Official Report: Monday 29 September 2014

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. Before we proceed to today's business, I have some announcements to make. Members will know that two new Ministers took up office last week. Following Mr Poots's resignation, the Rt Hon Peter Robinson nominated Mr Jim Wells to hold the office of Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Mr Wells affirmed the terms of the Pledge of Office in the presence of myself and the Clerk to the Assembly on 23 September. I, therefore, confirm that Mr Wells has taken up office as Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Following Mr McCausland's resignation, the Rt Hon Peter Robinson nominated Mr Mervyn Storey to hold the office of Minister for Social Development. Mr Storey also affirmed the terms of the Pledge of Office in the presence of myself and the Clerk to the Assembly on 23 September. I, therefore, confirm that Mr Storey has taken up office as Minister for Social Development.

In relation to Committees, I have received the following resignations: Mr Mervyn Storey as Chairperson of the Committee for Education; Miss Michelle McIlveen as Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure; Mr Paul Frew as Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development; Mr Jimmy Spratt as Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development; Mr Jim Wells as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety; and Mr William Irwin as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure. The nominating officer has informed me that these vacancies will be filled as follows: Miss Michelle McIlveen has been nominated as Chairperson of the Committee for Education; Mr Nelson McCausland has been nominated as Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure; Mr William Irwin has been nominated as Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development; Mr Trevor Clarke has been nominated as Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development; Ms Paula Bradley has been nominated as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety; and Mr Gordon Dunne has been nominated as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure. The listed Members have accepted the nominations. I am satisfied that the requirements of Standing Orders have been met and, therefore, confirm that the appointments took effect from 23 September 2014.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: As with similar motions, this will be treated as a business motion and there will be no debate.

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 to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes.

Mr Flanagan: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I beg to move

I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring this issue for debate before the Assembly today. I am aware that the Minister has what he terms "huge frustration" at what people are saying publicly about the hardship fund. He may well be frustrated at the response to his decision to reform how financial assistance is provided to students undertaking accredited courses at further education colleges. However, I believe that this debate will allow a sensible and rational discussion to take place and will afford the Minister the opportunity to outline the rationale for what has taken place. I hope that he notes the more conciliatory wording of the motion that is before us today as opposed to that in the initial one, and I hope that all Members can support the motion as presented.

In terms of background, there are two main sources of support for students who are undertaking an accredited course in one of the further education colleges. Both of those are means-tested, and we have been told that both are demand-led. On the face of it, changing how further education awards are distributed and, in particular, the changing of the closing date has allowed many more people to avail themselves of those funds and has apparently led to a knock-on reduction in the demand for the other source of funding, the hardship fund. In overall terms, we support that change. We think that it makes sense to get more people on to the bursary schemes at an earlier stage as opposed to trying to get them when they are in the deepest financial difficulty at the worst time of the year. However, the knock-on impact on further education students in financial hardship is, as yet, unknown. We are concerned that, given the growing rate of financial hardship amongst our student population, some people who are in desperate need of support may not able to access help if the budget allocated for hardship funds is not sufficient. There remains a degree of uncertainty as to how the funding allocation is calculated, and perhaps during his response to the debate or at some later stage, the Minister can provide us with the logic or, indeed, the algorithm that is used to allocate each college's funding allocation.

We have been told that the key revisions in the hardship fund from 1 August are that college allocations are now based on the Civil Service's targeting social need student numbers from the 2012-13 academic year as well as historical data that is based on previous expenditure and the new criteria for the operation of the hardship fund. The hardship fund is intended to provide support to learners who are experiencing exceptional financial difficulty in meeting costs associated with learning. The Department for Employment and Learning states that priority should be given to learners who are economically or socially disadvantaged, which is a concept that I, of course, fully support. The motion talks about the need for the Minister to ensure that funding for student support is prioritised for those in greatest need, and I believe that the Department's statement on giving priority to those who are economically or socially disadvantaged certainly resonates with those sentiments. The fund is also provided to increase access, retention and the achievement of students in our further education colleges.

NUS-USI has taken umbrage at the Minister's policy decision — I suppose that is the phrase to use. It has stated that it is "deeply concerned" at the direct cut in hardship funds over the period 2009-2010 to 2014-15 and believes that hardship funding should be increased to take account of the rising living costs and financial difficulties that students face. It has stated that it is fully aware that the FE awards fund has increased over the same period, but that it does not believe that that provides justification for reducing the hardship fund.

To support its argument, NUS-USI has used the findings of its recent research report, 'Pound in Your Pocket', which found that 52% of FE students over the age of 19 disagreed with the statement:

Furthermore, 59% of those surveyed reported feeling overwhelmed by their finances and more than half, 52%, said that they had seriously considered leaving their courses and that financial difficulties had been a factor. That evidence cannot be ignored. It is clear that greater support needs to be provided to our FE population.

NUS-USI has also argued —

Mr Lyttle: I thank the Member for giving way. I do not want to interrupt the flow of his argument, and I recognise the constructive contribution of the work of NUS-USI. Would he agree that no applications have been rejected due to a lack of available funding?

Mr Flanagan: I certainly agree that we have been told that and, because we have been told that, I have no reason to disbelieve it. However, as I will come to in my free-flowing and lovely speech, I have some concerns about how the fund is promoted and marketed. I will come to that point in a minute. If you want to come back in at that stage to discuss that matter, I will happily let you.

NUS-USI has also argued that the eligibility criteria for allocating funds should be less restrictive to ensure that more people in significant financial difficulty can avail themselves of funding. However, my view is that those who are on a course that is part of their educational progression should be prioritised.

It has been said — it will be repeated today — that the hardship fund is demand-led. However, NUS-USI contends that demand and allocation should reflect the financial difficulties that students face in these times of rising living costs. They argue that the allocation to the fund does not reflect reality.

Moving on to Chris's point, one of the greatest problems has been the exclusion of student representatives from the discussions. I agree with NUS-USI that there needs to be much greater consultation on DEL's financial allocation to the student support funds to ensure that they reflect the very difficult financial circumstances that students face. I think that it is useful that the Minister recently met representatives from NUS-USI. One of my colleagues had been due to ask the Minister for an update on that meeting during Question Time today, but it is my understanding that that question has been withdrawn. Perhaps the Minister will reflect on his recent meeting with NUS-USI in his contribution at the end of the debate.

Another problem that has been identified as a result of the controversy is how the hardship fund is promoted and marketed. It is my belief that serious improvements need to be made to the way in which the funds are promoted and publicised. Given that it is apparently a demand-led scheme, the quality and extent of promotion will have a major bearing on the level of demand. To improve the take-up of the schemes, the Department for Employment and Learning needs to work proactively with the students' union organisations, colleges and universities to make students aware of the availability of the support and how it can be accessed. The cynic in me would say that colleges may well reduce the promotion and publication of the schemes as their allocated funding runs dry. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that the promotion of the schemes is consistent across opening times and will not simply be done when colleges are flush with cash.

It is concerning that the Department seems to dismiss the extent of the financial difficulties that students face. I do not think that any of us in here should do that. I am aware of the challenges that students face with soaring living costs and the continuing growth in poverty and deprivation among the student population, as highlighted in the recent NUS-USI report. We also see evidence that a food bank has been set up in one of our regional colleges; while payday loans, with their extortionate interest rates, are causing serious problems for our student population.

It is imperative, therefore, that appropriate support is put in place to protect students from falling into financial difficulty and having to rely on such sources of finance at extortionate interest rates or face dropping out of college. None of us wants that to happen; we can all agree on that. I ask each of you to support the motion and send a message out to students that their needs are a priority for all of us in the House.

Mr Swann: I thank Mr Flanagan for moving the motion.

I want to repeat the statistics from the NUS-USI 'Pound in Your Pocket' survey, which are that 52% of FE students felt unable to concentrate on their studies without worrying about finances and that 59% of students in further education had seriously considered leaving their course because of financial difficulties. A key statistic in the Programme for Government is on student retention, so the Department should do anything and everything it can to support students who have already taken up a course to see it through to completion. One reason for the student hardship fund was to give students a facility to support and help them through their study period.

One of the things that Mr Flanagan raised was the rationale that the Minister has given for moving the money from the hardship fund to the front-loaded support mechanism, which was that it related to student take-up. The funding calculation was based on targeting social need, and the Department has a calculation for doing that. However, when I was researching for the debate, one of the most worrying statistics that I came across was the fact that, from the academic year 2010-11 to 2012-13, the number of students at FE colleges from the 40% most deprived areas in Northern Ireland has dropped by 3,000 from 47,000 students to just over 44,000. If students from the most deprived areas are not taking the opportunity to enter our FE colleges because of the lack of financial support — I am not even talking about higher education and going on to university in trying to help the most vulnerable —

Mr Wilson: I thank the Member for giving way. He makes an important point: lots of factors could influence the figure that he has just given. Does he not accept, however, that many of the welfare reform changes that have been proposed and have been rejected by the Assembly could help to address that problem, because it could make it worthwhile and, indeed, maybe compulsory for people who do not have qualifications to seek qualifications as a way to get state support?

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

Mr Swann: Thank you very much, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker.

I do not want to bring welfare reform into the student hardship debate. I know where the Member is trying to go, which is to draw out the Minister on welfare reform and the hardship fund. It is also to do with the Members who tabled the motion and how they accept welfare reform with regard to student support. I do not think, however, that it is politically beneficial to make people go to further education establishments to gain qualifications when there are no jobs for them in the workplace. There have to be support mechanisms. The rationale behind the debate is to make sure that the support mechanisms are in place for those students.

Mr Lyttle challenged Mr Flanagan about the fact that nobody had been rejected by the student hardship fund due to a lack of money. It needs to be pointed out, however, that, for the last three academic years, 7,585 students applied to the hardship fund, and 1,349 were rejected. There seems to be an inconsistency across the higher education establishments about the proportion of applications to successful applicants. That, coming from the most —

Mr Lyttle: I thank the Member for giving way. If the issue that he raises centres around eligibility and awareness, does he agree that framing the issue in the drastic terms that he did — spiralling, uncontrollable student poverty traps as a result of cuts — is not, perhaps, the way that the debate needed to be framed?

Mr Swann: I thank the Member for his intervention. That was not the way I was taking the debate. I was trying to make a point about the students who are counting on applying to the fund. Of the 7,585 who have applied, 1,349 have been rejected. The point is that each college is allowed to set, administer and judge its own criteria, so we have to make sure that there is consistency across all the colleges and that the criteria are applied fairly. I go back to another part of the motion, which is that we must make sure that students are aware of what the criteria are, how they are applied and what steps to take to apply for funds. There are drastic differences in the number of students applying across the colleges.

In conclusion, I refer to the presentation that the Minister gave to the Committee on the Department's expenditure limit out-turn. He talked about a reduction based on the analysis of spending patterns in student support provision across several demand-led programmes, and we are talking about demand-led programmes. The Minister estimated that, if reform is not implemented, there will be a reduction of £3·5 million, so the Member who intervened previously made a valuable point.

If there is a change as a result of previous changes to the eligibility criteria for means-tested grants and education maintenance allowance, we have to make sure that it is conveyed to students so that more do not lose out on this benefit.

Mr Buchanan: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the very important issue of students and, in particular, student funding. It is interesting that Sinn Féin has changed the entirety of its motion. There was no real sense to the first version, given the moves that the Minister had already made. It is interesting to see that, while the issue of what the Minister was doing was being bandied about in the papers, instead of decreasing the funding, he actually increased it for financial hardship and further education awards. Nevertheless, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion, which can be divided into three distinct parts. First, there is funding for students, which is:

Then we have the issue that "funding for student support" should be:

Finally, there is a call for more collaboration between the Department and:

and so forth, to make it available for students.

First, we need to tackle the issue that funding should be available to students in times of financial difficulty. Life can be very unpredictable, and students who embark on a journey of study for a specific time, in whatever further or higher institution, do so without knowing how their circumstances might change or what incidents might arise during the period of their studies. Difficult situations outside the classroom can have a direct impact on the level of study and the concentration of our students. It is imperative that we have the mechanisms in place to ensure that outside circumstances, particularly financial problems, have the minimum impact on students' studies. We do not want to be in a position where students cannot make the most of their time in college or university because they are impeded by circumstances outside their control that plunge them into financial hardship or dire circumstances where they are forced to withdraw from studying. This, of course, is where the financial hardship fund comes into play.

At this point, we turn our attention to the second part of the motion, which:

I argue that, at present, the hardship fund gives priority to students who, for whatever reasons, are economically or socially disadvantaged. Already, only those in greatest need are eligible for the hardship fund, which is like a safety net for students who unexpectedly find themselves in financial difficulties. The hardship fund was never intended to be a long-term solution or permanent fix; it was only ever intended to provide a short-term solution for students who experience unexpected financial crises that may otherwise deter them from finishing their course. Despite headlines to the contrary, the Minister for Employment and Learning has increased the funding available to students by £800,000.

