support that, as I am the other projects. I have no doubt that, when we go out to a call for further expressions of interest for shared education campuses, we will have as equally a supportive return from our schools.

Mr O'Dowd: I am committed to the continuous improvement of careers education in schools through the implementation of the joint DE and DEL careers strategy, Preparing for Success. It was always planned that this strategy would be reviewed in 2014, and that work is well under way. Minister Farry and I have been able to ensure that the key issues raised in the Committee for Employment and Learning’s inquiry report are integrated in the review's terms of reference.

The aim of the review is to ensure that everyone has access to high-quality careers education, information, advice and guidance and is supported in the development of good career decision-making skills. The careers review is being conducted by an independent panel that includes representatives from industry, schools, colleges of further education and universities. The review will conclude in the autumn, when the independent panel will put forward its recommendations to me and to Minister Farry for our consideration.

Mr P Ramsey: I thank the Minister for his response. The Minister will be aware of the amount of time and investment that the Employment and Learning Committee put in, in a very intensive way, in looking at careers guidance. Can the Minister assure the House as best he can that, in going forward, we will have in place the most consistent, accurate, best-practice and, as he says, high-quality provision, ensuring that our young people going forward in careers are given the best advice?

Mr O'Dowd: I will certainly assure you that that is what we aim for, and I think that the review and the terms of reference that we have put in place and the Committee report, which is a significant resource for that review, will allow us to significantly improve our careers advice moving forward. It is a big ask for me to guarantee it, but certainly my approach is that we need to significantly improve upon the improvements that have been achieved in our careers advice strategy, and we need to give our young people the most up-to-date careers advice and opportunities possible moving forward. The people who we have brought together and who they represent in that careers review is important, because we will receive that through collaboration between schools, business, universities and the most important careers advisers out there, who are, in my opinion, parents. We have to inform them to ensure that they are aware of the most up-to-date careers advice.

Mr O'Dowd: Following discussions with elected representatives Carál Ní Chuilín and the Member himself, and the parents of pupils, on the issue of support for pupils from north Belfast who attend Coláiste Feirste, I have made available a grant to the school. The grant is to be used for the purpose of removing transport barriers for some pupils attending the school, primarily those for whom public transport or other transport services are not readily accessible. The grant will be available for three years to give the board of governors of Coláiste Feirste time and space to actively engage with Translink and other transport providers to establish a long-term solution to the transport needs of pupils attending the school, with a view to the grant no longer being required.

To assist pupils, Translink has already agreed to put on an additional route from north to west Belfast each morning. That route has been operational since the start of term, and I understand that it is well used by many Coláiste Feirste pupils. The grant will be reviewed after the three years but may also be subject to change earlier if, following the outworking of the independent review of home-to-school transport, any changes are made to home-to-school transport policy that have a significant impact on the transport arrangements for pupils attending Coláiste Feirste.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I am afraid that there is no time for a supplementary, because time is up. We will now move on to topical questions.

Mr O'Dowd: I outlined during the previous question session how we are contributing to the physical character of shared education in terms of the provision of campuses and facilities for schools, and I believe that, in the coming days, OFMDFM will be making a significant announcement in relation to how we can contribute towards the resources required for schools to carry out shared education as well.

Mr Beggs: In the past, there was a significant opportunity to promote shared educational facilities when the then St Comgall's College and Larne High School had a close working relationship, with shared classes and children being exchanged from each school, but, sadly, the decision was made to amalgamate three schools in the maintained sector and to transport those children some 17 miles outside of the town.

So, my question, Minister, is this: in the future, will one education sector's priorities trump those of the people of Northern Ireland, and how do we try to ensure that we have the best system to suit everyone and maximise the opportunities that exist?

Mr O'Dowd: I suspect that each Member would answer your question differently, depending on which sector they were talking about. I believe that shared education can be a significant driver in changing attitudes in our society and in improving the educational outcomes of our young people. Shared education is in area planning, along with part of the terms of reference for the different participants in it.

However, we are at a stage in shared education where I think that it would be a mistake to impose solutions, whether that is on communities or sectors. I believe that we have a role to encourage and to perhaps nudge them along the road. However, I think that if we were to impose solutions on sectors or communities at this stage of the journey, the concept is doomed to failure. As I said in previous answers, there are many, many schools out there that are involved in shared education programmes on a daily basis that have been doing so quietly for many, many years and have been leaders in this programme. So, yes, there is a central role for government to play in this, and there is a central role for the Department of Education and the Minister to play, but I believe that, at this stage, encouragement will reap more benefits than imposing solutions on people.

Mr O'Dowd: I am aware of the proposals, and they also relate to Holywood Nursery School, as it is also in the loop. They were not successful during the last round of capital announcements, but that does not mean that they will not be successful in the future.

Mr Easton: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he explain to the House the criteria used to choose schools and in what order they are chosen for capital new builds? How does his Department process who gets and who does not?

Mr O'Dowd: I have published the criteria on the Department of Education's website, and I am more than happy to make it available to the Member. In choosing schools for capital announcement, there is a scoring mechanism against which schools are scored. No doubt, any Minister or Member would like to be able to stand up and announce more schools in capital announcements; however, I have to match it against my budget.

Since I came into office, I have been conscious of the fact that many schools have said to me, "We were promised a build in 2003, 2004 or 2005, and it never materialised". I have consciously made a decision not to announce long lists of schools that may never be built. I have announced small numbers of schools at a time to ensure that we can move them through the process quite quickly and get them built. When I talk about quickly, I mean that it may take two or three years to get them to the stage of having diggers on the ground. So, I do not intend to go down the road of making available lengthy lists of schools that may be built some time in the never-never.

I will return to capital builds in the new year. I will examine very closely the case for the three schools that you mentioned, and they will be judged against the criteria that I have had to establish, because I do not have enough money to build all the schools that are required.

Mr O'Dowd: I am not in a position to make those figures available to you, and I suspect that some of them may fall under DEL's remit. However, I welcome Trinity College's announcement that it is going to review its entry criteria. Its entry criteria discriminated against pupils from the North because of the way in which it scored, which made it virtually impossible for our young people to gain access to Trinity. I welcome the work of Dublin City University, which has been very proactive on the matter. I believe that you have a friend, or a connection, there. It has been very active in the matter, as have other further education institutions and universities in the South. I do not have the figures in front of me, Mr McElduff, but if I have them available, I will share them with you.

Mr McElduff: Will the Minister detail what efforts have been made in recent years to remove barriers to access for students from the North going to universities in the South and vice versa? I understand that both Minister O'Dowd and Minister Farry have been involved in this work, but what more can be done to increase that student flow?

Mr O'Dowd: It has been raised at the highest levels of government. It has been a regular topic at the North/South Ministerial Council plenary sessions and at educational sector meetings. We have shifted Trinity and others to a position where they are now openly reviewing the matter because they want to have students from the North in their schools. They see it as being very important to the mix in their universities. They have students from all over the world but very few from the North. They recognise that as nonsensical and know that they need to do something about it.

I have engaged with senior university representatives from the South and have made the case very strongly to them. I also note that, for instance, Dublin City University sponsors a conference for careers guidance teachers every year. It is making its presence very much felt at these fairs where students are given advice on their future educational pathways. I have ensured that, in any review of our qualification system, no young person will be disqualified from bringing those qualifications to any part of these islands, including the South.

Mr O'Dowd: I do not accept the term "blocked" when used in reference to myself or my predecessor. The responsibility for planning the controlled estate in Belfast lies, in the first instance, with the Belfast Education and Library Board. The board has advised my Department that it is liaising with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety on the matter and that the potential site in the Belfast City Hospital complex remains available for the proposed new south Belfast primary school. The board has also confirmed that it has identified two other potential sites. All three will be assessed in an economic appraisal in order to determine the preferred option.

Capital investment in a new school cannot be considered by my Department without a development proposal to amalgamate the three schools. The Belfast board will have to publish a proposal that I will then consider carefully following the statutory consultation process. However, to date, no such proposal has been published by the board.

Mr McGimpsey: For four years, the Belfast Education and Library Board sought permission to spend £16,000 on a planning feasibility study and that was blocked by the Minister's predecessor. It was not allowed and was only freed up when the Minister's predecessor left office. The Belfast Education and Library Board regards this as a high-priority capital project and asked the Minister, almost a year ago, to include it on his list of capital priorities. The Minister failed to do so in his June announcement.

I repeat the question, as he keeps telling this House how concerned he is about working-class Protestant children from disadvantaged communities: when will the children of Sandy Row, Donegall Pass, the Village area and the Lisburn Road get proper investment in their education at primary school instead of this continual prevarication and delay year after year ?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member is literally barking up the wrong tree. If he wants to bark and make speeches, he needs to make them to the Belfast Education and Library Board. How many times do I have to repeat myself? The Belfast Education and Library Board is responsible for the controlled sector in Belfast. It needs to publish a development proposal. That is the next step. That is where you need to go. Urge it to publish a development proposal, and I assure the Member —

Mr McGimpsey: You blocked it.

Mr O'Dowd: If the development proposal is approved, I will move to ensure that young people —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Order. The Minister will resume his seat. Members, as I told you earlier, you are not to make remarks across the Floor.

Mr O'Dowd: I have lost my train of thought. If a development proposal is published and approved, I assure the Member that I will follow it up with capital investment.

Mr O'Dowd: I assume that the Member is referring to the entitlement framework, which involves our colleges and funding assigned to our post-primary schools, which this year is to the value of around £4·5 million. In previous years, it was £9 million. How much, if any, I can assign to that programme will depend on the budgetary settlement for 2015-16. Our schools have been planning for the entitlement framework since, I think, 2006. They have been told constantly that it has to be a core part of their work and budget moving forward. I have facilitated additional moneys over the last number of years, but I do not know whether I will be able to facilitate additional moneys in coming years.

Mr McKinney: I thank the Minister. How does the Department monitor the level of service provided in area learning communities? How are examples of good practice disseminated in other learning communities?

Mr O'Dowd: When area learning communities have worked together, they have been very successful. Only recently, my permanent secretary visited them all and involved himself in detailed discussions with them on their work and how we share best practice. Best practice can be disseminated within the area learning community and throughout area learning communities by the personnel involved and through my Department, the education and library boards or CCMS — whichever is the best conduit to do that. Area learning communities are one of the success stories of our education system. They have ensured that schools have been able to engage with other educators. As simple as that may sound, our educators are very busy, and when we bring them together in a format such as the area learning communities, it allows them to think outside the box and their schools, quite literally, and share best practice across the board. I hope to be in a position to put in place a pilot scheme in which I will also involve primary schools in area learning communities.

Lord Morrow: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to clarify an issue. During Question Time, when the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure was answering a question from one of my colleagues, she referred to the fact that maybe the DUP boycotted an event organised to recognise the success of Team Northern Ireland in the Commonwealth Games. I make it very clear that the DUP was not present because the former First Minister's funeral was held yesterday. All DUP offices across the Province were closed as a mark of respect, and DUP MLAs made a decision not to attend any public events on the day.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I thank Lord Morrow for his contribution. He has made himself perfectly clear. I invite the House to take its ease for a minute while we change the top Table.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): We now come to the second group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 14, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 15 to 18 and 20 to 22.

Amendment No 21 is consequential to amendment No 20. Amendment No 22 is consequential to amendment No 18.

Mr Ford (The Minister of Justice): I beg to move amendment No 14:

Mr Ford: This group relates to the Assembly's control mechanism for the making of statutory rules under the new rule-making powers in schedule 2 to the Bill, and there are two technical amendments to explicitly include the proposed Legal Services Agency within the ambit of Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI).

I will turn first to the amendments to schedule 2. During the Justice Committee's scrutiny of the Bill, the Examiner of Statutory Rules queried why four rule-making powers in the Bill should be subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure on first exercise and negative resolution thereafter.

The rule-making powers referred to relate to the assignment of solicitor and counsel; the establishment of a register of solicitors and counsel eligible to be assigned; the restriction of disclosure of information, which all relate to representation provided in criminal cases under the Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981; and the setting-up of appeals panels to deal with appeals regarding applications for civil legal services under the Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003. The Examiner of Statutory Rules advised that those were significant powers in their own right and that there should be no change from the position set out in the 2003 order; namely, that those pieces of secondary legislation that are subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure should be subject to that procedure on the first and subsequent exercises of the power.

Mindful of the respective roles of the Committee and the Assembly in the management of the Assembly's full secondary legislative programme, I agreed to accept the Examiner of Statutory Rules' advice if the Committee was content. The Committee noted the position at its informal clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill and subsequently confirmed, in its report on the Bill, that it supported the Examiner's advice. In the light of the Examiner's advice and the Committee's approval, I would welcome Members' support for the amendments.

I will now turn to amendment Nos 21 and 22. Section 46(1) of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, which sets out the organisations that are subject to inspection by Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, includes powers to inspect the Northern Ireland Legal Services Commission. As introduced, the Bill provided simply for the repeal of section 46(1)(hb), reflecting the dissolution of the commission. On that basis, the new agency would automatically have come within the ambit of CJINI, which has power to inspect the Department of Justice in so far as it is concerned with the operation of the criminal courts. However, on further consideration, I concluded that it is preferable to amend the relevant provision; namely, section 46(1)(hb) of the 2002 Act, so as to substitute the Legal Services Agency Northern Ireland in place of the current reference to the Legal Services Commission. That would give CJINI an express power to inspect the new agency. The role played by CJINI in inspecting criminal justice agencies is an important one.

Agreeing to amendment Nos 14 to 18 and 20 will ensure that all rules made under the new article 36A, 36B, 38A and 20A provisions will be subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure on the first and subsequent exercises of the power. Agreeing to amendment Nos 21 and 22 will put it beyond doubt that the new agency will benefit from CJINI's expertise.

I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr Givan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): I welcome amendment Nos 14, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 21, which were brought forward by the Minister. As he outlined, he brought them forward following a decision by the Committee that amendments to the delegated powers contained in the Bill to strengthen them are necessary in two specific areas following advice provided by the Assembly's Examiner of Statutory Rules.

The provision in schedule 2 for the framework for the constitution and procedure of appeal panels, which will decide appeals on individual applications for civil legal services, is clearly significant. Given that the Bill provides for a regulation-making power in that respect, rather than placing some of the key provisions in the Bill, the Committee is of the view that the subordinate legislation should be subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure on the first and subsequent exercise of the powers rather than on the first occasion, with subsequent regulations subject to the negative resolution procedure as currently provided for in the Bill.

The Department outlined that the regulations would be very detailed and would include provisions relating to operational matters, and indicated that the current provisions would give the Assembly a say in the initial setting up of the appeals panel, but after that would not require minor or technical amendments to be subject to debate. However, the Committee is firmly of the view that any subordinate legislation that provides for the constitution and procedures of the appeals panel should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, given that the appeals mechanism is one of the key safeguards, as highlighted in the earlier debate.

The second area relates to the rules in respect of the assignment of solicitor and counsel where a criminal aid certificate has been granted. Again, those are significant powers in themselves and are also intended to replicate provisions in the 2003 order. That order recognises their significance by making them subject to the draft affirmative procedure on first and subsequent occasions, rather than on the first occasion, and with subsequent regulations subject to the negative resolution procedure, as currently provided for in the Bill. The Committee sees no reason why the level of Assembly control should be changed from that envisaged in the 2003 order given the significance of the powers.

The Committee had intended to bring forward those amendments. However, in light of our decision, the Department advised that it would instruct legislative counsel to draft the necessary amendments, which the Minister brought forward today and which the Committee fully supports.

This is again a demonstration to the House of how, when a Committee decides to do something, the Department responds positively. That is to be welcomed. If the Department had not responded positively, the Committee would probably have had to do it itself, so maybe the Minister did not have a choice on this occasion but to follow the will of the Committee. It is an example of how Assembly scrutiny can, in my view, enhance the outworkings of the legislative process and get a Bill that is more robust and suitable to the Members of the House.

Mr A Maginness: I just want to agree with the Chair of the Committee. I think he was slightly ungracious towards the Minister. I am sure that, on foot of the comments made by the Examiner of Statutory Rules, the Minister would have taken his own initiative and introduced the amendments. The amendments are to be welcomed. They mean that the Assembly has a further input into the drafting and the legislation in relation to the rules. That is to be welcomed.

The panels are a very important mechanism. I will just take this opportunity to pay tribute to those who have taken part in the appeals committee for the legal aid fund over the years. They performed their work very well and very responsibly, in my opinion, and did so in a very dedicated, professional fashion.

I know that this is not strictly ad rem, but, nonetheless, I hope that membership of the panels will be made up primarily, if not exclusively, of lawyers. I know that the Minister conceded that lawyers should chair the panels, but it is my view that they know what they are doing in relation to difficult and complex legal issues and are in the best position to make a judgement. I hope that lawyers will at least be in the majority — at least two out of the three, including the chair.

In relation to regulations in the appointment of counsel, solicitors and so forth; again, that is an important function and the Assembly will have an input to that. I hope that we will have a further discussion and consultation with the relevant stakeholders in relation to that important issue. It has to be dealt with in a manner that is reasonable and practical to the legal profession.

I will leave it there. I welcome and support the Minister's amendments.

Mr Ford: After such a lengthy debate, I shall not take long to respond to the House. Sadly, we did not have the Elliott fireworks this afternoon that we had earlier in the day, but it is always a pleasure to find that most of what we are doing can get agreement through the detailed work that is done during the Committee Stage and Consideration Stage. I do not need to repeat the points that I made earlier. I believe that, by listening to what was said by the Examiner of Statutory Rules, we have improved the functioning of the Bill to ensure that the Assembly will have full scrutiny powers.

Mr Maginness said that the Committee Chair was a little ungracious. Of course, Members of this House being a little ungracious is always preferable to those Members of the House who are always completely ungracious. I am grateful for that.

The Examiner made a good case for going through full affirmative procedure on all aspects when rules might be made. I am very happy with that. Similarly, I think that it is entirely appropriate that, while CJINI would have had powers over the agency, it is now explicit in the Bill.

In winding up, I want to remind Mr Maginness that, while it is agreed that any panel will be chaired by a lawyer, that does not exclude lawyers applying for the other places. There is no doubt that, given the abilities and knowledge that lawyers would bring to such a public appointment process, they may feature well in that. However, they will not be specifically required by statute to have other positions beyond that of the chair.

I thank all of those who have contributed to the second debate and to the first debate earlier today. I extend genuine thanks to the Examiner of Statutory Rules, Committee members and staff and my officials for the engagement that they had, the cooperation that was shown and, indeed, the probing that we had from Tom Elliott earlier, all of which, I believe, has contributed to ensuring that what was already good legislation is now better. As the Chair said, that is exactly the function that should be performed by the Assembly at this Stage. I commend my amendments to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I will not call amendment No 19 as it is consequential to amendment No 2, which has not been made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Amendment No 21 has already been debated and is consequential to amendment No 20.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Amendment No 22 has already been debated and is consequential to amendment No 18.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Legal Aid and Coroners' Courts Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose the motion and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Mr P Ramsey: I beg to move

Altnagelvin Hospital serves the population of the north-west of Ireland with vital and high-quality health care. In 2010, the present Minister announced that a much-needed radiotherapy unit would be completed and opened by mid-2016. The Minister is not in the Chamber, but I am sure that he will be. It was most welcome news that the Minister, after a few weeks in office, approved the radiotherapy unit — the Minister enters the room. Yet, in a recent letter to the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Minister announced a potential six-month delay due to a budget shortfall. Delays of that kind do and will put lives at risk and could have a serious detrimental effect on the quality of care that staff are in a position to provide. The Minister of Health must ensure that that type of delay never happens and that such critical and vital services are never threatened with such delays.

I would like to emphasise our praise for the admirable level of professionalism and dedication that is displayed by the staff in the Western Health and Social Care Trust. This weekend, for example, they met their target of a four-hour turnover for every patient who was admitted to accident and emergency. It is important that we key off the debate on a very positive and constructive note. The commitment and hard work of staff saved the life of a local taxi driver, Christie O'Donnell, who suffered a heart attack. The quick action of the staff in Altnagelvin ensured that Mr O'Donnell was seen to and placed in a bed in the hospital's coronary care unit within one hour. To be able to continue to provide that exemplary model of care, Altnagelvin has to have the necessary funding in coronary care. Its high-quality health care cannot continue in the face and the threats of cuts and delays. Whilst meeting the challenging targets is certainly not a rare occurrence in the trust, credit is due for the tremendous effort by medical and non-medical staff that made that particular incident over the weekend possible.

Again, the Western Trust is leading the way in providing outstanding care and the delivery of ambitious initiatives, and I have no doubt that the newly opened primary coronary intervention (PCI) unit at Altnagelvin will provide the same high standards of care and professionalism. However, in order to maximise the quality of service that that new unit can deliver, I urge the Minister — I am delighted that he is in his place — to do his utmost to implement the next phase of that project. It really is crucial.

This is 24-hour access to a safe and high-quality cardiac catheterisation laboratory, which will service people and patients seven days a week. With almost 40% of hospitalised heart attack patients suffering from STEMI, the most serious kind of cardiac attack, the PCI unit in Altnagelvin will complement the unit in the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast. So I have to say that this is not an issue of bolstering what we have in Derry. It is a facility and provision for Northern Ireland and the cross-border regions. It is envisaged that the Belfast unit will serve 75% of patients and will be supported by Altnagelvin, which will handle the remaining 25%.

Yet disturbing uncertainty surrounds the radiotherapy unit, which is an enormous worry for staff. In a meeting of Derry City Council's regional services committee on 2 September, the chief executive of the Western Trust, Elaine Way, welcomed the fact that the infrastructure will not be affected by budget cuts, yet she clearly expressed concern about the very real possibility that the funds would not be available to recruit and train the necessary staff. As the capital funds for the radiotherapy unit and a new north wing have been agreed, it is imperative that the revenue funds needed to bring the capacity of staffing to that new unit are well financed.

In the face of Northern Ireland running out of radiotherapy capacity, the Minister's announcement that the unit faces delay is extremely worrying. It is expected that, as soon as 2015, radiotherapy demand in Northern Ireland will exceed capacity. The radiotherapy unit at Altnagelvin needs to play a critical and crucial role in tackling that.

Northern Ireland radiotherapy capacity will reach "saturation point" if the new radiotherapy unit is not in operation by the year 2016.

I want to focus on some issues to ensure that the Minister gets the point of why the SDLP felt it appropriate to prioritise this motion.

That would impact on the trust's plans to:

That includes clinical and medical staff.

Minister,

This morning, I saw a report in 'Radiotherapy News', a UK-based magazine, that gives details of the Minister's announcement on the cuts that will delay the cancer unit at Altnagelvin. At the best of times, it is difficult to attract, encourage and motivate staff to come to the north-west. However, when highly qualified potential candidates see that, it will certainly put them off. I am saying, Minister, that we need confidence and we need to acknowledge that, for Altnagelvin and the trust to encourage and attract the best possible candidates, this type of news is not good. The radiotherapy project team has endeavoured to plan for the recruitment of staff only at the key time periods required, and we therefore argue and suggest that any further delays will clearly impact on the operational date of the opening of this unit.