Of course, the bigger, longer-term picture needs to be tackled. It is time that the Department led the way in challenging the short-term, band-aid, quick-fix thinking and instead focused students on longer-term solutions of good financial management. It is imperative that students who are experiencing financial independence and budgeting for the first time learn to manage their money as a life skill to take them through adulthood. Financial responsibility is one of the key factors that is essential for the future, yet it is one of the least talked about areas of responsibility.

Reliance on funding such as the hardship fund is a result of a wider societal issue of reliance on credit. The short-term fix of dipping into credit rather than earning money resulted in the financial collapse. It is wrong to rely on a hardship fund as a principal means of funding a course. Students must be taught to prepare for their course in advance. While in their final years at school, students need to prepare for the next stage in their studies, and that means not only a step-up in the level of study but a significant increase in financial expenditure and a reliance on self-funding. It is not good for students to come to university expecting to be able to get money —

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

Mr Buchanan: — from the hardship fund and to have the mistaken belief that that will help them through their course.

It is imperative that the Department work with all the other bodies to ensure that details of whatever funding is available are made clear to the students in an open and transparent manner so that they fully understand what is available to them and when they can access it.

Mr P Ramsey: I support the motion. The SDLP recognises that the student hardship fund represents a crucial option for financially stretched students who have exhausted all other avenues of assistance and who clearly struggle from time to time when coping with the burden of academic study and financial strain. It is also key that the debate acknowledge the importance of third-level education, either in higher or further education. Members of the Employment and Learning Committee believe that, to ensure that one of the key elements of the Programme for Government — widening participation — is realised, it is crucial that funds are in place that will help those on the borderline and those who are dependent on families to subsidise their stay at university.

I recognise that the student hardship fund exists as a vital support structure for those who have become economically disadvantaged in the noble pursuit of education and knowledge. The recent report from the NUS-USI suggested that 52% of those in further education — it is important that the Minister hears the survey results — considered themselves overwhelmed by finance to such an extent that they have considered abandoning their course. It is important that the Department examine a survey of that nature. The Department for Employment and Learning has done good work in looking at increasing participation, the young people not in education, employment or training (NEET) agenda and youth unemployment, but it must address the issue that over 50% of young people in colleges across Northern Ireland feel in financial hardship and may abandon their course.

Mr Ross: I thank the Member for giving way. I acknowledge the point that he makes about 50% of students considering leaving their course, but the real statistic that we need to know is how many of those actually left their course. I imagine that a lot of young people — in fact, most people in today's society — will worry about financial hardship. Surely we need to know how many of them actually left their course because of financial hardship rather than how many considered it.

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

Mr P Ramsey: Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker.

I accept the point that the Member makes. Maybe the Department can give us those figures, because it is a subject that the Committee has been discussing in a number of meetings recently, given the media relevance. The Member will know that as a member of the Committee.

The proposer of the motion mentioned that the North West Regional College, in my constituency, had set up a food bank. Nobody comes up with such ideas unless there is a need there. Teachers in the college in the north-west area clearly thought that there was a need for food banks. They would not have set them up otherwise. It is as simple as that.

For many students, the journey in further education can be perilous. Many find themselves on a new level of social and financial independence that was, possibly, not there before. They had depended on their families, parents and other guardians to take them through. Undoubtedly, on the journey through student life, many never plan for rainy days. They fall short of money and struggle to cover rents. In this recession, it is clear that the cost of rental accommodation across Northern Ireland, particularly for students, has also increased significantly. Again, research reveals that 70% of our students rely on parental support to proceed with their education. All of us who have had a daughter or son go through third level education know it to be a fact of life that, at the end of the day, we are the subsidy when they need money for a range of matters related to their full-time studies.

The hardship fund does not cover merely the cost of living. It provides funds for transport, for childcare, but, ultimately, for learning. It is further recognised that financial strain does not always occur due to poor budget planning. The student hardship fund protects our economically disadvantaged students from things that they can have no control over. The students of today live and learn in the shadow of one of the greatest recessions in living memory. The cost of living continues to rise, threatening prepared and unprepared students alike. In many cases, they are adversely affected later. As I have said, accommodation costs have risen. Maintenance grants continue to fall.

Several years ago, the Assembly and Executive made the important decision to protect our students from a rise in tuition fees that was demanded by the Tory Government in Britain. Today, students still face the threat of rising tuition fees, only now they may find that the safety net of the student hardship fund, which so many depend on, has been weakened. I am keen to hear from the Minister. We have been told that the money available in the student hardship fund has decreased by £1·3 million over the past five years. Although I accept the point that the Minister made to the Committee that nobody has been refused money, how, over the past five years, have we found there to be £1·3 million less in the system? That is at a time when needs, one would imagine, were increasing. The proposer of the motion made a good point when he asked this: is there enough education and awareness getting through to our community's most vulnerable students who are struggling? I take Alastair Ross's point that they may have given up because they could not cope any more. It would be good to get those figures, going forward.

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

Mr P Ramsey: It is important to ask the Minister for Employment and Learning to continue to ensure that student support programmes are kept in place and remain high on his agenda.

Mr Lyttle: On behalf of the Alliance Party, I support the motion. As a passionate supporter of fair access to education for everyone, I am happy to support the principles that students in financial hardship should be provided for and prioritised to ensure that they get the help that they need and deserve, and, of course, that we work to ensure that students are made aware of the help that is available to them. I am glad, therefore, that we have, under devolution, an Alliance Party Minister for students who has been in place to make sure that we deliver for students. That is against a backdrop of UK Ministers, and, indeed, a previous Ulster Unionist Party Minister, who had planned to increase tuition fees in Northern Ireland. However, we had an Alliance Party Minister who was able to work with Executive colleagues to ensure a freeze in tuition fees and who supported —

Mr Wilson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Lyttle: I will give way, yes.

Mr Wilson: When he is going through the litany of the records of previous Ministers, maybe he will also bear in mind the speech that was made by the SDLP Member who talked about the Tory cuts in further education. Perhaps, he will also remind the House that the SDLP, in its Budget proposals at the beginning of this four-year period, recommended a reduction of, I think, £20 million in the budget for further education (FE).

Mr Lyttle: I thank the Member for his intervention. He indeed set out important points that sometimes get lost when we are campaigning on these types of issues. It is important that we are accurate and that students get the information that they deserve about where people stand on these issues. I am also glad to say that the Minister has been able to bring forward other positive developments for students, such as increased student places, particularly in economically relevant subjects, such as STEM subjects, the retention of the education maintenance allowance, and an increase in PhD places.

Perhaps most importantly, from the point of view of the Alliance Party, I welcome the work that the Minister is doing to ensure parity of esteem for vocational training and further education here in Northern Ireland. He is a Minister for further education students. Therefore, I am glad that we have seen a net increase of £0·8 million in assistance for further education awards and college hardship funds to a total of £8 million and that further education student support funds have increased by around £2 million over the 2009-2014 period.

There is also additional support available to our students, including childcare support through the Care to Learn scheme, and the additional support fund supports students with learning difficulties and disabilities. If work needs to be done to raise awareness around that particular support, I and my party are certainly up for engaging in that work to ensure that that occurs.

We have heard that these are demand-led funds and that they are planned on the basis of anticipated levels of demand. However, where demand exceeds the level of funding, it is my understanding that mechanisms are in place to allow in-year additional funding to be provided. Perhaps that is something that the Minister can address.

It has been somewhat unhelpful that the original debate around this issue was framed in extreme ways at times. Unfortunately, we had the Chairperson of the Employment and Learning Committee using phrases such as students slipping uncontrollably into poverty traps as a result of cuts. Today's debate has been useful to set forward the facts in relation to reform around student hardship funding and the type of funding that is available to students across our community.

I recognise and support the work done by the National Union of Students - Union of Students in Ireland (NUS-USI) to highlight the financial difficulties that many of our students are facing. I welcome the fact that the Minister has met the NUS-USI delegation. Indeed, I would be more than glad to do that as well to find out what more can be done to raise awareness and address any types of eligibility issues that might exist in relation to the funding.

In closing, the Alliance Party is very much a party for students. We are for fair access to further and higher education for everyone. It is vital that the financial assistance is in place to support students in greatest financial need. We will certainly work to ensure that that continues to be the case.

Mr Ross: The motion is a fairly innocuous one. I doubt that anybody could disagree with its sentiment. It goes without saying that funding for student support should be prioritised for those in greatest need. There is a greater story behind the changing of the wording of the motion that was originally submitted by Sinn Féin. Mr Flanagan was in a rush to leave the Chamber after giving his initial speech. If he had not been in such a big rush to make a political point by putting a motion down before he actually learnt of the facts of the issue, perhaps Sinn Féin would not be in as an embarrassing situation as it is in today. Had he investigated by asking the Department or the Minister about the true facts of the issue, he would have learnt that, rather than a £1·3 million cut, the Minister and his Department have, as the Deputy Chair said, increased funding for student hardship by about £0·8 million to £8 million over the last five years through the FE awards and the hardship funds. That is an important point to make. Perhaps it is a lesson to be learnt by Sinn Féin and other Members that they should probably try to identify an issue and ask questions before they run to the Chamber and put a motion down to try to make a political point.

As was outlined by Mr Lyttle and others, not a single application to the hardship fund has been rejected because of a lack of funds. That in itself tells a huge story. Whilst I acknowledge that some of the research conducted by NUS found that many students are worried about financial hardship, I would be surprised if they were not. I think that all of us are worried about financial hardship. That does not mean that they are going to drop out of the course immediately or that they would be prevented from doing it. A lot more work needs to go into identifying just how real those figures are.

I wish to make two points about the motion. First, we need to ensure that any public money given out for hardship funds is well targeted. If we learnt anything from the debate that we had on the education maintenance allowance (EMA), it is that we cannot afford to have a broad fund that is available to a broad range of students. When we investigated the EMA, we found that much of it is "dead money". So, much of that public money that was being given out to young people was not being used for educational purposes: it was not being used to keep them in education or to get them to their educational sites. Much of that money was being used on social activities and things like that. Whilst a good social life is undoubtedly important as a student, it should not be funded by the taxpayer. It is important that we ensure that any public money being given out is scrutinised and well targeted. That point has to be made.

The Chair of the Committee was reluctant to get down to the issue of welfare reform, but the reality is that we cannot debate any motion in this House in isolation to the discussion on welfare reform. The failure of some parties to agree to welfare reform, even when a DUP Minister has secured the concessions he has and made us the envy of other regions across the United Kingdom, will have an impact on the budgets of every Department in this Assembly. That means that every motion that we talk about that requires any level of funding will be impacted on by Sinn Féin and the SDLP's refusal to agree to welfare reform.

Sinn Féin should not be allowed to get away from the hypocrisy of running straight to the Chamber and complaining about cuts when it, because of its actions, is contributing to cuts against those people in society whom it claims to represent. Sinn Féin claims that it wants to protect young people in hardship from financial pressures, but its actions are contributing to the financial pressures that those young people will face. Whether Sinn Féin likes it or not, refusing to have welfare reform implemented means that we will be fined by Treasury and will have to pay for a new computer system. That is money that would not need to be spent if Sinn Féin just agreed to the changes.

Anybody who listened to the Minister, when he came to the Employment and Leaning Committee, would have heard the very stark warning about budget cuts that are coming down the line. I asked the Minister about projected cuts for next year, and he talked about double-digit figures of cuts in his Department. That will have an impact on his ability to pay hardship funds, to train young people, to get young people apprenticeships —

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

Mr Ross: — and to get young people off welfare and into work.

It is important that we note that Sinn Féin's actions and its hypocrisy today are hurting young people rather than helping them.

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

Ms McGahan: Go raibh maith agat. I support the motion. This is an issue that affects every student. Student finance is an important lever in supporting and encouraging students to remain in college and continue with their studies. There is a range of financial help to assist students with FE and higher education (HE) fees. However, that is not always sufficient.

Just last week, I was dealing with a constituent who had her loan and bursary awards reduced. She is a final-year student, and I am engaging with the Southern Education and Library Board (SELB) and the university on the matter. My constituent was not eligible for hardship funding, and I can only assume that she did not meet the criteria. Nevertheless, that situation could have an adverse impact on her continuing with her studies.