I acknowledge that, literally within days of the Minister coming into office, he overturned a prior decision and took the brave decision to proceed with this unit, which was welcomed not just by those in the north-west but across Northern Ireland. It is for the capacity of Northern Ireland. This is not a wee project in Derry, and it is not a whinge from the Derry ones; it is a project and a unit that will provide care and treatment for half of the Northern Trust, the entirety of the north-west and all of Donegal and further afield. So, I do not want to hear any sniping. I am sure that I will not, under the circumstances.

So, I think that it is an eye-opener for many of us who have been working on this project. We have all been working on it. The parliamentary team representing Foyle has been very diligent, with a unity of purpose, in trying to ensure that we are getting the importance of this message through and giving hope to so many people in our communities. There is nobody in the Chamber, including me, who does not have family members who have cancer. Those family members are dependent on the hope and desire that they are going to have treatment closer to home rather than facing the delays involved in having to come to spend a few days in Belfast, or in many cases weeks at a time, to get a 10-minute treatment during the day. That is what is happening at the present time.

Minister, I appeal directly to you to carry out your function to enable Altnagelvin and the trust to fulfil their obligation to provide a radiotherapy centre for people in Northern Ireland and, in a contract with the Irish Government, for those suffering from cancer in Donegal. Minister, I think that you have to examine and scrutinise forensically your other finances in the Health Department to ensure that crucial, vital, important services, such as radiotherapy and cardiac services, are protected.

I think that we have to be clear that we are demanding this. We are not saying that this is a need; we are saying that this must happen. We cannot under any circumstances allow a delay in the opening of the radiotherapy unit in Altnagelvin.

Mr Wells: I suspect that this will be one of many similar debates that we will be holding during this financial year. In his letters to the Health Committee in April and August, the Minister made it very clear that he cannot deliver the health service that we all want within the present budget. He has outlined commitments of £160 million, which were put to the Executive, and he secured £20 million. So, we are at least £140 million short of where we want to be in funding.

The Minister and the Department have been very committed to the Western Trust. In the Minister's time, the Western Trust has had a brand new acute hospital in Enniskillen, for instance; we have the start of a new hospital for Omagh; and, of course, there has been the £66 million capital commitment to the radiotherapy unit at Altnagelvin. So, I do not think that the Western Trust representatives here this afternoon can complain about a lack of commitment to their area. Indeed, many of us in other parts of Northern Ireland feel somewhat envious of the new capital build in that trust area. The capital for the new radiotherapy unit at Altnagelvin is, of course, committed. However, the problem is that there are considerable costs in the manning of the unit — and I use "manning" in the widest possible term, because I am sure that some of the staff will be ladies. That is going to be very challenging, and we have to accept that it will cause great difficulties.

The Minister finds himself in a very difficult position. No one in the Chamber has contested the fact that he needs the extra £160 million. Everyone accepts that we need extra money, but so much of the budget is tied up in salaries, wages, national insurance and pensions, and in contracts — if he tried to get out of those, we would be straight into court — that the actual amount of money available to make the cuts is relatively small as an overall part of the budget. Therefore the Minister has to find options that may not be the most desirable but which are the most deliverable. Unfortunately, that means areas of expenditure where we are not committed legally to deliver, and Altnagelvin —

Mr Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr Wells: Certainly.

Mr Beggs: Does the Member accept that the fact that such cuts have had to be implemented at the last minute shows a degree of mismanagement of the Budget by the Northern Ireland Executive?

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Wells: I accept entirely that, had the Executive in their wisdom decided to give the Minister the money that everybody accepts he needs, we would not be in this position. As you know, however, a lot of horse trading went on, and many people went into denial and did not give the money that was required. Having made that decision, we will have to live with the consequences. The Minister is not going to hijack or ambush Members; he is going to say it as it absolutely is and tell all 108 MLAs what the implications are for their area if we do not provide adequate funding for health. That is the open and honest way of doing it rather than letting us drift through the financial year and suddenly finding that we have not sufficient money and that services start to deteriorate.

I also accept that the primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) unit is an excellent facility, but similar problems arise with it. It is unfortunate that both facilities are based in Londonderry; I can understand the concerns of the representatives for that area. Remember, however, that this is a Minister who has already delivered £490 million of savings in his three years in office. That is an incredible achievement and, of course, is more than the annual budget of three of our Departments put together. That has been achieved, and there is a further commitment of £170 million for the present financial year. That £170 million is going to be extremely demanding of the five health trusts, plus, of course, the Ambulance Service.

Let us not underestimate for one minute how hard the trusts are working to achieve that. Five hundred and sixty million pounds' worth of savings have been achieved. We will find that the cumulative effect of this will have a very difficult and deleterious effect on health, and we have not even considered the issue of welfare reform. People say that welfare reform is not related to this. This year, we are handing back £87 million to the Exchequer in London. If that £87 million were passed over to the Health Department in the monitoring round, it would go a very, very long way to deal with this issue, including Altnagelvin. We have to look forward and think that things are going to get much more difficult if we do not resolve this issue.

We all hope and pray that we will be able to find the money to deal with these issues. The Altnagelvin radiotherapy unit is an excellent unit, and we should give it full support. The honourable Member for Foyle said that, several weeks after he came into post, the Minister committed himself to reversing Mr McGimpsey's decision. He did not; he did it on his first day in office.

He went up to Altnagelvin that day and reversed the decision, so that is the Department's level of commitment to Londonderry. I think that we are being a little bit naive in criticising him for that.

This is a difficult issue. As an Assembly, the best thing that we can do is not to pick off individual projects that we are concerned about but to lobby together for adequate resources to be given to health so that Mr Poots and the Department can deliver an adequate service.

Ms Maeve McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat. I thank those who tabled the motion and welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate. The motion quite rightly recognises the importance and status of Altnagelvin and its regional capacity to deliver excellent health care in the north-west. I fully endorse those comments. The motion calls on the Health Minister to ensure that the radiotherapy unit and the cardiac centre at Altnagelvin proceed as planned. As someone who is familiar with the campaign for the radiotherapy unit, as many others in the Chamber are, I acknowledge the role played by individuals and groups, particularly the local Pink Ladies group, in making a very strong case not only for Derry but for the wider north-west region.

It is clear that, on that issue, an outcome was agreed and a consensus was reached that the people of the north-west deserve, which will ensure that there is a fully functional radiotherapy unit that will serve the needs not only of the Western Trust area but of Donegal. It is correct and apt to point out that cancer remains a leading cause of death across the island, and it does not respect class, creed, gender or borders. In some ways, the radiotherapy unit has set a model of best practice on the island in looking at how we deliver health across the island. Increasingly, we are seeing this mindset in the delivery of health care across the island. We see it with the current debate on children's heart services. We see it in the current discussions on an air ambulance, and, hopefully, we will see it when we reflect on the need for an all-Ireland addiction strategy.

As someone who took part in the launch of the construction of the radiotherapy unit during the summer, I can assure the House that the unit is being built, the equipment has been bought, and it will become operational. However, as some Members pointed out, it is not useful to hold up a potential £1·1 million cut across the radiotherapy unit. That creates negative commentary and would or could impact on recruitment. I am sure that the public, when they reflect on this debate, will see how the health budget is being spent to date, with £34 million going to consultants for bonuses and £60 million going to the independent sector annually for elective care, and struggle with the fact that we cannot find £1·1 million for a vital project that is already on stream.

On 30 September last year, the Minister announced the roll-out of the regional cardiac service for heart attack patients. As Mr Ramsey said, only on Friday, we heard the story of a local person, Christie O'Donnell, who felt unwell and drove to Altnagelvin to be informed that he was having a heart attack and would undergo surgery within an hour. I acknowledge the front line staff and others who made that happen, because we do not often hear good stories about the service.

So, the roll-out of the cardiac scheme is good news for patients suffering the most severe form of heart attack. The next phase was due to go ahead this month. Anything less than 24/7 would mean a secondary service for the north-west region and seriously undermine delivery there. I support the motion and urge the Minister to proceed as planned with those two vital services for the north-west.

Mrs Dobson: I also welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. It is a case of déjà vu all over again.

From the outset, I want to make my party's position absolutely clear. We want to see the Altnagelvin radiotherapy unit and the cardiac centre open as soon as possible. Indeed, it was Michael McGimpsey who backed the project for a radiotherapy unit at Altnagelvin from the very start and reiterated his backing on 23 March 2011, when he spelt out to the previous Assembly that there simply was not enough money for it in the DUP/Sinn Féin Budget. He was very clear that the Budget passed by the Assembly, despite warnings from him and his most senior departmental officials, seriously —

Mr Campbell: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dobson: No, I want to make my points. He was clear that the Budget seriously undermined the ability to deliver it, especially because of the absence of revenue funding. At the time, some political opponents said that it was a heartless decision. Nevertheless, the DUP and Sinn Féin claimed that the project would go ahead as proposed. That was in 2011, and look where we are today. In fact, at the time, the First Minister said:

Once again, history has proven the First Minister wrong. It was not the end of the matter, as today's debate proves.

To be fair to the Health Minister, however, by 2016, he may well have a very nice new building; he will just not have staff with the required training to run it. When my party warned of that scenario in 2011, it was lambasted by, among others, the deputy First Minister, who described the warning as:

He went on to say:

How true — it has been built, but without the full funding behind it and with no staff to operate it. You have to ask who was being political.

The cardiac centre has, regrettably, also been caught up in the Budget fallout. As has already been said, the 24-hour emergency PCI service was proposed in 'Transforming Your Care', but, like so much else in the document, it is losing its focus, and time frames are slipping.

Altnagelvin was to become Northern Ireland's second primary PCI centre. I hope that that can still be achieved, sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, until then, patients outside the Belfast service's catchment area will remain disadvantaged.

The most frustrating thing about the current situation is that it was entirely avoidable. The Minister left it so late to acknowledge the problem that it is probably too late to do anything about it without causing immense hurt elsewhere. Any Minister, alongside senior officials with responsibility for budgets and expenditure, should have been able to see that the figures simply did not add up. Nevertheless, rather than asking for extra support in the summer of 2011, in 2012 or even in 2013, he left it until now. Speaking out earlier would have made it much easier to fill the £160 million gap in his budget over a number of years, rather than in less than one year. The Minister is in the position of making the best of an incredibly bad situation. The people of the north-west deserve better.

Minister, although you refuse to acknowledge it, this is a problem that was created in 2011. I am glad that you have asked for help now, although you should have done it long ago.

My party is determined, however, to work cooperatively with you in order to ensure that public safety is not further compromised and that the radiotherapy and cardiac units are progressed as quickly as possible. Therefore, I support the motion.

Mr McCarthy: I welcome the debate and I am happy to support the motion. These investments in the north-west are matters of huge importance but have always been marginal in the budgetary commitments. The project was in major jeopardy at the end of the last Assembly mandate, as has been mentioned already. In fact, as I understand it, the project had been withdrawn at that time. Indeed, at the time, the local people and their representatives were shocked and dismayed, despite the fact that the then Derry health chief said that these developments and the operation of the satellite radiotherapy unit at the Altnagelvin site were vital.

At that time, there was cross-party support in the Health Committee for the service, which also had the support of the Dublin Government. Thankfully, after the 2011 election, promises were given to build these new facilities but once again, in the context of the massive Budget uncertainty, this is back in question as the Minister has indicated that development of projects such as the Altnagelvin radiotherapy centre and cardiac centre, along with others, may have to be delayed in the short term or even longer term.

Although the Health Committee, the Assembly and others will want to scrutinise what the Minister is saying in general about the overall health budget and the potential or otherwise for reform, today provides an opportunity for us to restate our commitment to these investments in the north-west. There is a very strong logic to this; we are all too familiar with the scourge of cancer on our society and the very real difference that early diagnosis and effective treatment can make to prospects of recovery and full life expectancy. Moreover, the siting of such facilities at Altnagelvin Hospital is strategic in nature. In particular, the radiotherapy unit holds out the prospect of effectively servicing a wide catchment area that significantly spans the border counties. We have also taken advantage of support from the Dublin Government.

Many of us have regularly stressed the opportunities for a more efficient use of resources through the shared delivery of services on a North/South basis, and this is surely a golden opportunity for that. I am, however, disappointed that these items have appeared on the Minister's proposals for so-called savings. Many of the proposals he has set out are, in fact, false economies; short-term measures or deferred expenditure will simply delay opportunities to do things better.

It is difficult to have this debate in isolation from the wider financial situation facing the Health Department and the Executive as a whole. First, there are major questions to be asked about how the Department ended up in this situation. This pressure has clearly been building up over several years and the fact that a mess has arisen now predates the crisis in welfare reform as, no doubt, we will hear. Secondly, what is presented by the Health Minister needs to be properly scrutinised. Although problems have been building in the health service over time, it is difficult to understand how things can tip into crisis on the basis of a funding gap.

The failure of the Executive and the Assembly to agree the way forward on welfare reform means that money has to be handed back to Westminster that could otherwise have been invested in health. This is a shameful, disgraceful and unforgivable situation; no one in this House supports the welfare cuts. I desperately appeal to both blocs in the Executive to come together and agree a way forward for the benefit of all our constituents to ensure that no funding has to be handed back to Westminster.

Let us remind ourselves of all those in our society who are crying out for cancer drugs, our multiple sclerosis, ME and muscular dystrophy patients and our elderly dependants. Let us remind ourselves of the shortages in our A&E departments and our community meals schemes, all of which are at risk. The list goes on. It simply would be a dereliction of MLAs' duties — in fact, totally obscene — if we have to return moneys to Westminster coffers when we know the need is desperate at home.

Alliance is open to considering additional resources for health and social services, but that has to come in the context of a proper strategic review of expenditure across the board by the Executive.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr McCarthy: I hope that the Minister will give assurances today that these will be provided.

Mr G Robinson: I welcome the opportunity to compliment the management and staff of the Western Health and Social Care Trust at Altnagelvin Hospital. I would especially like to thank the chief executive and her senior team and staff for all their assistance in the provision of essential health services over the years.

I can truthfully say that when I had cardiac problems a few years ago, I was treated with great dignity, dedication and professionalism by all health care staff at Altnagelvin Hospital. Therefore, as someone who deeply appreciates their professionalism and diligent work, a thank you for the critical work that they carry out is well-deserved from me personally, my family members, and indeed the entire population of the north-west and further afield.

During briefings with the Western Health and Social Care Trust, the important role that it has played and will play for those of us in the north-west and western areas of Northern Ireland was very apparent, despite the current budget pressures, which the trust has managed skilfully. Indeed, contracts have been signed for the construction of the much-needed radiotherapy unit.

Mr Campbell: I thank the Member for giving way. He talks about the resources that have been made available for the radiotherapy unit. He spoke earlier about the truth. Would he agree with me that the truth is unlike what we heard from Mrs Dobson a few moments ago, when she indicated that the previous Minister did not have the resources to commence work on the radiotherapy unit? The present Minister managed to get those resources in his first week in office, and they were already there when the previous Minister was there. If we are talking about truth, people should stand up, put their hands up in the air and say that they were guilty of not proceeding with the unit when they had the opportunity to do so.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Members should keep interventions short. The Member has an extra minute.

Mr G Robinson: I fully agree with my colleague's assertions. The radiotherapy and cardiac units are essential and very welcome. They will also relieve pressures on the services being delivered in Belfast and, importantly, reduce journey times for patients and relatives alike. Those are points that patients and relatives will greatly benefit from and appreciate. Patients from the glens of Antrim to Enniskillen will benefit greatly from the new development and service provision at Altnagelvin.

There is no doubt that cancer is widespread throughout our population. Therefore, it is essential that, when finances permit, the best treatments are delivered by the health trusts for the benefit of the population. The Altnagelvin centres for radiotherapy and cardiology will provide exactly that.

The Minister last September outlined the benefits of a PCI service for patients. This enables lifesaving treatment such as stents to be deployed even if the patient is having a heart attack. I believe those to be value-for-money procedures that have an immediate and positive benefit for patients.

I fully appreciate that the Minister is under severe budgetary pressures not of his own making. We cannot deny that. I also appreciate the great need for those services to be provided in the west and north-west of Northern Ireland. However, I fear there may be a delay in the timetable we would all want due to the unwillingness of some Members of this Chamber, i.e. Sinn Féin and the SDLP, to agree the implementation of welfare reform. Where is the benefit to society of denying much-needed medical services? Is it proper that they deny society improvements in cancer and cardiac care? Perhaps they can tell us how the Minister will find the £140 million shortfall that has been caused.

Urgent progression of the radiotherapy and cardiac units is essential, but I have also highlighted the problems of refusing to face our Budget crisis, which is damaging the patients who need life-saving treatment.

When those parties responsible for the Budget cuts realise the consequences that their actions are having in this community, the Minister will be able to progress these critical health projects with the speed the motion calls for.

Mr McCartney: Go raibh maith agat, a Príomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Beidh mé ag labhairt i bhfabhar an rúin seo. I support the motion. Given the tone and the way it has been presented, most speakers have accepted the crucial importance of Altnagelvin hospital to Derry and the greater north-west region. People have rightly praised the staff and the dedicated professionals who staff that hospital and other aspects of the health service, not just in the north-west but across the North. That is welcome. Christie O'Donnell must be the most recognised taxi man in Derry because of his situation and how it was remedied.

Mr Campbell: The Member said "most of the speakers" have recognised the importance of the project. I have not heard anyone say that they did not recognise that. I got the distinct impression that there was unanimity on the project.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr McCartney: I did not say that to challenge anyone. Some Members spoke about particular aspects of the debate and did not centre on Altnagelvin. I am not saying that anyone is questioning the importance of Altnagelvin hospital if that is the point that the Member is trying to make.

I made the point about Christie O'Donnell, and we should wish him well. The Speaker will know the benefits of Altnagelvin hospital because that is where he is currently housed, and I am sure that he is getting the best of treatment.

I do not think that any of us would argue, particularly in terms of health and the health budget, that there are not always pressures and strains on the system. That is where good management, good leadership and good direction can come in by sometimes bringing efficiencies into the system and alleviating some of the issues that we are addressing.

Too often, and this can be a comfortable way of doing things, the situation is labelled as a "crisis". "Crisis" is the first word that comes to people's lips, which creates a reaction in itself and sometimes we lose sight of the debate.

Mr Wells: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCartney: I have limited time and have already given way.

That is what we have to watch, because even in the debate on this issue we have heard people in the DUP talk about "the aura of a crisis". So, we have to define the problem.

Jo-Anne Dobson gave a particular commentary about the radiotherapy unit in Derry, which was challenged by Gregory Campbell. In my opinion, Michael McGimpsey made a mistake. He may have had particular pressures and he may have had particular concerns about his budget and how it was being deployed, but he picked on something because he felt it was the most vulnerable and would get the most reaction. However, he got the wrong reaction. There was total unanimity, particularly in the north-west and Derry. It featured greatly in the election campaign, and all the people who stood for election in the area were in favour of the radiotherapy unit. Indeed, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister publicly stated that, if they got the mandate, one of the first things that they would do would be to ensure that the decision was reversed. Credit to the Minister, he delivered on that promise.

However, therein lies the problem for the Minister. The radiotherapy unit is on schedule, it is near completion, the equipment has been ordered and recruitment is going to take place. It is not tenable to have a scenario where the unit is built and not staffed. To use it as one of the areas of contention in the particular stresses and strains that you find your Department under — and you are entitled to fight your corner — was not proper. You will come to realise, like Michael McGimpsey, that it was a mistake to use the radiotherapy unit in that way.

Maeve McLaughlin has said on a number of occasions in the Assembly and in the local media that we have not heard any interrogation of the fact that £32 million in bonuses is being paid to consultants. Many, many people out there are asking, "Why is it that, when it comes to this type of debate, it is automatically the radiotherapy unit, or the cardiac unit, or hips or all the good things that the health service does, but we never ever seem to talk about the fact that £32 million is paid out in bonuses? Why not seek some way to address that as we go forward?"

Mr Poots (The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety): Will the Member give way?

Mr McCartney: Yes, sure.

Mr Poots: If the Member were looking to attract to this radiotherapy centre people who are currently on bonuses, would he not pay them that and not have those doctors come? I am proud that, in Northern Ireland, we have some of the best doctors in the world. However, you will only get the best by paying the best. That is what we are doing. If you do not want the best doctors in the world, that is a matter for Sinn Féin. I want the best.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member's time is almost finished.

Mr McCartney: I have no issue with recruiting the best. However, when people hear about £32 million bonuses on top of good wages, that is where the issue is, and perhaps you have to explain that. The run to microphones to close things down rather than to say "I am going to tackle other inefficiencies" — that is the point I am making, and that is the point that has to be taken up. Pat Ramsey has shown you the Journal. It may be unintended —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I ask the Member to bring his remarks to a close.

Mr McCartney: — but your comments may have put doubts into people's minds about whether a post in Altnagelvin is a good post to apply for. I think that that is the mistake that you have made.

Mr Buchanan: I rise to briefly add my voice to the debate this evening. I agree with the sentiments of the motion and acknowledge the importance of Altnagelvin Hospital in the delivery of excellent healthcare services in the north-west region. I also want to praise the professionalism and commitment of staff to delivering that service throughout the Western Health and Social Care Trust area.

I find it ironic that a member of the party opposite is questioning the payments and so forth that are given to professional people who are delivering an excellent service for people throughout Northern Ireland and not only in the Western Health and Social Care Trust area. When we have occasion to visit any of the hospitals in the trust area — should it be the new acute hospital in Enniskillen, Omagh, Altnagelvin or any of the other healthcare provisions — we see at first hand that professionalism and commitment being demonstrated. When we talk to patients, their testimonies bear out the excellent service that they are receiving.

I take this opportunity to again lobby the Minister and the Department for the progression of the radiotherapy unit and cardiac centre and having it delivered and up and running with the minimum delay. The delivery of this service is critical to the population of the Western Health and Social Care Trust area and beyond. No doubt, when this building is complete, it will be one of the most important healthcare facilities for people living with cancer in the western area. When we consider the number of people living with cancer in the Western Health and Social Care Trust area, and the many victims and the families who have had a loved one taken from them by cancer, we can see the importance of having that professional help and care close to hand and the comfort and confidence that it brings in times of great need.

Given that existing services in Belfast are expected to be full by 2015, it is essential that work at Altnagelvin continues and that this service is delivered with the minimum delay. However, I have to say that I am conscious of the financial pressures that the Minister and his Department are under and the tight financial constraints that he is facing. I want to commend him on how he has managed, and is managing, his budget. The difference between Minister Poots and the previous Minister is that Minister Poots has delivered whereas, in a lot of areas, Minister McGimpsey failed to bring forward the finance and deliver.