In another slightly different case, a student who is studying for a social work degree in Manchester has been told that she does not qualify for a bursary from England because she has not been resident there for three years or more. She has been told that she does not qualify for a bursary from the North because she is studying in England. The social work degree is costing a substantial amount of money, and she needs that funding to be able to continue studying. Again, I can only assume that that girl was not able to obtain a place in the North. I have been told that when the University of Manchester and student finance in the North were contacted, they said that the North had stopped paying for students who study outside the Six Counties. Perhaps the Minister can provide some clarification on that matter.

I read through the report from NUS-USI, 'Pound in Your Pocket', which explores the financial well-being of further and higher education students in the North.

The report had a number of key findings, and some have been touched on: 35% of students have seriously considered leaving their course due to financial difficulties; over 58% have worries about not having enough money to meet basic living standards, such as paying utility bills and rent; and 45% of students surveyed struggled to concentrate on their studies, never mind worrying about finances. It was also found that mature students, students with dependants, students with disabilities or those from peace-line areas are the worst off in financial well-being and overall finances. It was also stated that information about the availability of financial support is not clear to all students. The report also outlined that there still appears to be a lack of information on how to apply for hardship funding. So, it is important to put a focus on this issue and evaluate where all of this is at.

Another briefing paper by NUS-USI flagged up that those who have a degree and want to study a course may not be eligible for an award. I think particularly of highly skilled individuals who cannot get a job and may need to reskill.

During the Committee for Employment and Learning inquiry into careers, evidence outlined the mismatch between those leaving school choosing certain careers and the number of jobs available in those careers. It was outlined how young people need to develop the skills that are relevant to the job opportunities. Young people pursue education journeys where they do not find work relevant to their qualifications once they leave school. So, if a young person decides to go back to school to reskill or upskill, it is important that they are encouraged to do so by having that financial help available.

I am aware that the Minister is doing a review of higher education funding, which will include a review to encourage more participation of part-time students and a review of the current support offering. I support that, given that in the North we have a high number of low-skilled individuals. That has a negative impact on the strength of the labour market and the wider economy. In the North, we have the highest levels of economic inactivity.

There are many benefits to increasing skills levels, which would have a positive impact on social inclusion and economic performance. We need to remove any restrictions on individuals participating in higher education or on those who want to reskill or upskill, especially in terms of student finance.

Mr Douglas: I support the revised motion. I am from a background of lifelong learning and further education. If this debate does anything, it emphasises the importance of that. Students who are in hardship and need extra financial support do get that help and support from universities and colleges across Northern Ireland. We have a very good scheme here, and none of us wants to lose that.

It is interesting that, just earlier this month, the Welsh Assembly decided to cut their fund for student hardship, but, as a result of a lot of lobbying and negotiations, they have parked that for the next year. For me, that shows that devolution in Northern Ireland is working. As it states in our Programme for Government, this is about local people setting priorities for the future of Northern Ireland. For me, it is about growing the economy.

I want to say three things. The first is that it is so important for us to continue with this fund. I was delighted that, when the Minister was asked this question at a meeting of the Committee for Employment and Learning, he said that he supported it and that, in fact, more money had been allocated to support students right across Northern Ireland. I want him to reiterate this afternoon that there is that support of a safety net for people who, as my colleague Tom Buchanan said, come to a point at times in their life when they need help and those resources. So, for me, it is vital that we have that sort of network.

My second point is that the students who get that support will go into the world of work. Certainly, in terms of higher education, this is linked to the jobs that are available in Northern Ireland. I suppose that all of us recognise the number of jobs that have been created over the past number of months. We have heard the First Minister and the deputy First Minister say that we have created more jobs than at any time in our history, second only to London in the wider United Kingdom. So, for me, there is a real link between the Programme for Government, creating jobs, and encouraging and supporting students to get to that higher level where they can access these jobs.

The third thing that I want to say is that, in our constituencies, we have all come across people who do want to go to university. In my own constituency, there are areas of disadvantage — some of the worst in Northern Ireland. I was speaking to two young women recently, and I encouraged them to embark on lifelong learning and then to embark on a university career because they are as bright as anybody who I know who goes to university. However, at this time in their lives, they have not had a chance. We need to ensure that the likes of one of those young women, who has three children, gets the help and support if needed, particularly with the likes of childcare, as an example. The second of those young women is 21 and is as bright as anything but just has not had the life chances. We need to support those people in our constituencies. As I said earlier, we need to grow the economy. It is not just about growing the economy for people who get the opportunity to get funded to go to university but is particularly about getting the help and support that is required for those disadvantaged areas.

The NUS says that where things are at the moment does not reflect the reality. I think that the Member who proposed the motion talked about consultation. Of course we want to encourage a wider and broader consultation, and, again, I am sure that the Minister will welcome that. I want to finish by saying that I support the motion, and I am waiting on the Minister to confirm what he spoke to us about at our Employment and Learning Committee.

Mr Wilson: Despite what my colleagues have said, I find it difficult to support this motion because of the point that the Members across the way are trying to make. Namely, they are trying to create an issue that does not exist. They are trying to point the finger of blame where no blame lies, and, of course, it is totally inconsistent with the approach that they have taken on other issues.

In the last three weeks, we have had three different stances on what the priorities for expenditure should be for this Assembly from Sinn Féin. Two weeks ago, health should be the priority. Last week, the priority should be the people who are poor. This week, now the priority should be people who are disadvantaged and in further education. Meanwhile, Sinn Féin is doing its darnedest to make sure that we do not even have the money to finance the existing priorities that we have in this Assembly. It is one of the reasons why I find this motion difficult to support. On this side, we get a bunch of opportunists who jump on every bandwagon that comes along on a weekly basis, yet there is no substance behind anything that they produce.

The first thing that I have to ask is whether there is actually a problem. The problem that the proposer of the motion presented is that people are in financial hardship. Lots of people are in financial hardship in the current situation of lack of jobs and wages being kept down at a very low level because of the recession, but does this actually stop people studying? We have heard quoted the NUS-USI survey, but, of course, it depends what question you ask somebody. If you ask somebody the question, "Do you feel able to concentrate on your studies without worrying about your finances?", I guarantee that you can be fairly sure about the kind of answer that you will get. In fact, I am surprised that only 52% of the students answered yes to that or, indeed, when you ask people whether they are seriously considering leaving education because of the financial pressures.

When I listen to the economic incoherence from the other side of the Chamber, some mornings I seriously consider bringing in a big copy of Lipsey's 'Positive Economics' or Samuelson's 'Economics' — both of them, as the Member from the Green Party will know, weighty tomes — and beating the Member across the side of the head. I might consider doing it, but I do not do it.

The real questions should be whether people leave further education and why they do so. I am sure that the Minister will be able to give us the figures, but, despite all the economic hardship that we are told exists at present, retention rates are actually going up, not down. When we are looking to see what the issue is that we are facing, we have to bear that in mind.

The second thing is what is being done already. The Executive are committed to promoting further education; it is part of our strategy for restructuring the economy. Indeed, I know that the Minister will probably complain about it, but one of the budgets that got a degree of protection when we set out the four-year Budget was his own, because, along with DETI, his was regarded as an important Department. As a result, he has been able to put additional money into the student fund, not less money. It is demand-led, as has been pointed out, and on occasions in monitoring rounds he would have had to ask for more money if the demand went up.

The third thing that I want to say is about what is to be done. If it is to be made a priority, what do we make a lesser priority? I am sick and tired of this, and it is a sign of the immaturity of this Assembly that we come to the Chamber week after week, and we all know what we want to spend more money on, but we do not know where we are going to take those resources from. Since it does not fall out of the sky or grow on trees, there are hard choices to be made, instead of having a motion that whinges, which we are getting so used to in the Assembly. Even the SDLP talked about the Tory cuts and how we have to resist them. The SDLP actually proposed a cut in the Budget. If we had acted on the SDLP's proposals, there would be less money available.

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

Mr Wilson: I will give way.

Mr P Ramsey: I would like to know where the Member is referencing the cut in further education in the SDLP document. In the economic recovery document that we produced we made it clear that we wanted an extra £10 million, including for the NEET strategy. Where is he referencing that material from?

Mr Wilson: When we had the Budget debate and I quoted liberally from the Budget document that the SDLP had produced, most of them were not even aware that they were going to sell an airport that they did not own and that they were going to sell the Speaker's house. They were going to sell off half the countryside. Talk about Maggie Thatcher's privatisation programme: the SDLP seemed to be blissfully unaware of its own privatisation programme. Maybe he should check his own party document. I am sure that he has access to it, unless it is kept secret from them.

In conclusion, of course we want to see people in further education. We want to see people encouraged to take on training and other things like that —

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

Mr Wilson: — but let us bear in mind that there is always a cost when it comes to the support for it.

Mr Agnew: I think it has been clear — I certainly have not heard anyone disagree — that there has been an increase in hardship. As the Member who previously spoke pointed out, that is something that we are seeing across society, not just among students, but with fewer part-time jobs available, or at least with greater competition for those jobs, students are less able to get that extra finance that many of us had access to during our student days through part-time employment. We are all well aware of increased living, energy, food and travel costs. Parental incomes, of course, are hit by wage freezes and increased unemployment. The use of payday loans is something that we have talked about in the Assembly. We obviously do not want to leave people in the position of requiring them. Indeed, the NUS-USI has stated that it has had to set up food banks to help some students.

I think that it is clear that there has been an increase in hardship, yet we hear that there has been a decrease in demand for hardship payments. The question that we have to ask is why. The Minister may well be able to give good reasons for that, but the need to better promote those funds has been highlighted and may need to be looked at. The core thing that we need to know is why demand has gone down, given that need appears to have gone up. If that is due to a lack of awareness, maybe we have taken this decision hastily in the sense that, if we do not have all the evidence for the reasons, maybe the preceding action was misguided.

We have been told — this was pointed out most noticeably by Mr Lyttle, the Minister's colleague — that net funding for student support has gone up overall, which has to be welcomed. The increase in further education awards has been cited as one of the things that has compensated for the cut to the hardship fund. Again, if that is the case, what are the roles of those two funds? Are they complementary? Do they overlap? If it is the case that the student hardship fund is not successful in achieving what it seeks to achieve, does that need to be looked at? We need to find out what the solutions are. However, I certainly do not have the information to point to the correct solution as to where support needs to be tailored.

One thing that concerns me is the fact that some of the arguments made by the Minister and his party colleagues have been lost on the NUS-USI. I hear that the Minister is to meet or has met the NUS-USI. I wonder what consultation was done with it in advance of this decision. Obviously, as a student representative body, it will be the point of contact for many students in accessing those funds. Surely it is beholden on the Minister to have good communication with that group and to ensure that, if this is the right way forward, sufficient conversation took place with the NUS-USI and other student representatives to ensure that we did not have the reaction that we have seen. Rightly or wrongly, there was a backlash against the Minister's decision. Perhaps that is a lesson, in that better consultation and discussion with student representative groups could avoid such a backlash in the future.

The point was made that it is demand-led and that perhaps greater money can be accessed in monitoring rounds, should it be needed. I am concerned about that approach, because, as we know, monitoring rounds have become ever-contentious, and greater demands are being placed on them. I am certainly not reassured by that approach. If there is a fear that we need extra money, that money needs to be there up front rather than seeking to get it through monitoring rounds.

I think that the Minister has been committed to further education. I will not make petty party political points —

Mr Wilson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Agnew: Certainly.

Mr Wilson: Does the Member accept that, when budgets are tight, to commit money to spending, especially if it is demand-led, and to have it sitting there is probably the worst use of resources? If something is demand-led, you put down a certain amount of money for it, and, if it needs to be topped up, the best way to do that is through monitoring rounds.

Mr Agnew: There is a need for good accountancy. Certainly, relying on monitoring rounds is a worry when, as I say, I am not sure that this would be a priority, particularly given the hole in the health budget.

I go back to welcoming the Minister's commitment to further education, for which I give him credit. I do, however, find it hard to stomach the fact that his colleague said that he was the Minister who refused to increase student fees, when, as the Minister knows, we sat on many panels before the election during which he told me that I was unrealistic if I said that we could not raise student fees. So, it is clear that the credit there lies more with the overall Executive than with the Minister.

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

Mr Agnew: I support the motion. I welcome the Minister's commitment to further education. Whatever we do, we need to ensure that students facing financial hardship can access support, whatever the mechanism, when they need it.

Dr Farry (The Minister for Employment and Learning): I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion and to correct what has become either a major misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of what student support my Department and I, and, indeed, the wider Executive, are providing to students in further education.

I think that it was Mr Douglas who referred to the situation in Wales, where there have been media reports on the reduction in the hardship fund there. Perhaps we can surmise that the assumption has been made that the reduction in spending on hardship funds in Northern Ireland means that a cut has been made here that is similar to that made in Wales, which is not the case. Indeed, I think that there has been a failure to look at the much wider picture of what we have been doing on student support.