Mr Wells: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buchanan: I will.

Mr Wells: Does the Member accept that, although Mr McCartney talked about scaremongering, the Minister never raised an issue of funding in the first three years of his tenure? It was challenging, but he was able to deliver. It is only more recently that things have become more difficult. There has not been a running to the Minister of Finance until recently. Four years ago, Mr McGimpsey was constantly whingeing about a lack of money when, in fact, there was at least £490 million of savings still to be made.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member will have an extra minute.

Mr Buchanan: The Member makes a good point, because the previous Minister failed to make the efficiency savings and was afraid to face and to meet the challenges. However, Minister Poots did that.

Mrs Dobson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buchanan: No, I will not give way any longer.

I call on all Members in the Chamber this evening to support the Minister in his call for the extra funding that he requires because it is only then that he will be able to deliver on the various health care issues that people are asking for around the Chamber. It is all very well for Members to, on the one hand, call on the Minister to deliver, while on the other hand, they are part of the problem, in that they are continually refusing to agree to welfare reform, which we know will strip the Minister's budget even further. I believe that it is now time for Sinn Féin and the SDLP to give the leadership that is required on welfare reform and to stop further cuts to our budget, because only then will it be taken seriously that you folk have a concern about the delivery of quality healthcare provision in the Western Health and Social Care Trust area.

Mr Dallat: I came here with a prepared speech, but I am not going to use it, because I am rather annoyed and upset at the point scoring that has been going on. I loved my parents dearly. My father died from a massive heart attack, and my mother died a painful death from cancer. I am sure that if those people were looking in on the debate today, they would be quite horrified.

Many years ago, when we had similar financial problems, the cancer centre in Belfast was built. It is now overflowing, but, my God, what a gift that was to the people of Northern Ireland. If we apply the same principles today, surely the people of the north-west and far beyond are entitled to the same hope and inspiration from their elected Members as happened in times that I think were more difficult than those we are in now.

My interest in Altnagelvin is not because I am supporting my Derry colleagues. Altnagelvin plays a major part in health care in the more immediate area that I represent. The partnership and cooperation between the Causeway Hospital and Altnagelvin is exemplary and something that I hope the Minister, who initially supported it, will continue to support. That is because, if you are on the balcony looking down on health care, you do not see borders or health trusts; you see people, and those are the people of Donegal, Derry, Coleraine, Ballymoney and beyond.

There was, rightly, mention of the taxi driver and that lovely story that came out yesterday, but I can tell Members that good stories come out of Altnagelvin and the Causeway every day. I hope that the Minister is pleased to hear that. They are beautiful stories, and I think that that is a solid reason why every Member should put their party political hats to one side and say, "We will do this collectively and provide the facilities that are badly needed for generations to come". In doing so, we will not only provide for Altnagelvin but will sow the seeds of a very strong medical care service with our neighbours in Donegal, whose government help to fund this, and will help people in the Causeway. I am not suggesting that the Causeway is in any immediate danger of closing, but I know that, if Altnagelvin had the full range of services, that relationship would be strengthened and would give comfort not just to Altnagelvin but to the Causeway.

I think that we probably got off on the wrong foot today. We have probably disillusioned people outside who may have been watching. This is not about party point scoring; this is about people and their future. It is about the people who, as we speak, are given bad news one way or the other. I do not think, quite honestly, that we would want to leave the Chamber having created the impression that we had another wee point-scoring exercise in the Assembly. God knows, we create enough bad images for ourselves without using something as serious as a motion on cardiac and other facilities to save people's lives. I think that it is a step too far.

I do feel a bit emotional about this. I appeal to my colleagues right across the Chamber, and I am not identifying any party in particular: for God's sake, this ain't the debate for a bit of craic; this is not the debate for a bit of smirking and laughing; this is serious business. I passionately believe that each and every person in the Assembly has the capacity to deliver what the people need in Altnagelvin Hospital. Despite everything that I saw here today, I trust that, on reflection, they will do what is required. As with the cancer centre in Belfast —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Dallat: — it is possible. There are plenty of financial models out there that should be looked at.

Mr Beggs: I thank the Members for bringing forward this important motion. I, too, rise to support the motion. I recognise publicly the important regional role that Altnagelvin Hospital plays and will play increasingly in the future, not only for the city of Londonderry and the north-west region but, as has been said, its linkages with other hospitals such as Coleraine and the South West Hospital. There is the opportunity for the mutual benefit of the regional centre, not only for the people of Northern Ireland but for the people of Donegal. Collectively, a much better service can be provided for everyone.

The Altnagelvin radiotherapy unit was first identified as essential to meet the future needs of the people of Northern Ireland in 2008 when the project was kicked off by the then Minister, Michael McGimpsey. I understand that capital budget has always been available, but it has been the resource budget that, in previous times, created some difficulty. We are being told again that it is the resource budget that is causing difficulty today. There is no point in building such a centre with the resource and not manning it and providing a service. Therefore, it is essential that the project be taken through to completion.

In 2011, the outgoing Health Minister expressed his concern about the health budget. He questioned what had been given and expressed concern that the opening could be put in jeopardy with the budget that had been handed to him. I agree with other Members that this is not just about the north-west; this is a regional centre, and a centre for Northern Ireland. Those who are following cancer and health issues will be aware that the cancer centre in Belfast is reaching capacity. Therefore, unless it is built and operated, there is the possibility that it will even affect me and my family. I feel passionately that this must proceed on the schedule that was agreed.

On coming into office in May 2011, Minister Poots advised:

Minister, what has happened since then?

In 2011, it was also indicated by the Finance Minister that the Health Minister would have flexibility in his budget without recourse to the Executive but that he could not bid for in-year monitoring and had to live within his budget. Since then, inflation in the UK has generally been lower than had been expected. Yes, I understand that health inflation is always considerably higher than general inflation. However, during those three and a half years, approximately £300 million of additional money in in-year monitoring has been provided.

My understanding of the 2011 Budget was that that money would not be available to the Health Department, so I am pleased that those who set that Budget agree that there were failings in what they did and are trying to correct it quietly. We will get better value for money if it is done in a strategic fashion rather than it being dealt with through in-year monitoring, because that mechanism can create a stop/go effect.

It is vital that the Altnagelvin project is put back on track and that the essential staff who will be required to man the units — professionals who will be giving up secure and important jobs elsewhere — feel totally secure about their futures so that they can be attracted to undergo the necessary training to man these posts. We cannot play about with it; it is essential that this is put to bed quickly and that the necessary funding be found. I support the Health Minister unequivocally in that that additional money must be found to ensure that this happens. I am not playing politics.

It would be helpful if the Minister were to clarify something in his letter to the Health Committee in August in which he indicated that —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Mr Beggs: The Minister indicated that there would have to be £160 million in savings: does he have to save all that, or is it £80 million or now £60 million? It is essential that this project continues not only for the people of the north-west but for everyone in Northern Ireland.

Mr Dunne: I also welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion about what continues to be a very important issue for people throughout Northern Ireland. Our health service is crucial for everyone — young or old, rich or poor — and it must continue to be a priority for our Executive. There is no doubt that Altnagelvin Area Hospital in Londonderry offers an important service to the people of the north-west and beyond. I endorse the opening words of the motion, which praise the professionalism and commitment of the staff in the Western Health and Social Care Trust area. Our health service staff are our greatest asset, and it is vital that we continue to acknowledge their dedication and commend their first-class level of service so that they are not taken for granted.

Funding remains a key challenge across our health service, and, unfortunately, the knock-on impact of the current financial challenges may affect our whole Province. Both the primary PCI service and the radiotherapy unit are key priorities for our Health Minister. I know that he recognises the importance of these services for the people of the north-west. That was underlined when he gave the green light to the radiotherapy unit shortly after taking up office in 2011.

The Minister also visited the hospital recently to confirm the commencement of the 24/7 primary PCI service, which provides state-of-the-art treatment for approximately 300 patients annually: those suffering from heart attacks. It is very clear that our Minister fully supports investing in and improving services in Altnagelvin. We should all stand and work with him and our Executive colleagues at this time to get the best possible deal for our health service as we move forward.

I call on our Minister to work with his Executive colleagues to make available the £1·5 million per annum that is required to ensure the full range of services at the cath lab and to fund the appointment of critical staff to avoid any further delay at the new Altnagelvin radiotherapy unit. This is an important development because it will serve the people of the Western Trust area who currently have to travel to the regional cancer centre in Belfast City Hospital, which, as was mentioned, is working at almost maximum capacity. A local cancer treatment unit will provide for the people of the north-west and beyond, into the border areas of Donegal, providing a service for such treatments on a repayment basis.

There is no doubt that savings and streamlining must continue to be a priority across our health service. I know that the Minister will continue to prioritise effective and necessary savings while reducing wastage. We must stand united on this issue and ensure that our health service continues to deliver and develop for our day and generation.

Mr Poots: The motion states that the Assembly should recognise:

The motion:

At the outset, I wholeheartedly endorse the recognition of the hospital, the staff and their professionalism. Every one of them is worth every penny.

At the heart of the debate is the future funding of the PCI cath lab service and the new radiotherapy unit. I never had, nor do I have, any intention of not continuing with those services. I merely pointed out to Members the reality of the situation because of the budget that was awarded to me in June. We are already making £170 million of savings this year on top of the £492 million made over the previous three years. That is just over £660 million. I met the First Minister and the deputy First Minister on 6 April to explain that there was an additional gap of £160 million that we needed to address. My party was always of the opinion that we could do with something less than £160 million but that we needed considerably more money. Therefore, we were looking to get £40 million in the June monitoring round and £40 million in the October monitoring round. However, when we got to the June monitoring round, which came out five weeks late, we were told, "You're getting £20 million. That's all you're getting for this year. Now, go away". Those are the circumstances in which we find ourselves. If we got £20 million and no more in this financial year, that is the extent of the cuts. I said that I was not prepared to deliver those cuts. I needed the support of the Assembly. I sought the support of the Committee. I thought at the start of the meeting that it was going to support me, but, by the end of it, the Chair was not that keen on providing that support, for whatever reason. I hoped to have a Committee Chair who would have been more supportive of delivering those services, to be quite honest. It reflects very poorly on the Committee Chair that she did not have the will to give leadership to that Committee to ensure that I received the support to get more than £20 million for the rest of this year.

As we take the situation forward, we have proceeded with the primary PCI unit. It has been live 24/7 since 15 September. I would have hoped that Mrs Dobson's people who assist her would have advised her better: she said that she hoped that we would go ahead with it, but it has already started. In any event, I was up at that facility last week. We have the most state-of-the-art equipment available anywhere in the world in Altnagelvin Hospital. That is good news. A taxi driver came in and was sitting up in bed an hour and half later having had the treatment. He potentially has a very good outlook as a result of that intervention. That is the service that we want to provide. We do not want to provide it just at one o'clock on a Friday or from nine to five. We want it available at 12 o'clock at night or four o'clock in the morning — whatever time it happens to be. I do not want it to be available just to the north-west and people from the Northern Trust area; I want it to be available to people from the Republic of Ireland as well. We can assist the Republic of Ireland by providing top-class health care, and they can pay a contribution, which will ensure that we can sustain the service. That makes completely logical sense. As we move forward to looking at the potential of having an air ambulance and all of that, there could be a major expansion of the services at Altnagelvin Hospital. That is where I come from; that is my commitment to that service. It is not just for the service we are going to provide at this stage. I want to expand it further and provide assistance to others.

I visited Altnagelvin the day after I took ministerial office and, within a week, I made the decision to proceed with the radiotherapy unit. I did not think that is was good to create uncertainty about such an important subject. Mr Beggs rightly pointed out that the service is not just for the people of the north-west, though it is focused on them. Given the increasing numbers of patients who require treatment for cancer, Belfast City Hospital cancer centre would not have been able to cope: 300 people use that service every day as things stand. It is absolutely essential for everybody in Northern Ireland that we proceed with it, given than one in three people will contract cancer at some point in their life. That is why it is important that we have quality cancer services across Northern Ireland that are fit for purpose and able to deal with the numbers going through.

I have no intention — none whatsoever — of delaying this, but I am dependent upon the October monitoring delivering for me. I did not take on the battle to get more funding for the health service on this occasion without having the intention of winning it. I am very hopeful that I will win the battle so that I can ensure that those services will proceed as planned without any hiccups or delays.

Obviously, other people may be silly about it and say that you just have to cut your cloth and live within the budget, and they may raise red herrings about things like clinical excellence awards. Let me say something about clinical excellence awards. They have been around for years and years, going back to the Sinn Féin Minister's time, I believe. Legally, they are regarded as contracts. So, if I go into a situation of saying that I am not going give people clinical excellence awards, which have been pre-existing, I will be challenged and more than likely defeated in court. I would then have to pay the money out in any event. So, clinical excellence awards are not something that I think are necessarily the best arrangement; I think that we should be asking for a continuum of excellence as opposed to a demonstration of excellence at a particular point in a career. Nonetheless, they are there and they are contracts that we are obliged to honour.

We have top-class doctors in Northern Ireland, and we are delivering excellent services and results. Last week, I spoke to a couple of young consultants who are working in the primary PCI facility in Altnagelvin. I was absolutely delighted that they chose to work in that facility. They will save life after life after life in the north-west, and I honestly think that they are worth what we pay them. I know that doctors are well paid, but they are the cream of the class at school. It is the brightest young kids who go into the service; I want to attract the brightest young kids into medical service.

I diverge slightly, but I think of Dr Jimmy Douglas, who worked in the renal unit of Belfast City Hospital. I am sure that Mrs Dobson has come across him, although I think he has retired. He started out in life to be a lawyer, and he did not like it, so he went back to university having decided to become a doctor. I always thought that here was a man who could have spent his life doing conveyancing and giving advice on legal matters, but he saved hundreds of lives. He and Professor McGeown were out there doing work that was transforming in terms of kidney transplants. I want people like that. You know what? If I have to pay £20,000 or £30,000 on top of their wages to get them, I am prepared to do it as opposed to having mediocrity in our medical services.

I do not know where I am in my speech, but nonetheless.

We are in a difficult financial situation. It did not start three years ago; it started last year when the trusts started to report around August that they were facing greater pressures than they anticipated. They moved from having a £7 million underspend to a £60 million overspend. We have not recovered from that. Could I save £140 million in the health service without hitting all of those things? Yes, I could, but I cannot do it when I am asked to do it in August, because we have already lost four months of the year.

We have, for example, reduced the length of stay in hospital. That has been reduced by 10% over the last three years, from 6·9 days to 6·1 days. We have saved tremendous amounts of money on drugs. I hear people saying that, if we go down the route that the drugs companies want us to go down, we could supply all of those other drugs. Yes, we could, but that would mean reducing services from something else. That is a hard decision that we have to make.

Considerable amounts of money have been saved. I think Sinn Féin said that it would want an inspection of the books, or something of that kind. I am quite happy to throw the books open. I am very happy for whoever to inspect the finances of the Department of Health, because we are committed to spending all of the money that we have on health, social services and public safety. If money is being misspent, I want to know about it so that we can cut that out. You ask me whether every penny of a budget of £4·7 billion is being spent right. Of course it is not. I want it to be spent right, so if people are aware of things that we are not doing right, let me know, and we will pursue it, seek to reduce that waste and cut it out. I have no doubt that there is still waste there to be cut out.

We can reduce the amount of spend required, but we have to do it over time, in a way that is thought through. We will have additional services to provide at the same time, so health is always going to be a problem for every country in the world. I think we have heard about Scotland facing problems that perhaps have not been as well explained to its public as they should have been. I note that Dr Varadkar has been in trouble with his Prime Minister, Mr Kenny, for shouting about needing more money for health down there. Some things do not change.

I think that there is a circumstance that people do not really understand: we are looking at a 6% growth in health each year and at 1·5% to 2% more funding. Finding and squeezing that 4% out each year will be more difficult. It becomes more of a challenge, but our willingness to do the right thing should not be underestimated. We are quite determined to have first-quality services not just in Belfast but right across Northern Ireland.

I want to attract the right people to serve in the best facilities in Altnagelvin in both radiotherapy and PCI. We have already done it in PCI. I would be shocked if we do not get the funding in the monitoring round to help us sustain that, so I am going ahead at risk. I have no doubt that we will proceed quickly after the October monitoring round to ensure that there is no delay in the opening of the facility at Altnagelvin, unless people are very silly and decide that Poots is calling everybody's bluff. He is not. We need additional resources to make those things happen. I believe that I have the support of all of the parties, but we need to see the colour of the money in October.

Mr Eastwood: Members will note that the wording of the motion was designed to be helpful rather than critical. Most of the debate has shown that we have support right across the House for what needs to be done. There is obviously a recognition of the financial difficulties. There is obviously going to be a bit of discussion and debate around why we are in those financial difficulties and what has actually caused them, but I think that what we can take from this debate is a commitment from the House to ensure that we do not again end up in a scenario where people in the north-west and beyond hear things on a radio or television programme that make them very fearful of some of the really important projects and proposals that the Executive and Assembly have for them.

I think that one of the difficult parts of the financial debate that has been going on since the June monitoring round is that it seems to us — some people might say that we have a bit of a complex — that every time an argument is made about welfare reform or anything else, the example that is used is one that affects people in our city, whether it be Magee campus, radiotherapy or whatever else. I think that we just need to be mindful that people are very hopeful. People came out on to the streets of Derry, went to meetings, wrote letters, signed petitions and did a lot of things the last time that this issue was used to advance a political argument about budgets. We just have to be mindful that these decisions and, sometimes, these statements have an effect on people.

Everybody in this House will know somebody who has to travel the long distance to the fantastic cancer centre that we have in Belfast. We often complain that we have to come up here from Derry three or four times a week. Imagine trying to do that, maybe for a 10-minute appointment, if you are going through cancer treatment and all the difficulties that that presents. We have to say that we were and have been very glad that Mr Poots, in his first week as Minister, made a very positive announcement for the north-west. Think about people from Derry travelling to Belfast: even more horrendous in this day and age is that people from Malin Head maybe travel to Dublin or Galway. We come at this in a positive way. The response from the Minister today has been positive. The response from most of the Members who have spoken has been positive. I think that that is a good thing.

We also deliberately put in the motion a reference to the health workers who interface with the public every single day. I think that sometimes we do not say enough about that. I think that people need to be very mindful of the difficult circumstances. When we talk up here about budgets, it is the people on the ground at the front line who have to deal with the issues and difficulties that they face because of budget cuts. Mr Ramsey highlighted that, last weekend, in Altnagelvin's A&E department, a target was met by those workers and staff to treat every single patient within four hours. It is important to point out that, in the 24-hour period from midnight on Thursday, the A&E department treated 160 patients within that time frame. While we are often all very good at complaining about those kinds of things, it is important that we recognise good work when we see it.

I know that Christie O'Donnell has been mentioned. I know Christie. I have been in his taxi many times. He is a very grateful recipient of very good care. He actually drove his taxi to Alnagelvin while he was having a heart attack and was treated very swiftly and well by the staff there. That is something that needs to be said. It is because of the good work around the new cardiac centre that Christie was able to avail himself of those services. Thank God for it.

I am glad to hear what the Minister said about the 24/7 aspect, because it should not be the case that, if you turn up at a certain time, unfortunately, you might die because the service is not there 24/7. I think that the Minister said that we are going ahead at risk. I think that that is a sensible decision. I know that he was there last Friday when it was not just quite as clear whether we were going for the 24/7 model. Maybe that is where some of the confusion came about today. We are very glad to support that and to see it come forward.

A number of Members spoke very well. I note that Mr Wells talked largely around the financial implications of this. I think that we are all aware of them. He also recognised that, when you look at the figures, you see that this is not necessarily a welfare reform issue. There has clearly been a very real problem in health. I know that some people will debate when and why that started. However, we have to commit to a new budgetary process to ensure that we can resolve that.

Nobody wants to see front line services cut. Nobody wants to see a radiotherapy centre with all the mod cons — equipment and buildings — being held up over £1·1 million, which is a lot of money to some of us, but, in the grand scheme of things, not really a lot of money. We need to ensure that, in whatever negotiations and discussions around October monitoring — if we have an October monitoring round; there are rumours that we might not get one — that type of project is put at the very forefront of all that we do.

We have to recognise the work that was done. Ms McLaughlin talked about the Pink Ladies, and about the people of Derry coming out onto the streets to ensure that it happened. It is important to recognise that. She also said that cancer does not respect borders. I have already spoken about somebody from north-east Donegal having to travel even further, to Dublin or Galway or somewhere, to get cancer treatment. The work being done alongside the Irish Government to ensure that there is a proper, functioning radiotherapy centre at Altnagelvin is important. Politics should never impede progress in health care outcomes. It is important that that has been recognised.

Mr Dallat made a very emotional and emotive speech about the need to put people before politics. I ended up having to scrap half of my speech because of it, but he made a very good point. An issue like this is far too important for us to use to beat each other around the Chamber. It is important that we also recognise that issues like this should not be used in bigger debates, around welfare reform or financial constraints, to try to get an easy win. We know the impact that that has on people out there. Mr Robinson was able to talk about his own experience of the staff dealing with cardiac issues. I think that we should all resist the urge, on the radio or in the Chamber, to make announcements about things that have a real impact on people's lives without the issues having been worked forward.

There is a major job of work to be done to try to get over some of the issues, not least welfare reform. However, outside welfare reform, there is massive difficulty around the Health budget. The SDLP and, I am sure, other parties are committed to dealing with those issues. We have a few issues to deal with. Peter Robinson spoke last week. We now have even more issues than we thought we had. However, this party and other parties will, I hope, come to the fore when it comes to dealing with those. For far too long, people and their issues have been thrown out there around these kinds of things. Sometimes we do not have due regard for the impact that announcements on 'The Nolan Show' or wherever else have on people's lives and experiences.

To sum up, I am glad to see a positive approach and response from the Minister. We offer our support —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Will the Member bring his remarks to a close?

Mr Eastwood: — to try to bring about those two vital services and ensure that they stay for all the people who need them.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The proposer of the topic for debate will have 15 minutes in which to speak, and all other Members called to speak will have approximately six minutes.

Ms Maeve McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this topic, which is another important issue in connection with the expansion of the University of Ulster's Magee campus. I suppose that it is important to point out that, since I brought a similar motion to the House in June last year, there have been quite positive developments in the issue on a number of fronts. The Minister for Employment and Learning gave clarity on the need for a business case, which was causing some confusion in the city and beyond. At that stage, he stated:

The city, thankfully, is now very clear on that, and a new education and skills implementation group has been established to take forward the skills escalation strategy and, of course, the Magee expansion. RSM McClure Watters has been appointed to develop the business case, which Derry City Council, in partnership with the University of Ulster, has commissioned. Phase 1 of that business case, which covers the needs analysis, is with the Minister, and the complete and final business case will hopefully be with him in October or November.