There has not been a proper appreciation of how my departmental budget operates with regard to hardship funding and support for further education students, such as the interaction between further education awards and hardship funds, and other steps that we have taken. A lot of Members referred to decisions that I have taken or a lack of consultation on those decisions. Let me be very clear: this system of further education awards and hardship funds goes back to 2009 and 2010. No changes have been made to the approach adopted by the Department since then. If Members worked through the sums, they would realise that those changes took place before my term in office. I am happy to take credit for many progressive, imaginative proposals and new strategies that we have taken forward over the past number of years, but that change lay within the tenure of the previous Ministers. I am sure that Mr Swann, as Chair of the Committee, will wish to pass on the regards of the House to Lord Empey and Mr Kennedy.

I believe that considerable steps are being taken to communicate properly the existing support mechanisms, but I am happy to consider how this could be improved further. My Department recognises the importance of providing support to students facing financial difficulties associated with learning. Even with the support that is available, I acknowledge that it can be difficult for some students to enter and remain in further education. As Mr Wilson said, retention rates have improved in colleges over the past number of years. I think that someone also referred to a drop in enrolments, which may well be due to, for example, demographic change affecting the number of eligible young people and also the fact that schools tend to hang on to young people post age 16 more than in the past. That is a much wider debate. I would welcome the Assembly's turning its mind to it on some other occasion.

Across higher education and further education, significant efforts are being made to widen participation. This was one of the key motivations behind the Executive's ongoing commitment to the freezing of tuition fees for local students at local universities. It is also at the heart of the current review of higher education funding that my Department is undertaking, the results of which will go out to public consultation in the coming months. For the first time, Northern Ireland has a widening participation strategy for higher education called Access to Success. With direct relevance to further education, we ensure that financial assistance is provided to students through further education awards, bursaries and hardship funds, which are administered respectively by the Western Education and Library Board and each of the six colleges.

Further education awards and hardship funds are means-tested to ensure that support is directed at students most in need. Further education awards are available to eligible students who are over 19 years of age and undertaking an approved vocational course up to level 3. The maximum amount payable is £2,092 per annum. Hardship funds are provided to help students who are facing financial difficulties and who would otherwise not be able to attend a further education college. The maximum amount payable through the hardship fund is £3,500 per annum.

These two funds are inextricably linked because, for most students, to be eligible for hardship funds, they must first have applied for a further education award. The maximum payable for applications from both funds cannot exceed £3,500 per annum in total, excluding childcare costs.

A number of years ago, the deadline for applications for further education awards was extended from 30 June to 31 August. The effect of this was positive as it provided more time for students to apply for bursary awards, resulting in increased demand for awards and, consequently, reduced demand for hardship funds. This has been a positive outcome for a number of reasons. Hardship funds are meant to be a last resort for exceptional financial personal problems, so it is to be welcomed that there is reduced demand for these and increased demand for bursaries. It is also welcome that fewer students having to apply for hardship funds means fewer having to go through the potentially intrusive process of disclosing information about their personal finances and circumstances — much more intrusive than the application route for further education awards.

FE awards are up-front payments made at the beginning of each term, whereas hardship fund payments are reactive when students are in difficulty. It is surely better to shift the balance of government intervention to earlier intervention and, indeed, prevention.

I wish to emphasise that, contrary to earlier reports, I have not reduced funding for hardship funds. The amount of money distributed is purely demand-led and is not curtailed by any budgetary considerations. The budget itself is only indicative for planning purposes and is determined by historical factors, including previous spending levels and data on the number of disadvantaged students. That is adjusted during the academic year to ensure that appropriate funding is made available.

It is important that Members understand the difference between actual spend and the budget-setting process. Budgets are an estimate for financial planning. Mr Wilson is quite right when he says that it is important to try to estimate the budget accurately as best you can. I have not made any monitoring round bids for hardship funds. We have sought, where appropriate, to make internal sums available from elsewhere in my Department's budget in the circumstances in which demand exceeds what we have budgeted for.

Allocations to students take account of personal and family financial circumstances. Over the past number of years, hardship fund requirements have been met in full, and no application has been refused because of lack of funding.

As I stated earlier, financial help is also provided to students through FE awards. Over recent years, we have encouraged take-up of those awards to reduce dependency on hardship funds. Both funds are, however, inextricably linked, and the majority of applicants are required to apply for a further education award in the first instance before being considered for hardship support. Although there has been a reduction in hardship funding requirements over recent years, there has been a corresponding increase in the uptake of FE awards. Over the past 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 FE awards rising by over £2 million. Although 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. That support is helping to alleviate financial barriers to education.

Hardship funds and FE awards are advertised extensively through a variety of media by the board and the colleges. FE awards are promoted on the board's website and through a television advertising campaign, which is run during May and June each year. Each college promotes both funds through a range of channels, including prospectuses, websites, posters, a variety of funding guidance literature, and information in student college diaries. Funding advice is also provided by student support services staff at induction sessions. My Department consults the board on the content of its advertising campaign and provides colleges with good practice guidelines for publicising hardship funds. Higher education support funds are administered and publicised by the higher education institutions and by 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 website and that of my Department.

It is important to highlight the range of support that my Department provides to students. Extensive help is provided with childcare costs through several of the funding streams. For higher education courses in FE colleges, eligible students can avail themselves of tuition fee and maintenance loans. They may also apply for a range of means-tested grants. A disabled student allowance is available. For students aged between 16 and 19, help is available through the education maintenance allowance. That provides a payment of £30 a week, plus bonus payments based on achieving objectives. My Department has provided further assistance of £4·5 million per annum to colleges through the additional support fund. That fund has been significantly increased in the past couple of years and helps colleges fund technical or personal support to students with learning difficulties and/or disabilities.

In short, there has been a lack of understanding of how student awards and hardship budgets work. There has not been a reduction in the overall expenditure across the interconnected FE awards and hardship funds. Calls for me to reverse a cut in hardship funds are meaningless, as there has not been a cut, never mind a decision; rather there has been a natural displacement to FE awards. It would be perverse to reduce access to FE awards to see an associated displacement back towards hardship funds. That would be regressive in nature. That is surely not what the NUS-USI and others are calling for, even though that would be the logical inference from what they have been saying.

Mr Flanagan: I thank the Minister for giving way. Mr Buchanan said that students must learn to budget as a life skill, but in no other sphere of life would you be given money on a three-monthly basis and asked to budget for three months without any money coming in. Instead of looking to take money from one fund and put it into another, would the Minister consider moving this to a monthly payment scheme to allow students to budget better in the same way as the rest of us do?

Dr Farry: I am happy that we look at that. That can be one of a range of interventions that we can review.

Mr Wilson: Will the Minister give way?

Dr Farry: Yes.

Mr Wilson: Does the Minister find it odd to hear that argument from Sinn Féin when, for welfare recipients, instead of being paid every two weeks, they will continue to be paid every month because of that party's refusal to implement welfare reform? If regular payments help people budget, why is Sinn Féin standing in the way of regular payments for welfare recipients?

Dr Farry: That point stands well. I want to come back to the Budget issue in a moment to make a very important point for the House to note.

I met NUS-USI representatives on 17 September to discuss these and other issues and to explain our approach to proactively supporting students in further education. I trust that I have now corrected any misunderstandings with them.

It is legitimate for students and others to campaign for a change in the eligibility criteria and the scale of the awards that we offer. However, I cautioned the NUS-USI and I will caution others that, if those were to be relaxed to make the scheme more generous or to bring in a greater number of eligible students, it would require additional funding, in times when my Department has to find savings.

Mr Agnew: I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he agree that, rather than meeting the NUS-USI to explain the changes he has already decided to make, a better approach would have been to consult it prior to that about how best to support students in hardship?

Dr Farry: My door has always been open to the NUS-USI to talk to me about such issues. We had a long-standing engagement, which coincided with their campaign in the media around the issue, and, no doubt, I will meet them in the future to discuss any important issues.

I want to make an important point around funding. At present, we are going through huge difficulties with the Northern Ireland Budget, and my Department and all the services that we provide will suffer as a consequence of that. Members need to be aware that decisions have been taken to give protection to the Department of Education. We now have the situation in which young people who fall between the ages of 16 and 19 who happen to be in the school system will avail themselves of that protection, whereas young people in that age group who attend further education or are in other training programmes have no such protection. We are very aware of the differences between the cohorts in respect of demographic and socio-economic backgrounds. There is inequity in the system that Sinn Féin Members in particular may wish to reflect on. Hopefully, they will respond in the winding-up speech.

Mr McCarthy: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I know that he is coming to the end of his speech, but will he and the Assembly join me in offering our deepest sympathy to the family of Kellyanne Teggert from Portaferry who was a student at Magee College in Derry and who lost her life in a very tragic situation?

Dr Farry: Absolutely. I am sure that it has been very deeply felt in the college and in her wider family circle.

In closing, I take on board the point that Members and the NUS-USI have made around looking to see how better we can promote and make people aware of the fund. We will undertake that, though Members should appreciate that we are already doing quite a lot of things to make those funds known to people.

Mr F McCann: Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Phil Flanagan said that he was aware that the Minister was frustrated about what people are saying about the hardship fund. He said that there were two main sources of support and that there was a growing rate of hardship among students. The fund is there to provide increased access in relation to achievement. NUS-USI said that it was deeply concerned about the cut in the hardship fund from 2009-2010 to 2014-15. Phil Flanagan was concerned that the growing rate of financial hardship meant that some students were in desperate need of support and may not be able to access the hardship fund.

Robin Swann, the Committee Chair, said that the Department should do whatever it could to help students, and he understands that the hardship fund does that but more needs to be done. The number of students from the most deprived areas has dropped by 3,000, and there is a need to make sure that the support mechanisms are in place to help students. Of over 7,000 applicants, 1,700 have been rejected.

Tom Buchanan said that funding was vital for students, especially those in need. Students' circumstances change over their time in college. He argued that the hardship fund gives protection but should not be seen as a long-term fix. He said that reliance on funding was more to do with wider societal issues.

Pat Ramsey of the SDLP recognised that the fund was in place to help students in financial difficulty. He quoted NUS-USI and said that a huge percentage of people were looking at abandoning courses because of financial concerns. He mentioned the North West Regional College and spoke of the need for food banks and said that 70% of students rely on parental help. He said that financial support is not always in place but parental support plays a major part. He asked whether the support is getting through to the most vulnerable.

Chris Lyttle supported the motion and the principle that students should get the help that allows them to participate in education. Most importantly, he said that the Minister guarantees parity of esteem and has made additional support available for students as well as demand-led funds for fairer access for students.

Alastair Ross doubted that anyone would object to the motion. He said that he would be surprised if students were not worried about finance. He also said that we could not have any motion without welfare reform being brought into it.

Bronwyn McGahan mentioned a very important issue. She had spoken to a constituent who was not entitled to apply to the hardship fund, and that has had an impact on their studies. Again, she quoted NUS-USI as saying that 35% of students spoke of leaving courses and that we needed to focus on that issue. There are highly skilled people who need to reskill but cannot because of financial constraints.

Sammy Douglas said that he came from a background of lifelong learning and that nobody wants to lose the scheme. He said that the Minister stated that there had been an increase in funding. He spoke about jobs and said that we had the best record in recent years. He represents an area of high social deprivation, where people have not had life chances. He supported the motion.

Sammy Wilson never fails to surprise me in these debates. He said that he found it difficult to support the motion and that people were finding problems where none really existed. He said that people were jumping on the bandwagon and asked whether there really was a problem. He asked whether this really stopped people studying. He mentioned the NUS-USI study and said that any study depends on the questions that are asked. He talked about what is being done at present and praised the Minister for the way he has handled the issue. He said that people do not know where money comes from.

Steven Agnew said that he had not heard anybody disagree that there had been an increase in hardship across society, and he asked why there had been a decrease in demand for this finance. He spoke of the need to advertise it. He also said that net funding for student support had gone up, and he spoke of the need to welcome that. He went on to say that if the student hardship fund is not successful, the Minister will need to look at it. He also said that the Minister should have good communication with NUS, and he welcomed the Minister's commitment —

The Minister said that he welcomed the opportunity to speak. He believes that there is a misunderstanding about what he and his Department have done. He said that there is no appreciation of the steps that have been taken, and he said that considerable steps are being taken to communicate. He said that he will look at that. He spoke of the demographic changes, schools hanging on to students, Access to Success, and finance for students being means-tested. He spoke of the breakdown of finance, and he spoke at length on the different funds available and explained what those funds were for. He said that hardship funds are a last resort. He also said that he had not reduced hardship funds and had, in fact, encouraged the take-up of funds. He said that the spend on FE awards has increased, and he believes that there is a lack of understanding of how grants are awarded.