Therefore, the Minister provoked a strong reaction in August when he said on the airwaves that the Magee expansion was shelved for the foreseeable future. We rightly challenged that and asked this again: why Derry? Importantly, we also asked how a project could be stalled when the business case had not even been received. That was followed by a delegation to the Minister from the civic, political and business leadership of the city. At that meeting, the Minister clarified that he would receive the business case and would not rule out a bid for expansion going forward. Following that, the Minister's office issued a statement, in which he stated that he was:

He also stated that his Department would:

I welcome that clarity and ask the Minister to reinforce that position in his comments today.

The university has also restated its commitment to the project, as has Martin McGuinness, who recently met with the business community and the University for Derry lobby group and stated his full support for the Magee campaign.

For a minute, I want to consider the Programme for Government commitment to the Magee expansion. We may differ on that and may argue about whether it needs to be stronger, but the key commitment is to develop the One Plan for the regeneration of Derry. The Magee expansion is a critical catalyst project in the One Plan. So, let us clear up any confusion that may exist. There is a commitment to the One Plan, and it is the same commitment that we used for the City of Culture, the Foyle valley gateway master plan, the Brandywell and early intervention city status.

There are very clear targets in the One Plan. For the record, they are the expansion of the university at Magee to 9,400 full-time equivalents, including 6,000 full-time undergraduate students over the 10-year period to 2020. They are also about securing a 1,000 increase in the maximum student number (MaSN) by 2015, doubling the MaSN by 750 full-time undergraduate students to 1,500 over the 10-year period to 2020 and, equally, accelerating the development of the C-TRIC facility.

The other challenge that has been left to us is to demonstrate that the expansion of Magee will benefit the entire North. It is important to point out that, as it stands, Derry has the lowest level of higher education (HE) provision of any major city on the island of Ireland, and that is lower when compared with similar-sized cities. Derry's students represent 2·9% of the resident population, while those in Belfast, Cork, Limerick, Dundee or Lincoln make up 9·6%, 15·8%, 20·6%, 14·1% and 13·6%. I suggest to the Minister that the expansion of the university fits with all the key strategies and plans for the North, such as: the Programme for Government, the economic development strategy, the draft innovation strategy, the MATRIX report, the One Plan, the EU higher education area, the DEL higher education strategy and many more.

However, despite the constraints that Derry and the north-west see, there exists a range of knowledge-based assets with significant growth sectors: health technologies, stratified medicine, software engineering, ICT, renewable energies and sustainable technologies. It has been well recognised that the city is at the heart of international telecommunications awareness, has an enhanced positive reputation resulting from the City of Culture, and a young population.

I ask the Minister to reinstate his support for the business plan, commit to the expansion of the University of Ulster at Magee campus and ensure that the project, as agreed, becomes a departmental priority.

Mr P Ramsey: I thank Maeve McLaughlin for securing this debate on what is, once again, one of the most important subject matters in the city. I serve on the Employment and Learning Committee, and the Minister knows full well that we all believe in this. To be honest, a debate like this goes to the heart of the city, Minister; it is like a wound in the heart of the city. As Maeve McLaughlin said, you provoked anger, frustration and absolute disappointment with your press release during the summer.

I know in my heart — I have met the Minister I do not know how many times, and I do not know how many times we have had this discussion — and I genuinely believe that the Minister is behind Magee and supports the importance of the One Plan that Maeve McLaughlin talked about.

I want to place on record that the One Plan's priority and objective is for a university campus serving 9,400 full-time students, including 6,000 full-time undergraduate students, supported by an enhanced provision of 750 full-time undergraduate students at North West Regional College, bringing the total number of full-time undergraduates to 1,500, over the 10-year period to 2020.

I am just going to use the wording again, and it is important to say this: the One Plan encompassed, consulted and surveyed every household in the city. As a result, the key economic driver for the importance of Derry and its regeneration — culturally, socially and every other way — was the Magee campus. It was adopted with great aplomb by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister coming to the city and welcoming it. It was in the Programme for Government, but I am sure that the Minister will tell us that Magee was not specifically identified in that document.

At the same time, I have every confidence that the Minister will be positive today. In the Programme for Government, and given that the One Plan was key, certainly for representatives of the north-west, how many times did the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister seek an update on the progression, development or out-workings of the One Plan, as it was identified to Maeve or myself ? I would be keen to hear that from the Minister.

We have to be clear: the business case has to be approved and endorsed by yourselves, and, because of the levels of it, it has to go to DFP. However, I assure you that, even before that took place, I would have said to the Minister, at a very early stage, given the politics surrounding it, "You should be taking this to the Executive". Irrespective of whether the business case is being sustained, it is important that you take that and test the Executive.

Mr Swann: Will the Member give way?

Mr P Ramsey: I will.

Mr Swann: Just a query: the Member has received the same briefing from the Minister as I have. He says that he has met the Minister a couple of times. In relation to the business case, if no business case is put forward, does the Member have any idea how much the Minister has saved by not bringing forward Magee? If there is no business case, surely there is no value there? Surely, that is something that the Executive should be taking forward.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Member has another minute.

Mr P Ramsey: I thank the Member for his comments. Clearly, a business case has been presented. The Minister and the Department have a draft business case in their possession, which the Minister will confirm that he has received. We have been told that it was sent to him, and we have a copy of the outline business case that was submitted. We all got it five or six days ago by email, so I do not think that there is any doubt about that. I am making the point that we can develop and sustain an argument for the development.

I think back on the previous debate. On many occasions, unfortunately, Members go down the route of saying, "The Derry ones are at it again". These are not places for the people of Derry. The increased numbers for Magee are for Northern Ireland, the border counties and to encourage students from England, Scotland and Wales who may want to come here. There is clear and obvious evidence, locally and regionally, of ever-increasing student numbers moving away who might stay at home. The increased fees, for example, might mean that students may want to stay here. We see evidence of that.

My time has almost run out. Around November 2011, the University of Ulster paid a deposit for the land acquisition of Foyle and Londonderry College. This is key to the business case and in ensuring that the Minister has a legacy. They will have until 2016, when Foyle and Londonderry College moves campus to the Waterside. At that time, a decision will need to be taken to buy that land. I want to know the Department's position in ensuring that that happens, and I want us to have it.

I have to finish on a positive. I understand the Minister: he brings great initiatives. There are some good initiatives at present, such as the hairdressing apprenticeships at the North West Regional College, which will make a difference. I know that there are some difficulties over the economic inactivity strategy. I hope that we can iron those out, because they will make a difference. By God, I can tell you this: there is only one real project in the north-west that will give people a big lift, and that is the campus at Magee. There is a hurt in the heart of the city, Minister —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Mr P Ramsey: — and unless we get some resolution to give confidence to people, we cannot go on. Again, I thank Maeve for securing the debate.

Mr Hussey: Mr Deputy Speaker, do I have your permission to remain seated? Mr Deputy Speaker? I will.

Mr McCartney: Aye.

Mr Hussey: Once again, I am delighted to represent my colleagues from the constituency of Foyle. I am pleased to speak this evening on a matter that affects the maiden city of Londonderry. As you can see, I am the only unionist here to do that, but I am pleased to be here to do so.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party in the Adjournment debate on the expansion of the Magee campus of the University of Ulster. In doing so, I am conscious that I am giving a perspective from outside the city walls of Londonderry. I can assure Members from the maiden city that this issue is of interest to those of us who represent constituencies like West Tyrone and the wider western and north-western part of Northern Ireland. As was said by Mr Ramsey, we want this institution for all of Ireland and further afield. I have certainly no problems in supporting that. For the record, the Ulster Unionist Party is in favour and wants the expansion of Magee.

When Minister Farry made his announcement on the biggest radio show in the country — I cannot remember the name of that show — he talked about the pressures on his Department's budget, and he probably did not realise the storm that was about to fall onto his head. Dr Farry effectively said that the proposed expansion of the University of Ulster's Magee campus was off the table due to the Northern Ireland Executive Budget cuts. The loud condemnation of the Minister, in part understandable, has been well documented and, predictably, repeated here today.

It is very easy and tempting to engage in Minister-bashing, especially when the Minister is not from your own party, but let us step back and try to calmly assess where we stand with the expansion of Magee. I note that Foyle Members have been asking questions about whether the Minister for Employment and Learning has received a business case for the expansion at Magee. It would be helpful if the Minister could be crystal clear on that issue this evening in the Assembly.

On 17 September last year, in a similar Adjournment debate, my colleague Sandra Overend asked a very salient question that cut to the heart of the question:

In response, the Minister said:

He concluded:

Members should note that exchange and consider how much more pertinent it is one year on in the context of a Budget that is more broken and stretched. I have to say that I do have some sympathy for the Minister, not with the way in which he blurted the news out on the radio but with the problems with his budget. Having said that, I have to remind the House that the Alliance Party did vote for the four-year Budget in 2011.

The Minister stated last year that incremental growth can continue. In December 2011, he said that an extra 700 undergraduate places would be made available in Northern Ireland by 2015. At the same time, the University of Ulster stated that the 322 extra places being awarded to it would all be allocated to the Magee campus. The question is this: have those commitments been put in abeyance by the Budget stand-off and the Minister's August statement? That is the simple question that should be answered today. If it is, this Adjournment debate will have been worthwhile and not just another exercise in Minister-bashing and a pretext for issuing angry press statements to the 'Derry Journal' or the 'Londonderry Sentinel'. As I said, the Ulster Unionist Party supports the expansion of Magee college. We call on the Minister to clarify the numbers, the plan and the budget.

Mr McCartney: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an díospóireacht seo inniu. I welcome the fact that we are once more debating this issue. I suppose that it is welcome, because sometimes Adjournment debates can be very constituency-based. I welcome the fact that Ross Hussey is here and representing, if you like, the wider Ulster Unionist interest and the wider north-west.

Mr Hussey: I hope that that is not me being wider that you are talking about.

Mr McCartney: No. I heard you say that you are the only unionist here, but I want to acknowledge —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Can all remarks be addressed through the Chair, please?

Mr McCartney: — Mr Swann's presence as well, no doubt supporting the expansion of the university. That is maybe for another day.

In fairness to the Minister, he has met on a number of occasions delegations from the city and from the wider interest. I think that he will acknowledge how important an issue this is, particularly for people who represent the constituency of Foyle and Derry city. It has been on the political agenda for a long, long time.

The last time that we debated this, I reflected on the numbers of students in other cities throughout Ireland. Indeed, this week, it was particularly interesting during the Scottish debate to hear of the impact of universities, particularly on the economy of Scotland. I will say it again: Dublin has 53,000 students; Belfast has 32,000; Cork has 19,000; Galway has 17,000; Limerick has 12,000; Coleraine has 8,000; and Derry has 4,000. When the Minister is addressing this type of issue or reflecting on this debate, I think that it is worth him asking himself why he thinks that has been the case and continues to be. Given the economic impact that a university has on the other places that I have named, why does Derry not have a higher proportion of students? That, in many ways, would have addressed many of the problems that Derry has faced down through the years.

The expansion of the university will be and should be a key element in addressing the many, many issues of regional imbalance and regional disadvantage, which has always featured in the Programme for Government. When people look at unemployment figures in Derry, I do not think that it can escape any of us, including the Minister, that the lack of university places has an impact, as do other issues. Collective responsibility, as much as this should be a collective responsibility, should feature in that as well.

Maeve McLaughlin outlined some of the meetings that have taken place, and I have no doubt that the Minister has shown support and, in many ways, played a vital role. From a Derry perspective, we felt that the case was made in the most rigorous way possible. At one or two meetings, the Minister said that the absence of a business case was not exactly showing us in the best light. Perhaps because there was just an outline business plan, or a sense of what we needed, that was not hitting the mark with the Department, and the Minister said that very clearly.

Perhaps the fact that it was in the One Plan provided the strategic imperative for us to take it forward. In recent times, however, the strategy board, and the University of Ulster, which accepted the expansion, played a crucial role. Then came the need for a business case to be delivered. As Pat Ramsey said, we have all received a copy of the outline business case. We know that the Minister has also a received a copy and that the timeline is that he should have the full business case by October.

In August, when the Minister announced that the expansion of Magee was on the shelf, it came, as Pat said, as a bit of a shock to all of us because, until then, the commentary had always been positive. I refer to the previous debate. There is no doubt that, in the heat of argument or debate, it is easy to say, "If my Department's budget is being cut, this is what will go to the wall or on the shelf." I think that we have to avoid that. Certainly, there has to be honesty at all times, but it can be easy to say what will suffer, which leads to the most negative reaction. That is what you got from people in Derry, Minister. They said very clearly, "This is not what we want, and we will bring it to your door." They said that because all that we do should be based on evidence, and I think that the business case and the figures that I presented provide that evidence. I will not go into the figures for the economic impact of universities on cities as I accept that you are well acquainted with those —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Mr McCartney: However, we know that, historically, we have been left behind, so our job is to make sure that we catch up in the future.

Mr Eastwood: We often say that a week is a long time in politics, and, given the last week that we have had, it definitely is. In Derry, half a century is an eternity. It is coming up to 50 years ago that the Lockwood report, which was basically a sectarian document, announced Coleraine as the site for the new University of Ulster. This is not just about looking back, but it is important to put it in context: that decision left a very negative legacy in our city of, amongst other things, economic deprivation. The failure to address that in the subsequent 50 years has made it much more difficult for our city to see the peace dividend that other places may have seen. It is a well-worn phrase, but we do not wear being known as "the economic and unemployment black spot of the North" as a badge of honour. We really wish that it was not the case. However, it is, unfortunately, true that our city lags behind when it comes to the employment figures. We come here and argue for all sorts of different tools for economic expansion, but we all recognise that no matter how many roads we build, we need a proper university. We talk about the figure of 9,400. For us, that was a compromise, a starting point. Unless we get at least to that point, we have no chance of redressing some of the difficulties that we face.

Census figures relating to employment were revealed in July and were revised this month. They showed that there are 15,000 more jobs in the four Belfast constituencies than there were in 2009 just after the financial crash. However, the picture in Derry is very different: in the same period, we lost nearly 2,000 jobs. Derry is supposed to be alongside Belfast and, as part of the economic strategy, one of the major places that we look at for economic expansion.

Derry's employment figures are contracting, so, for us, the issue around Magee is not just, as Pat Ramsey said, that we want more Derry people to go to university. It is a fundamental economic issue that needs to be resolved, but it just never has been resolved. We need the proper number of students doing the proper kind of high-tech courses. There was welcome news today in the opening of the science park at Fort George. That is fantastic, but if we want to properly maximise and utilise that opportunity, we need to ensure that we have high-tech graduates going from the University of Ulster at Magee into that site so that we can build another building at Fort George, employ more people and ensure that we have more people in the city earning a decent wage and contributing to the economy for the whole of the North.

I sometimes feel for the Minister, although I did not feel for him when he made that announcement on the radio in August. It was an insensitive way to make a point. We all know the point he was making, but people in Derry saw through it because, as I pointed out earlier, this is a 50-year old debate and not one that has just arrived as a result of welfare reform. It was insensitive, and it was a mistake, and, to be fair to him, the Minister has recognised that, and he has again committed to the expansion of Magee.

My view is that it is a much bigger issue than just the Minister. It is an issue that needs to be at the heart of our Executive and trumpeted by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. It is shocking that there is nobody from the DUP on the opposite Benches this evening who cares enough to come into the Chamber to fight for the economic survival of our city. That, for me, is a very worrying development. As far as we are concerned, this needs to be handled at the very top. I am glad to see that the deputy First Minister said on the front of the 'Derry Journal' that he would spearhead the campaign. We are going to hold him and the Executive to that.

Ms McLaughlin and I will disagree about this, but there was no proper mention of the expansion of Magee in the Programme for Government. It said that they wanted to develop the One Plan, but, as far as I was concerned, we had already developed it. What we need to do is implement it, and we needed specifically to mention Magee and some of the other aspects of the plan in the Programme for Government. Some of them were mentioned. Ebrington and Fort George were mentioned, as were jobs targets, but there was no specific mention of the expansion of Magee and no budget given to the Minister to make it happen.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I ask the Member to bring his remarks to a close.

Mr Eastwood: In terms of a positive ending, we are rowing behind the commitment given by the deputy First Minister and the commitments given by the Minister for Employment and Learning. I hope that the First Minister shares in those commitments, because we need to ensure that we deliver this. I do not welcome the fact that we are back here a year later.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The Member's time is up.

Mr Eastwood: I do not want to be here next year.

Dr Farry (The Minister for Employment and Learning): I welcome this debate, as it provides an opportunity for me to set out my approach to the delivery of the expansion of our university sector and in particular the expansion of the University of Ulster at Magee in Derry. It also allows me to set out the pre-existing funding challenges facing our universities and the much deeper pressures that are now being experienced in light of the ongoing budgetary difficulties facing the Executive.

My central objective is to ensure that Northern Ireland continues to have a world-class and internationally recognised higher education sector and, indeed, that we can further build on this strong platform over the coming years.

Our universities are key partners in the economic transformation of Northern Ireland. Indeed, they are central to our inward investment narrative and efforts to create more jobs and business start-ups locally. They are also key providers of higher-level skills and research.

Over the past three years, I have put in place Northern Ireland's first higher education strategy, Graduating to Success, and the first widening participation strategy, Access to Success. In this time, I have also added just over 1,200 university places, all in STEM subjects. We are on course to double the number of publicly funded PhDs over the decade. We have also made fresh investments in university research.

It is particularly important to emphasise the relationship between universities and our economy. However, I remain concerned at pockets of graduate unemployment and underemployment, and I am keen to stress the importance of investment in employability skills and developing a greater relationship between the degree programmes offered and the requirements of the economy. My Department's increased focus on a new strategy for apprenticeships, including higher-level apprenticeships, with the opportunity to link up with higher education pathways, is particularly relevant in this context.

The decision to freeze tuition fees for local students at local universities was the right one. It is a recognition of the Executive's commitment to widening participation. However, we must at the same time recognise that it does curtail the universities' ability to generate additional income. With the efficiency savings asked across the public sector during the current Budget period, combined with this restriction on income generation, our universities have a major challenge to match the rate of growth of the leading universities across these islands.

To put this in perspective: the amount invested per university place in Northern Ireland is between £1,000 and £2,500 less than in English universities, depending on the funding band. To put this another way: the universities require an investment in the region of £25 million per year to remain competitive.

It is important that we retain a quality higher education system and, indeed, build further upon that. I do not want to see lower tuition fees being matched with an inferior form of higher education — that is not something in the interests of our young people or the economy, and I am sure that Members would share that concern.

It is important to set out this context before looking at the specific ambition to expand the University of Ulster campus at Magee.

I do understand the impact that the creation or expansion of a university campus can have on any location, including Derry and the wider north-west. I also understand the history around this issue and the frustrations over the past 50 years. The One Plan provides my Department with the strategic context and targets for the expansion of the Magee campus. However, it is important to be clear how it is framed within the Programme for Government. While there is a general commitment to the One Plan, only the regeneration of Fort George and Ebrington are specifically mentioned. Importantly, my Department is not measured or scrutinised in relation to the expansion of Magee in any respect.

When I assumed office in May 2011, there was no Executive budgetary commitment or resources within my departmental budget to facilitate the expansion of Magee. However, through two bids to the Executive — the first arising out of the tuition fee settlement and the second relating to the jobs and economy initiative — and from redirecting resources in my pre-existing budget, I have been able to expand higher education by around 1,600 places across Northern Ireland, with 1,200 being directed to our universities.

The University of Ulster has received more than its proportionate share of those places, receiving 652. In line with its stated commitment, the university has allocated those places to the Magee campus. So I do believe that solid and steady progress was being made towards the interim target of 1,000 additional places by 2015 as set out in the One Plan, before budgetary uncertainty and now cuts have forced a pause in our expansion plans.

I appreciate that the Derry/Londonderry strategy board is developing a business case in relation to the much greater proposed expansion of the Magee campus in line with the One Plan target through to 2020. The business case is required, given the location-specific nature of the proposal. We have received the needs-analysis aspect of the business case, with the remainder expected to arrive during the autumn.

However, we are receiving this business case at a time when the Executive are facing an unprecedented budgetary crisis. My departmental budget has already been cut in-year by 4·5%. The previously indicated level of cuts to be formally ratified in the October monitoring round may well be exceeded. Furthermore, we are staring into the abyss, with even greater levels of cuts facing us in future years unless there is a major reassessment of the approach being adopted on some critical financial and policy matters in the Executive.

I have had no alternative but to pass on 4% cuts in-year to our universities, with further uncertainty over forthcoming budgetary periods. My first responsibility is to work with the universities to manage the pressures as strategically as possible, with a particular focus on the direct needs of the local economy and the steps necessary to maintain international standards.

I am sympathetic to the potential further expansion of the Magee campus of the University of Ulster, but I cannot be expected to both cut public spending and increase it at the same time within the context of higher education; it simply does not add up. Indeed, it is worth stressing that the resourcing of the One Plan's student numbers would represent a significant challenge in terms of funding and would require an investment of over £30 million on a recurrent annual basis.

That said, my Department will scrutinise any business case received in order to be in a position to make a bid in the 2016-2020 Budget period. Any bid to the Executive for additional resources would only be viable once financial circumstances are different and the overall Northern Ireland Budget and the resourcing of my Department are placed on a sustainable footing. Any bid would have to represent additionality and not be at the expense of quality elsewhere within the higher education system. It must also be considered in conjunction with other investments required to consolidate the world-class standard of our universities and the wider development of skills in our economy in areas such as apprenticeships. Also, on the particular issue of capital investment relating to the proposed teaching block, my Department will seek to process that business case over the coming months and will consider making a bid in the 2015-16 Budget.

In conclusion, I stress that we will process the business case in order to be in a position to make bids if financial circumstances allow us to do so. However, it is important that Members are under no illusion about the extreme financial pressures that are facing my Department and the Executive.

The higher education system is under great pressure, and the pressure is set to increase. Until that situation is reversed, we will not have a credible environment for my Department to realistically seek to expand the Magee campus. So, while the door is open to the bid being made, it is important that people understand the wider context in which we are operating. If we can work collectively to address budget uncertainty to ensure that we have a fit-for-purpose higher education system that is properly resourced, those opportunities will become viable.

I have been very clear about my position. It is important that Members appreciate that we are in a situation where we face cuts in higher education. It is difficult to see how you can make cuts and make an argument to expand at the same time. We have to address and reverse those cuts, and then we can look to future opportunities.

I thank Members for the debate and the opportunity to respond. I have met a number of delegations from the city and will no doubt continue to do so. I have never turned down a request for a meeting in that regard. We look forward to receiving the remainder of the business case in the autumn and giving it scrutiny. As it is a very complex piece of work, it will take us some time to go through it, and no doubt there will be some different iterations of the business case required. However, that will provide us with a foundation to make a bid, subject to those financial circumstances changing. That will allow us to have a higher education system that we can embed within our community, ensure is of international standard and then seek to expand even further.