By and large, there was general support for the motion. Like always — you get it time and time again, especially when the Minister comes to the Committee — whilst we may be fixated on what may exist, it would sometimes be better to look outside the box and see if we could do anything better to ensure that things are done more effectively or to communicate better with students about how they can tap into it. There may be a lot of processes in place, but people may be slipping through the whole thing.

I am not surprised at the DUP attitude. Every place you turn now, they bring in the question of welfare reform. Rather than come off with the same tired, old thing, they need to look at the impact that welfare reform will have on communities. It would be better if they stood by and defended those most in need in society, especially within their own communities, rather than continually accusing this party, which has always had a position against welfare reform.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Members will take their ease for a moment while we change the top Table.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): 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 to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. One amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List. The proposer will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

Mr Flanagan: I beg to move

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. As we all know and have acknowledged on many occasions in the Chamber, the border presents a serious barrier to economic development on the island of Ireland. Some problems are quite challenging; some are quite complex; and some are quite ridiculous. The issue that we are debating today certainly falls into the latter category. The fact that it costs more to post a standard letter from Belcoo to Blacklion, a mere stone's throw apart, than it does to post the same letter to anywhere on the island of Britain or any of its offshore islands, makes absolutely no sense on any level. In fact, you could nearly crumple up one of those pieces of paper, make it into a paper aeroplane and throw it some of the distances in question. However, that situation is not reflected in the price and standard of cross-border postal services.

What makes things worse is that there is often a considerable delay in such items being received by the intended recipient, sometimes up to three days after it should be there. This is because, for some unknown reason, post destined for the rest of Ireland has to go on a round trip to Britain for sorting. Such a situation is just not good enough. We should not tolerate it, and we must challenge those involved in the postal sector to do much better. The policies that they put in place must reflect the particular circumstances of this island, which are being ignored by the current reality. The barrier that is the border makes no sense at all in respect of postal services.

For me, the most important part of the substantive motion is the call for a single pricing structure for mail being delivered anywhere on the island of Ireland. If An Post can offer a single pricing structure for the whole of Ireland, why can the same not be asked of all postal companies in the North? It could be done quite easily if they wanted. There are no legislative or practical impediments to such a policy decision. If it could be put in place, the only things that it would have to comply with would be the universal service obligation and the standard pricing structure for post going anywhere in Britain or anywhere in the North.

However, this debate is not primarily about postal charges; it is about the people and the organisations that rely on this vital service. I do not expect people who live in or never leave north Down to have the same appreciation of the impact of the border as the people who are faced with the adverse impact of the border on a daily basis. However, consider a couple who are planning a wedding. My brother and his fiancée are in this position. Many couples organising a wedding, particularly in border areas and when one of the two comes from the other side of the border, will have to send a considerable number of the invitations to the South. Faced with that situation, many people actually travel across the border to post the items to save on costs. The same challenges that face individuals also face businesses and countless organisations that are attempting to do business with people and groups on both sides of the border.

I raise this issue not merely to point up a problem that has existed for an awful long time but to identify a solution. We have to be honest about what is going on here. There are some in our society who are determined to exploit the border and rip customers off by imposing an unwarranted and unwanted tax on cross-border transactions. There are then those who are making the most of the opportunity to undercut the extortionate prices charged by the monopoly providers.

I think of the good work being done by Hybrid Mail in Fermanagh, which is run by Colum Courtney, who recently appeared on RTÉ's 'Dragon's Den'. I know that the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment visited Colum two years ago. Organisations such as Colum's can provide a significant saving to customers using cross-border postal services.

Many reports and research exercises have identified the disproportionate cost of posting items across the border as a significant problem over recent years. In the 'Study of Obstacles to Mobility', which was carried out by PricewaterhouseCoopers for the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) and published in November 2001, the issue of cross-border postal services was identified as a problem for businesses, organisations and individuals involved in activities on both sides of the border. The issue of cross-border postal services was again discussed at the North/South Ministerial Council plenary meeting on 21 January 2011 following the publication of InterTradeIreland's quarterly business monitor in 2010, which revealed that 27% of businesses using cross-border post were dissatisfied with the cost of it. I am unsure what progress, if any, was made at this time. I believe that a paper was taken to the NSMC institutional meeting in October 2011. I had hoped that the Minister may have indicated what progress has been made, but there is nobody here, so I doubt we are going to hear about that progress.

I am grateful to Ofcom, which recently asked respondents to its annual communications market report for their satisfaction rating with cross-border postal services. Some people were surprised by the findings. I, for one, was not, as I speak on a daily basis to people who are afflicted by such nonsensical policies. Forty-seven per cent of adults surveyed by Ofcom indicated that the price of 87p to post a standard letter from one part of this island to the other was not value for money. Since that survey took place, the price of a stamp has risen by a further 10p, so I do not think that public opinion will have improved much. The Consumer Council and, indeed, its predecessor, Consumer Focus Post, have taken an active interest in this subject matter and attempted to reflect the views of consumers by seeking a solution.

They have committed itself to exploring the issue in the coming year, and I look forward to that work. The all-party group on postal services, of which I am a member, has also agreed to look into it this year.

In conclusion, this problem needs to be sorted out. It is one of the simpler problems that we have looked at in the Assembly. I believe that, if the political will exists to exert pressure on those involved in this exercise in extortion, a solution can be found. The motion is only the first step, and a clear message needs to be sent out that the current situation is unacceptable and must change. The issue needs to be grasped at the North/South Ministerial Council. I am disappointed that there is no Minister here to respond to the debate. The issue clearly needs political and ministerial intervention to be resolved. I appeal to Members to support the motion.

Mr McGlone: I beg to move the following amendment:

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas leis an Chomhalta Philip Flanagan as ucht an rún a chur os ár gcomhair. I thank Mr Philip Flanagan for bringing the motion before us today. The issue is rather more than just the motion, and that is why I am grateful that the amendment was accepted. I welcome the motion, although I have to say that, of all the barriers to greater North/South economic development, the cost of posting a letter across the border appears to be one of the lesser obstacles to be overturned. Nevertheless, Mr Flanagan and his party have decided that the Assembly should focus on that issue today.

It is certainly true that the significant additional cost differential and time delay in delivering cross-border mail is a hindrance to business, particularly micro and small businesses, as well as a constant source of irritation to the public. However, the original motion may be somewhat flawed in that it engages in the politics of appealing to the better nature of all companies and agencies involved in postal delivery to introduce a single pricing structure for mail being delivered anywhere on the island of Ireland. What if they do not? Apparently the North/South Ministerial Council should "exert maximum pressure" on those companies to comply with the edict. At some stage during the debate, which is an important one, we will perhaps hear what pressure people think should be imposed on those companies and what the Ministerial Council can actually exert on them.

The postal delivery service across Britain and Ireland is regulated by legislation set in London and Dublin. That is where the long-term viability of a universal postal service will be secured and where our efforts need to be focused — on a north, south, east and west universal postal service. The original motion would, in effect, break the existing universal postal charge that applies in the UK and the North, and our local businesses could suffer as a consequence. Indeed, the motion fails to acknowledge that there is already a threat to the existing universal postal charge here.

Our amendment seeks a meaningful debate on addressing the very real threat to the viability of our rural post offices, as well as addressing the significant additional cost differential and time delay in delivering cross-border mail. I have written to Ofcom about that very issue, and I realise that it is monitoring the situation. Royal Mail delivers a significant amount of mail at the moment. However, TNT Post UK is able to cherry-pick and operates only in urban areas. They can use the post office and have access to the services of Royal Mail to deliver on their behalf. Where TNT Post UK or any other postal operator is asking Royal Mail to deliver a greater portion of letters to more expensive-to-serve areas such as, for example, rural areas, Royal Mail has the regulatory flexibility to charge a fair price and make a fair return based on the cost of delivering those letters. That practice is known as zonal pricing and allows Royal Mail to charge more for delivering access mail in areas where it may potentially incur higher costs. That is a good part of the rationale in our amendment.

The threat follows that particular threat. That additional cost differential and time delay in delivering cross-border mail follows the privatisation of Royal Mail and the introduction of direct competition for delivery of the post. As a result of that privatisation, the current six-days-a week, one-price-goes-anywhere universal postal service across the UK and the North is at severe risk of becoming unsustainable. Royal Mail continues to be required by law to deliver to all postcodes six days a week at a uniform price, but other postal operators are free to cherry-pick the more profitable densely populated urban areas for mail deliveries, which is a point that I touched on earlier.

As a result of its legal obligation as the sole universal service provider, Royal Mail is now unfairly at a competitive disadvantage to other postal operators. The volume of letters being delivered has been in decline for some time and is expected to drop even further. Only by using the profits from the easier-to-serve urban areas can a UK- and North-wide network be maintained. The current model undermines the sustainability of those universal services.

In our rural constituencies, the universal postal service is at greater risk than elsewhere. The rural post offices and rural postpeople who serve those communities will be the first to bear the brunt in the pursuit of a viable, or what is referred to as viable, postal service.

Ofcom has stated that it will conduct a review of the impact of direct delivery competition by the end of 2015 if certain conditions are met. Not only have those thresholds already been passed, but it may be too late by the end of 2015. Securing a viable future for the universal postal service will require the implementation of regulatory changes. The Minister or Ministers should be urging Ofcom to act now and to conduct an immediate review of the impact of direct delivery competition on the universal service in preparation for those changes.

We should also use this opportunity to expand the universal service charge to incorporate a value-for-money, cross-border service through regulatory changes North and South. Only by working in conjunction with her — I presume that the Minister responsible for that is a "her" — North/South Ministerial Council colleagues and her counterparts in the Westminster Government will the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment be able to properly assist businesses on this island. The way to do that is to ensure the long-term viability of a universal postal service that incorporates a value-for-money, cross-border service.

Mr Dunne: I also welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. As the motion states, we fully recognise:

for all customers and business users. Our constituents quite rightly deserve a cost-effective and efficient postal delivery service, and it is vital for our businesses in these tough economic conditions that competitive postal services are available to all users to meet their postal needs.

Despite the digital revolution, we are still reliant on our postal service, and the post remains a very important form of communication for many customers. Indeed, with the ever-increasing use of online retail, the issue of postal charges is timely. We must also recognise the importance of cross-border business between Northern Ireland and the Republic. One of our main export bases is the Republic, so it is important that we ensure that we maximise every opportunity for further business growth and development.

The 2010 Consumer Focus Post report stated that over two thirds — 68% — of businesses here post to the Republic regularly, with a further 45% of those stating that the cross-border post is:

There is no doubt that Royal Mail is highly regarded in Northern Ireland by both domestic users and local businesses; the statistics back that up. Consider the Ofcom report of 2014, which stated that nine out of 10 people in Northern Ireland — 89% — are satisfied with Royal Mail, compared with 86% across the UK. During the Ofcom consultation, responses were sought regarding satisfaction with specific aspects of Royal Mail's service across six categories, and the Northern Ireland figures were above the UK average in every category. It is worth pointing out that, unlike Royal Mail, An Post does not deliver on Saturdays, so there is room for improvement across the sector and not just by Royal Mail.

We have seen an increase in competition from alternative courier and delivery services in recent years. That competition is very welcome in the business community; it is healthy and should be further encouraged. People accuse Royal Mail of taking 2·14 working days to deliver a letter from Belfast to Dublin, yet there is next-day delivery from Belfast to London. We need to remember that next-day delivery is not just dependent on distance and that two factors come into play. When a letter leaves the UK and goes into the Republic, it ceases to be under the jurisdiction of Royal Mail and transfers to An Post.

Mr Douglas: Will the Member give way?

Mr Dunne: Will do.

Mr Douglas: The motion calls on the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to raise the matter at a forthcoming meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council when it meets in trade and business sectoral format. Does the Member agree that postal services are a reserved matter for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills at Westminster?

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

Mr Dunne: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is my clear understanding that it is a reserved matter and is not the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Mr Flanagan: I thank the Member for North Down for giving way. I appreciate that this is not a transferred matter and that it is a matter for the Westminster Government. However, given that it was previously discussed at an NSMC meeting, does the Member not accept that there is a precedent for the North/South institutions to take an active interest in the subject?

Mr Dunne: It may be the subject of further discussion at such a meeting.

As two organisations are involved, that leads to added time. However, there is room for improvement, and there should be greater collaboration between the two companies to streamline the process, to form a more strategic alliance and, ultimately, to deliver a better service for all users. It is worth reminding the House of the greater economic benefits that local businesses have as a result of being within the United Kingdom. Royal Mail provides a six-day service at a uniform price across the UK, which greatly assists many people here and is something that I am sure all Members of the House will fully agree with. Under regulations, Royal Mail must provide at least one standard international postal service at a uniform tariff within the UK. That means that, whether a letter is posted from Larne to Limerick or Cornwall to Cork, it has to be charged at the same uniform price.

The 2014 Ofcom report stated that almost half — 47% — of adults in Northern Ireland perceived the pricing structure to the Republic as offering poor value for money. Therefore, there is certainly room for improvement. In the best interests of local businesses and residents, we need to do all that we can —

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

Mr Dunne: — to ensure delivery for the people of Northern Ireland and to encourage greater economic development for all of us here.

Mr Elliott: I was going to say that I welcomed the opportunity to take part in the debate, but I am somewhat reluctant to do so, given the ongoing serious issues in the Assembly and the Executive. I and possibly others feel that we could be debating more important issues as opposed to debating a reserved matter. However, I am willing to take part in the discussion.

The proposer of the motion indicated — I am paraphrasing him as I cannot remember his exact words — that people were determined to use the border to exploit others, but surely that has gone on for decades. We have heard of the smugglers of many years ago, and we have heard about the murders that went on for 30 years. People exploited the border in those times. People still exploit the border with fuel smuggling and fuel laundering. I hope that the Member is not putting those issues into the same category as the price of a postage stamp, because those other matters are much more serious.

I have to say, though, that, in today's society, many of the means by which people communicate with each other have become electronic. Whether by computer, email, tablet or iPhone, much more business and communication are carried out by that method, as opposed to by letter. However, it is still very important to have that sector in place. I always say that you cannot email a parcel to your friend; sending it by post is the only way. So, clearly, it is still a very important factor and one that we need to preserve. I am not so sure how you deal with the cross-border pricing difference, because I do not think that you can have a single pricing structure for the island of Ireland. No matter how you relate it, we in Northern Ireland are still part of the United Kingdom and will remain so.

It is interesting to note the changes in the cost of postage over the last three years in Northern Ireland. The cost of a second-class stamp has risen by 47% over the three-year period. I think that, by anybody's calculation, that is huge and significant, especially for those who use the service quite a lot. I read that businesses normally use second-class post as opposed to first class, so that is a 47% increase in the cost of that aspect of their business. I think it important that we put it into that context.

To me, a more vital element of the debate is the protection of rural services through post offices. That is really important to rural communities and, indeed, to those in urban areas. I would not want to exclude them, because the post office, to be fair, is a central and focal point in many communities, whether urban or rural. Post offices provide a significant service that I do not want to be lost, especially for the most vulnerable. Those people need to be protected, and the post office is one of the services that, I think, is important in helping them to live a normal life in our community. No matter what people say about the person who delivers the post, he or she performs an important service to the community. That person does not just deliver the post; he or she makes sure that individuals are OK. How many people have been found, maybe unconscious or with an illness, by the local postman or postwoman? I think it right that we try to protect those services. The initial proposal in the debate focused much too much on the cost of cross-border postage. To be fair to the proposer, he said that it was not just about the cost but about people and communities. I would have liked a much greater focus on communities than on the cost of a stamp.

Mr Lunn: My party supports the amendment, and, if that does not pass, will happily support the motion. They are both very worthy, and, even if what is being demanded may be very difficult to achieve, it is still well worthwhile having a go. I understand the irritation of MLAs and constituents who live along the border and cannot see the justification for having to pay the same price to post a letter to somewhere only a couple of miles away as it costs to post a letter to the Orkneys. However, that is, unfortunately, the way it is at the moment.

I will deal with the motion first. Rightly, it expresses concern about the current system. A letter going from North to South requires a European stamp costing 97p, which contrasts with a cost of 68 cents, currently about 55p, for the same letter going from the South to the North. I wonder why there is such a price differential for the same service, even though there is a border. It is an amazing difference. I am told that, in Germany, for instance, sending a letter anywhere in the EU is the same price. It is the same price to any one of 27 countries. If you exclude the Scandinavian countries, the UK has the most expensive postage in Europe. The comparison gets even starker when a letter is A4 in size: the price for sending that from North to South rises to £3·20, compared with €1·20, about £1, for one South to North. It is not helped by An Post's poor record of delivery times, but I noted that Mr Flanagan pointed out that those letters have to go from here to GB first and then on to the Republic, so I imagine that it is not entirely the An Post's fault. However, one does wonder in passing whether the system in the Republic is underfunded. An Post could certainly make a case for extra investment to modernise the operation and provide a more efficient service, but that, of course, is a matter for it and not for us.

The motion calls for the Minister to raise the matter at an NSMC meeting. I have written in my notes that I look forward to hearing her comments at the end of the debate, but it does not look as though there will be any. I imagine that, as it is a reserved matter, she does not have to respond, but I note that there has been previous discussion of the matter at NSMC meetings.

The issue is complex. Royal Mail has been privatised and is free to set its prices, subject only to certain caps on second-class services and a commitment to universal service to any part of the UK. It is hard to see how such a pricing gap as currently exists can be bridged, but, by all means, let us ask the question and keep at the topic. I imagine that the NSMC is a good starting point for somewhere to raise it.

To return to the amendment, the viability of our rural post offices is a major issue. It did not particularly need to be connected to the motion, because it goes well beyond just postal services. As Mr Elliott rightly said, our rural post offices are community hubs. They are a point of contact, particularly for older people, and we should do what we can to protect them. However, I am not sure whether direct-delivery competition is the biggest threat to their existence. Others have pointed out that electronic mail, social media and the Internet's speedy services have hit the Post Office and will probably continue to do so.

At the moment, there is nothing specifically to hinder private operators offering a cross-border service for letters as well as parcels. In a normal way, I would encourage competition as a means — indeed, the only effective means — of reducing prices, but the final part of the amendment calls on the Minister to work through the NSMC and Westminster to:

For now, I think that the best thing that we can do is to keep the pressure on and hope that we can come up with something that is satisfactory for everybody. I cannot quite see how we can do that at present, but that is not to say that we should not try.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Question Time begins at 2·00 pm, so I suggest that Members take their ease until then. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Megan Fearon.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 9 has been withdrawn.

Mr Ford (The Minister of Justice): Following a court case earlier this year, I was contacted by Naomi Long MP and a number of other public representatives. I decided to include offences under the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 in a review of the legislation governing the referral of a sentence by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Court of Appeal, on the grounds of undue leniency. That review is under way. Any proposals for change arising out of the review will be subject to public consultation, following the Justice Committee's consideration.

Mr Agnew: I am delighted that the Minister is minded to include animal cruelty offences in the schedule to allow them to be appealed if they are deemed to be overtly lenient. The Minister will be well aware of the public horror not only at the acts of cruelty that were committed in the case to which he referred but at what appeared to be a very lenient sentence. The Minister will be aware of other cases in the system that may be coming down the line. Will the timescale for implementing such a change impact on those cases?

Mr Ford: Mr Agnew is a bit enthusiastic when he asks me to give a timescale for implementation. I hope that we will have the consultation document ready by the end of this year for the Justice Committee's consideration. However, as Mr Agnew and others know, the timescale for implementation of legislation is not entirely in my hands.

Mr Elliott: Is the Minister considering adding any other particular cases or aspects to the schedules of cases that could be appealed to the courts by the Public Prosecution Service?

Mr Ford: Mr Elliott highlights, correctly, that there is an issue about exactly what would be done. In reality, there have been a fairly limited number of referral cases up to now. If nothing else, this will ensure that, when court decisions are taken, offenders know, by and large, what the penalty is. However, it is clear that there is concern about the animal cruelty and other issues. The consultation will be fairly open-ended. If any Member wishes to highlight specific issues, I will happily hear any particular points they may wish to make. The position is that we cannot have everything referable, but it is important that we ensure that there is confidence in the law by allowing appropriate sentences in as many cases as we can manage through this process.

Mr Ford: It is clear that dissident republicans and dissident unionists are continuing to carry out criminal activity. This is conducted to fundraise and for personal gain, and to exert control over communities in which they operate. The activity includes drug supply; robbery, including armed robbery; extortion; operating in counterfeit goods; smuggling tobacco; and fuel laundering. It is also clear that, despite claims of public opposition to criminality and the perpetration of assaults and shootings against those allegedly involved in antisocial and criminal behaviour, dissident republicans depend on a wide range of criminal enterprises to fund their terrorist activity.

Mr Weir: I thank the Minister for his reply, although I was little bemused by some of the wording. I am not quite sure whether Jim Allister is going to be flung in jail later on today as a dissident unionist. We all welcome the efforts by all agencies to combat the criminal activities of dissident republicans. What assurance can the Minister give that the efforts brought to bear outside jail will be matched by the efforts in jail and, in particular, that dissident republicans will not get their way in the demands that they are making in the prison system?

Mr Ford: I congratulate Mr Weir on his inventiveness regarding the supplementary. I, as, I think, the House is well aware, commissioned a review of the operation of the 2010 agreement by the independent assessors some time ago. That review is now completed, and it will be considered by me and the Prison Service over the coming weeks. I can certainly give the House a guarantee that the situation as it prevails in Roe House and Bush House is very definitely not that which pertained years ago in the Maze prison and that, as long as I am Minister of Justice, it will not be. There are issues about ensuring the best possible use of staffing and a good regime for all prisoners, but the safety and security of prisoners and prison staff is paramount in the work that is being done.

Mr A Maginness: Will the Minister indicate what level of contact there is between himself and his counterpart in Dublin, in the Irish Republic, in relation to monitoring and taking action against dissident republicans?

Mr Ford: I assure Mr Maginness that there is very good contact between my Department and the Department of Justice and Equality and between me and Minister Frances Fitzgerald. Some of the issues that he is hinting at are more operational issues for the PSNI and an Garda Síochána and the good work that is being done by the two prison services in cooperation. You may hear a little bit more about the fight against organised crime and terrorism later this week.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Mr Ross Hussey, who can stay seated.

Mr Hussey: Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. In relation to dissident activity, will the Minister advise the House of whether he has any knowledge of weaponry with Provisional IRA history that was used by these republican terror groups? Will he also confirm that he condemns unreservedly attacks on Orange halls, which are being masterminded at times by dissident republicans?

Mr Ford: Mr Hussey cleverly managed to ask two questions. I will leave entirely the operational aspect of weapons and what history they may have to those charged with operational responsibility.

I have condemned all acts of terrorism in the House on many occasions before I became Minister and since. I am happy, if he wishes, to add my condemnation of the attack on the Orange hall at Keady to the list of condemnations that I have made in the past. No such attack has any place in a modern civilised society. Such attacks should be resisted by all of us. Anybody who has any information that could help to catch the perpetrators has a duty to pass that information to the PSNI, an Garda Síochána, or through Crimestoppers if they prefer.

Mr Allister: Perhaps the Minister would like to explain his reference to dissident unionism in the context of terrorism. In terms of the Minister being able to give a definitive and reliable assessment of the terrorist threat, will he tell us whether he, as a devolved Minister, is privy to security service briefings on these matters?

Mr Ford: The position is quite clear. Matters of national security are matters for the Secretary of State. In certain respects, the PSNI and the Prison Service have responsibilities to the Secretary of State rather to me in any way. In a general sense, I receive occasional briefings from the security service alongside the briefings I receive from the PSNI about the state of organised crime and terrorist activity.

Mr Ford: Alcohol abuse contributes to a wide range of significant social problems, including criminal behaviour. I welcome the joint report from Addiction NI and the Forum for Action on Substance Abuse (FASA) that highlights the significant cost to the justice system of dealing with this issue. The actions being taken by my Department are set out in the community safety strategy and the overarching strategic framework for reducing offending. My Department is also a key contributor to the Executive's new strategic direction on alcohol and drugs, which is led by DHSSPS.

The range of actions my Department delivers includes the Alcohol and Drugs: Empowering People Through Therapy (AD:EPT) programme, which provides psychological and educational drug and alcohol programmes for offenders. Young people admitted to Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre are assessed for drug and alcohol misuse, and the appropriate services are put in place to support them. At a local level, policing and community safety partnerships (PCSPs) deliver alcohol-related initiatives, including through engagement with local drug and alcohol coordination teams.

Most recently, PCSPs played an active role in the promotion of the No Boozing on Board campaign, highlighting that it is illegal to drink alcohol on board a bus in Northern Ireland.

My Department has also been working with health colleagues on a joint health-care and criminal justice strategy, covering the health and social care needs of significant numbers of people who come into contact with the criminal justice system.

Mr McKinney: The figures are huge, and, as the Minister quite rightly points out, they affect the health budget to the tune of £900 million. In terms of priority, and given that this is a historical problem, would it not be appropriate for an Executive task force to, once and for all, begin to tackle it head-on?

Mr Ford: If Mr McKinney saw what I sometimes see at meetings of the Executive, he would not put so much faith in an Executive task force. Quite seriously, there is good, close working between officials from Health and Justice, which are the two key Departments in this area. As he highlights, there are significant costs to the health-care system, as well as to the justice system, from alcohol.

Alongside other Departments, as appropriate, the important thing is to see that the strategic direction on alcohol and drugs has effect across a range of Departments and that all contribute where they can. That work is ongoing, but clearly, as we all know from the scale of the problem, there is much still to do.

Mr Swann: Considering the link between alcohol abuse and the misuse of legal highs, is the Minister considering bringing forward any legislation to tackle legal highs? Has he had any conversations with his Westminster counterpart in regard to that?

Mr Ford: I am not sure that there is that close a link between legal highs — new psychoactive substances — and alcohol. As most Members are aware, the specific issue of legal highs is a reserved matter. I have been in correspondence with the Home Office about that recently. The Home Office has a report that is due for publication in the near future, and we await its proposals.

One of the issues that is also relevant is the work that has been done in the Republic in recent years, and some of the work that we have done, making use of consumer protection legislation, has had benefits when it comes to protecting the public in Belfast, Omagh and Larne.

So, there are matters that can be used within our legislative framework, but clearly we will be interested to see what further the Home Office proposes.

Mr Givan: I appreciate that it is not for the Minister to take this forward, but given the impact of alcohol on the criminal justice system, would he support the minimum pricing of alcohol, so that, in some instances, water and soft drinks are much cheaper than a substance that causes such devastation? Would he support that proposal if it were brought to the Executive?

Mr Ford: I am glad that Mr Givan added that final rider: I was going to say that I am not sure that, as Minister of Justice, I have a remit specifically to concentrate on minimum pricing. I am on record as personally supporting minimum pricing. So, if he is asking whether I would support such a proposal were it to come to the Executive, the answer is that, if the argument in favour was as cogent as that of Mr Givan and his colleagues, it would be highly likely.

Mr Lyttle: Given that over 50% of recorded domestic violence this year has had an alcohol-related element, will the Minister reassure the House that he is working with all the relevant agencies to ensure that that particular type of violent abuse is eradicated?

Mr Ford: That is a very significant issue. The latest statistics that I saw showed that something like 57% of domestic and sexual violence was alcohol-related, which is a huge issue for this society. It is one of the key issues that will come through in the joint strategy between the Health and Justice Departments on stopping domestic and sexual violence, as we seek to put together the work that was done in two separate strategies.

One of the key issues where there has been direct action on this has been very noticeable. The pilot, where police officers in G district, in and around Derry, have been wearing body cameras, has produced specific results relating to a domestic violence incident. I hope that that is something on which we will see further work being done across Northern Ireland.

Mr Ford: I am content that the procedures developed by the Northern Ireland Policing Board in relation to the recent recruitment of the Deputy Chief Constable were properly adhered to. While the board is responsible for developing the process and running the competition, I have a role, in legislation, to approve the proposed appointment of senior officers.

In light of concerns raised by a panel member, I sought assurances from the board's chair and chief executive in relation to the appointment process. I also met the panel member concerned and consulted the independent adviser from HM Inspectorate of Constabulary.

On the basis of the assurances received regarding the integrity of the process, I was content that there had been extensive oversight and scrutiny, and I approved the panel's recommendation.

Mr D Bradley: Go raibh míle maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra. Ba mhaith liom an méid seo a fhiafraí de. Would the Minister agree with me that those who questioned the integrity of the process — that that questioning does not help the acceptance of the Police Service in Northern Ireland?

Mr Ford: The position was that I became aware that one member of the panel had withdrawn from the process on the day of second interviews and expressed concerns about the procedures. I felt that it was appropriate, given my role of ensuring that the procedures were carried out properly, to request that member to come to a meeting. At the same time, I had a number of meetings with the chair and chief executive and, as I said, with the independent adviser. On the strength of the assurances that I was given, I am assured that the process was carried out properly. Although one member expressed concern, I believe that the other eight were unanimous in the recommendation that they made. I believe that that was an adequate basis on which to accept the recommendation.

Mr Sheehan: Go raibh maith agat, a Príomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. In a sense, he answered most of my question. However, could he confirm that concerns were raised directly with him by Caitríona Ruane in regard to serious flaws and anomalies in the process prior to your appointment of a new Deputy Chief Constable?

Mr Ford: The correct timescale is that serious concerns were raised in the media by Ms Ruane. Subsequent to receiving a recommendation but being made aware of the concerns that she had raised, from the media and the chair and chief executive of the aboard, I deemed it appropriate to request her to meet me to explain the concerns that she had put publicly. On the basis of the concerns that she expressed, and discussions I had with others, I believed that the appointment was made properly and that is why I confirmed it.

Mr Hussey: I declare an interest as a member of the Policing Board and of the aforementioned panel. The fact that a Member of this House made public representations whilst the committee was meeting and the interviews taking place was, in my opinion, an attempt to politically interfere with the appointment process. Would you agree with me that that was the case?

Mr Ford: I am not in a position to attribute motivation to any Member of this House — heaven spare me if I did — but it appeared to me that the concerns that were raised were not valid and on that basis I took the view of the majority of those who had been present in the room.

Mr Ford: With permission, Principal Deputy Speaker, I will take questions five and eight together.

Members need to be aware that there is now clear evidence of a major gap in our ability to tackle serious and organised crime groups. That is why, on 8 September, I circulated a further paper to, amongst others, the main political parties, the Justice Committee and the Northern Ireland Policing Board, setting out proposals on the accountability of the National Crime Agency (NCA), which should enable us to achieve the full operation of the agency here. It is a comprehensive proposal that will create clear, transparent and significant local accountability and is the result of extensive work between my Department, the NCA, the PSNI and the Home Office and has the full commitment of all those bodies to make it work.

I am in the process of meeting the main political parties. The meetings to date have been positive in tone, and I am hopeful that we can achieve a resolution. I have made it clear that this is the last attempt to do so in the foreseeable future. The current state of limbo has existed for too long. If we cannot achieve agreement now on the proposal, we must accept that it will not be possible to do so and start to work to plug, as far as possible, the gaps in our law enforcement efforts that this has caused.

The consequences of a failure to reach agreement on the operation of the NCA in Northern Ireland have already been felt across law enforcement. I urge all Members to support the current proposals so that our law enforcement agencies and our people can benefit from the skill, expertise and resources of the National Crime Agency.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given the real concerns throughout the community about fuel laundering, sex crime, illicit drugs and alcohol, human trafficking and dissident activity, does he believe that this situation is acceptable? Are the people of Northern Ireland being left vulnerable?

Mr Ford: No, it is not acceptable, and people are clearly vulnerable in a number of areas. We need to be clear that some issues, including some that Mrs Cameron highlighted, are covered by reserved matters and that the NCA is operational. However, as I highlighted to Mr Weir, we also know that a large number of those carrying out organised crime do not check the legislative book before deciding whether they will do reserved or devolved crime. Therefore, there can be problems in taking action against criminal gangs if part of their work is in the so-called devolved criminal area.

Mr McCartney: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for his answers to date. Even today, he said nothing to explain why he believes that all members of the NCA should not be subject to the exact same accountability mechanisms as all members of the PSNI.

Mr Ford: The reality is that all members of the NCA cannot be subject to exactly the same mechanisms as the PSNI, but, in the paper that has most recently been prepared, the accountability mechanisms for NCA activities go significantly beyond any other part of the UK and are as near as can be the same. The role given to the Chief Constable in approving the actions of the NCA and the role of the Police Ombudsman, who will have responsibilities for, amongst other things, civil recovery and the actions of NCA officers operating in the reserved and devolved sphere, are all significant advances on what would have been the case. That takes them very much into the same region as PSNI accountability.

Mr Easton: Does the Minister agree that crime around the border would be tackled much more easily if the National Crime Agency were devolved to Northern Ireland? Does he agree that the failure of Sinn Féin and the SDLP to have the National Crime Agency is helping to allow criminals to get away with crime around the border?

Mr Ford: I am not sure whether Mr Easton should simply highlight crime around the border, because it is clear that a lot of organised crime is not related only to the border. Indeed, some issues on the border are reserved matters, so the NCA can operate. However, there is no doubt that we are losing out at present.

I could give the House any number of examples of where we are losing out, but that would take rather longer than the two minutes that I have. That includes investigations into child abuse cases, including online child abuse, and the work of Operation Notarise, which was UK-wide but had to be carried through by the PSNI whereas NCA expertise was used in England, Wales and Scotland. There was a recent example of money laundering, when the root offence involved cannabis growing, but it could not be considered by the NCA because cannabis cultivation is a devolved issue. There are cases of drug importation into the UK in which the PSNI was asked to take action on behalf of the NCA, but officers had to be diverted to another serious crime, so there was a potential loss.

They are all examples. With civil recovery figures, we can see clearly that, as of 30 June this year, there were only eight Northern Ireland cases under investigation compared with 19 a year earlier, with gross assets being considered of £9·8 million this year as opposed to £19·2 million last year. That is a sign of work being cut back on civil recovery because we can no longer deploy the NCA into that area of work. There are very significant issues that all need to be addressed, whether they are close to the border, in north Down or in any other part of Northern Ireland.

Mr Ford: The outline business case for the redevelopment of Magilligan prison was submitted to DOJ financial services division for scrutiny in August this year. My officials are assessing its content, and Prison Service officials have been working closely with them to address some of the finer details. Once the financial services division officials confirm that they are content with the outline business case, they will submit it to the Department of Finance for approval.

Ms Sugden: I thank the Minister for his answer. Is it realistic to assume that there is funding available for an outline business case for the redevelopment of Magilligan prison?

Mr Ford: I am tempted to say that Ms Sugden should take that question to the Minister of Finance, but I shall try to answer it seriously. It is not clear at this stage what finance will be available. The timeline that we are looking at is for a phased redevelopment that would allow the prison to remain in operation while building work is done, which could take until 2022-23. On that basis, the capital sums required in any one year are relatively modest and within what we anticipate being the Department of Justice's capital budget, but, clearly, there is competition for priorities — no doubt, at some point soon, other Members will jump up and refer to Hydebank Wood and Maghaberry as well as any other DOJ responsibility. I believe that it is realistic, given the planned phasing, but we will have to see how things develop in the next CSR period.

Mr Campbell: The Minister will be aware of the long-running interest that my constituency colleagues and I have in the issue. I welcome his reference to a phased development. When the business case returns and he makes representations to the Department of Finance and the Minister thereof, will he ensure that the case is pressed very vigorously so that the phased development that he referred to can begin as quickly as possible?

Mr Ford: Mr Campbell really is asking me to put my neck in the noose with people from other constituencies as well. I believe that we have a realistic programme. Clearly, some areas in Magilligan are of higher priority than others. Some accommodation is fundamentally not fit for purpose: some of the cellular blocks need replacement as a very urgent priority. On the other hand, some of the other facilities for learning and skills workshops, although far from ideal, do not require replacement on the same basis. I am sure that the Minister of Finance, with his customary pleasant look at the needs of the Department of Justice, will take account of that, especially if one of his party colleagues, the Member of Parliament for the aforementioned constituency, lobbies him with me.

Mr Dallat: For the Minister to appreciate the absolute priority that this should be, would he be prepared to spend a night in Magilligan prison to experience the conditions under which the staff and inmates exist? Indeed, I would have no objection if he spent several nights in it.

Mr Ford: That is quite interesting because I remember that, on one occasion, members of a local council invited me to visit a Department of Justice courthouse. They felt that they were inviting me to their courthouse, whereas, in fact, it was mine. I am not quite sure whether, technically, Mr Dallat has the right to invite me to spend the night in one of my prisons. I am also not sure that there are enough free cells, as I cannot imagine that anybody would want to share a cell with me.

On a serious note, I was in Magilligan for a detailed visit in the early part of the summer and am well aware of the inadequacies of the physical accommodation. Certainly, the H-blocks and some of the facilities in Foyleview, the open unit outside the prison, are of a decidedly third- or fourth-rate nature, yet some exceptionally good work is being done. On the day I was there, over half of the prisoners in Foyleview were out doing some constructive work for the benefit of local charities, community groups and churches, which is clearly the kind of rehabilitation work that is needed, but we need to get the buildings fit for the purpose of many of the programmes delivered in them. So, I might not go and stay the night, but I assure Mr Dallat that I will continue to visit it by day.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: We are getting very close to time.

Mr Ford: The code of practice on the appointment of independent members to PCSPs and DPCSPs contains provisions to disqualify a person from appointment on the grounds of a criminal conviction and requires applicants to sign a declaration against terrorism.

Following appointment, the Policing Board may remove a member if, in the case of independent members, the member fails to disclose a conviction or have demonstrably acted in breach of the terms of the declaration against terrorism, or if he or she convicted of a criminal offence.

A revised draft version of the code of conduct was issued for public consultation last March. Responses were received on a range of issues from a wide range of individuals and organisations. None of those who responded raised concerns about the effectiveness of those aspects of the existing provisions. Although suggestions have been made about strengthening the declaration against terrorism, it is the same declaration that applies to candidates in council elections. The relevant provisions of the code of practice, therefore, remain unchanged.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends the period for listed questions. We now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Mr Ford: I am not in a position to give Members a firm answer to that question. The likelihood is that we will be looking at in the region of a 6% cut in this financial year, which, given that we are nearly halfway through it, is a very significant in-year cut that will potentially have very serious consequences.

In addition to that cut, some spending areas across the Department will have to make larger cuts because of issues such as the cost of legal aid, with which there are real challenges. Furthermore, we have yet to get Assembly agreement on some of the changes that I have been proposing for some time. So, the reality is that we will potentially see cuts of 12% or 13% in some of the Department's core services.

As the Chief Constable said, we are also likely to see an end to police officer recruitment this year. We have already seen the Probation Board lay off temporary probation officers, thereby increasing concerns about the supervision of offenders in the community. It is highly likely that we will see some prisoners locked up for longer, despite the Prison Service's good work on rehabilitation, about which I was just talking to Mr Dallat. So, all of those are almost inevitable consequences, even though we do not yet have a firm figure.

Mr Lunn: I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that the longer that it takes the Executive to make decisions on those issues, the harder that it will be to make the savings required? On the back of that, does he also agree that this matter requires urgent Executive attention and that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister might profitably use their time on addressing such issues rather than swanning around Gleneagles at the Ryder Cup?

Mr Ford: I could not agree more with my colleague about the necessity of the Executive as a whole to address those issues. Those who read the 'Belfast Telegraph' on Friday will have seen a graphic that illustrated information given from a very senior level in the Civil Service, and it showed that every day's delay is costing the Northern Ireland Executive £1 million. As the Minister responsible for the third-largest spending Department, I see a large part of that impacting on the Department of Justice. Given the significant cuts that have been made in the current CSR period, because of the link to the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, it is absolutely clear that we are now at the point at which this can no longer be done by cutting the back office. If we cannot get the matter resolved very quickly, there will be real impacts on front line public services, on community safety and on the issues of concern to our community. Indeed, it is now almost inevitable that there will be those significant impacts however quickly decisions are taken. So, I agree entirely about the necessity of addressing this. Indeed, I proposed last week that the Executive should clear diaries and concentrate on the issues.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Mr Ford: I believe that every part of the justice system is equally vital. The reality is that the cuts are being apportioned as fairly as they can be, taking account of the range of pressures that exist. To suggest that we should somehow keep the ombudsman's office or the Historical Enquiries Team going at full pelt whilst not protecting the public today would be, I believe, a dereliction of my duty, which is to police the present, to provide a justice system for the present and to provide probation and prison officers for the present. It is the reality that until all parties agree on dealing with the past, we cannot allow the justice budget to be completely hidebound by the problems of the past to the expense of the present and the future.

Mr McMullan: Go raibh maith agat. Would the Minister agree that the accountability and oversight mechanisms, by their nature, should be exempt from any cuts?

Mr Ford: I cannot agree that anything should be exempt from cuts. We have made good efforts to protect those mechanisms and the front line for the past four years, but the failure of other Executive Ministers now means that those cuts are inevitable.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr William Irwin is not in his place, so we will move on.

Mr Ford: Mr Beggs raises a very serious issue. I believe that a number of different aspects of abortion legislation need to be considered. One which has been raised is the specific issue of the premises in which lawful abortions may be performed. That is a matter purely for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in its regulation aspect, although it may request assistance from the Department of Justice. The others relate to termination either on grounds of fatal foetal abnormality or sexual crime.

I have a document that is close to publication, which I hope to share with the Committee for Justice very shortly. It will then be published for consultation to deal with those two aspects, which are the responsibilities of the Department of Justice. Indeed, just a couple of weeks ago, I had a further communication from a young woman who found herself in exactly the position that Mr Beggs describes. I do believe that the House will have to face up to the difficult issue of how we resolve the concerns of such women, many of whom would not previously have described themselves as pro-choice, but who, faced with the fact that they are carrying a foetus that is not viable, have to consider the dreadful question of how that affects them and the lives of their families and how they will respond in the future. I hope that we will get the opportunity to hear the voices of those women within a fairly short period.

Mr Beggs: Could the Minister outline the attitude of the Health Minister — either the previous Minister, Mr Poots, or Minister Wells? Is he satisfied that there has been reasonable engagement to try to resolve this matter?

Mr Ford: The position in a public statement from the previous Minister, when I had written to him suggesting that we do a joint consultation on all aspects of abortion, was that he believed it would be confusing to put the health aspects in the same consultation paper as the justice aspects. On that basis, it is his responsibility to consider the health aspects and, as I have said to the House, I have a paper that I trust will be out for public consultation before the end of October, which will put forward proposals on the justice aspects.

Mr Ford: The reality is that this is an issue that is of direct relevance operationally to the police in how they carry that through and to inquests that are in process. In neither circumstance would it be appropriate for me to comment on it.

Ms Maeve McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat. I note the Minister's response, but surely he has an opinion on how this process would actually contribute to confidence-building on policing in the nationalist community?

Mr Ford: I repeat: there may be issues of public confidence, but, as Minister, I cannot interfere in a process that is not mine, whether at the coroner's level or the policing level.

Mr Ford: Technically, I do not ask the Chief Constable to make any efficiencies. That is an issue for the Chief Constable to consider in conjunction with the Policing Board on the basis of the budget allocation that is being made. As I said earlier, it is difficult to be clear. I told Mr Lunn that we were looking at efficiencies probably in the region of 6%, but it is not yet clear what the position is. We badly need to know more certainly. However, at a level of something like 6%, it is almost certain that police recruitment would stop this year, a significant number of civilian staff on short-term contracts would be replaced by police officers and the good work that was done by Matt Baggott — taking police officers from behind desks and putting them onto the streets — might well have to be reversed in a way that would be detrimental to public safety.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 8 — sorry, I call Mr McQuillan for a supplementary.

Mr McQuillan: Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. What about the police officers who are investigating historical crimes? Is there any chance that they will be taken off those and put to front line services to make up for those we will lose from the front line?

Mr Ford: Again, Mr McQuillan tempts me to go too far into an operational area, but I understand that the Chief Constable's expectation is that he would have to prioritise the needs of today in a way that would result in some officers being removed from some of the historical work that is being done. There are specific areas, whether it be the HET, other historical work or issues arising from the Saville inquiry, that will potentially see a reduction of staffing because of the need to put officers onto front line duties today.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 8 has been withdrawn.

Mr Ford: I could agree with all the points that we might make in the Chamber about more resources, but the reality is that, because of the current behaviour in the Executive and the general budget pressures, there will be no more resources.

There is no doubt that a drug problem is arising across western Europe, if not further afield, that effects Northern Ireland as well. That is why we are attempting to enlist the support of the wider community. For example, a number of social landlords were involved in the launch of the scratch-and-sniff card that alerts people to the smell of cannabis as well as giving them information about the signs of cannabis growing. The industrial-scale growing of cannabis is a significant issue and, on average, there are two discoveries a week of such processes. All those are issues that, frankly, cannot be left to the police. We need the support of the public, and we need a joined-up partnership.

Mr McGimpsey: I thank the Minister for his answer. Of course it is not simply a police issue, and we are aware of that; it is a societal issue. However, one very strong arm against the drugs trade is the courts. Is the Minister satisfied and comfortable with the punishments being meted out by the courts when cases are brought before the law, or does he consider that an increase in the tariffs would now be appropriate? Will he look at the options for stiffer penalties through the courts for those found to be peddling what are, effectively, instruments of death?

Mr Ford: Our penalties in Northern Ireland are basically comparable to the penalties that exist in the other two jurisdictions across the UK. I am not sure whether it is the legislative penalty that is the issue so much as what some Members might feel about the penalties that are actually imposed by judges in individual cases. Of course, that is something that I referred to earlier when talking about potentially looking at the issue of referability.

Mr Ford: I talked earlier about what my responsibilities were, but to be asked to explain the actions of a private sector company is beyond even the wildest dreams that I would have of what my remit might be.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that we are out of time.

Order. Time is up. We must move on to questions to the Minister for Employment and Learning.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Questions 1 and 9 have been withdrawn.

Dr Farry (The Minister for Employment and Learning): In 2013, I established an advanced manufacturing and engineering services working group, with membership from employers, colleges, universities and government, to identify and address the skills challenges faced by employers in the sector.

In April 2014, I launched an action plan agreed by the group, and, since then, a number of initiatives have been taken forward. For example, a computing and engineering scholarship programme has been developed, offering funding support to assist twenty employers offering work placements to undergraduate students taking the relevant degree courses that meet employer needs in computing and engineering. Also, a computer numerical control machining conversion course is being delivered and funded by my Department's Assured Skills programme. That will upskill 12 Magellan Aerospace staff. It is due to complete in October, at which point it will be evaluated, with a view to rolling it out within the sector. Furthermore, a higher-level apprenticeship in engineering commenced in November 2013, with 15 apprentices from companies such as Terex, Kiverco and the Quinn Group. The apprentices will do a foundation degree on a part-time basis with the South West College.

Another key action that is being taken forward is the development and implementation of a careers attractiveness strategy. It will inform young people and their key influencers about the wide range of career opportunities available in the sector.

The aim of the action plan is to upskill the existing workforce across the sector to meet the exact needs of local employers and to ensure that there is a pipeline of highly skilled young people keen to embark on a career in this exciting industry.

Ms McGahan: Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for his response. As you know, in my constituency of South Tyrone, there is the promotion of engineering as a realistic and long-term career option. Can you ensure that people will be trained up in the appropriate skills to ensure the long-term sustainability of this vital industry?

Dr Farry: I am happy to assure the Member that it is something that we are working on. She is lucky that she has the South West College in her area, which is very proactive in working with local employers. That goes for all the colleges right across Northern Ireland. We are very much guided by the needs of employers. It is important that we hear about not just the very general skills that employers need but the very specific skills shortages that they may be experiencing, so that we can ensure that the education and training system responds. The working group gives us the structures around which we can provide a forum in which we do that efficiently and effectively.

Mr Dallat: Given that there have been serious job losses in the sector since the action plan was devised, when the Minister evaluates it, will he look at a more broadly based plan that caters better for the geographical spread of job losses, which are not just confined to one area?

Dr Farry: I certainly recognise that we have seen some job losses in the sector, but it is worth stressing that we have also seen new jobs being created. For example, we have had the expansion of Caterpillar and new jobs being undertaken through that company. Equally, there is a host of other companies that are going from strength to strength. We have very clear indications that the aerospace, defence and space sectors in Northern Ireland have a very bright future, and they are keen to ensure that they have a steady flow of people coming through.

It is also important that people are prepared to be a little more mobile in looking for work. We cannot always direct the work to where people live, and, to an extent, there has to be a focus on good labour mobility. However, it is worth stressing that we have a broad range of engineering strength in the Northern Ireland economy and there are clusters in different parts of Northern Ireland. They each have their individual strengths, and we are happy to work with them all.

Mr Nesbitt: The Minister will be aware that one of the actions from the action plan was for employers to attend careers service regional unit meetings. How many such meetings have been held since the plan was published, and what percentage have seen that recommendation actioned?

Dr Farry: I do not have the precise figures to hand, but I can say to the Member that actions have been taken forward in relation to careers. He will be aware that a joint review of careers is being undertaken along with the Department of Education. That is being taken forward by a panel chaired by Brian Ambrose from George Best Belfast City Airport. We have also placed careers staff directly with employers so that they have a better understanding of their needs. Rather than employers necessarily having to come to us, we have been even more proactive in sending careers staff to be embedded in the business community, including the engineering sector, so that they are better able to articulate the needs of that sector to potential workers of the future.

Mr Dickson: I thank the Minister. A great deal of work has been done by the Minister and his Department to develop apprenticeships in engineering. What further work is he doing to develop apprenticeships and to demonstrate to young people particularly that apprenticeships are of a high value equivalent to degrees?

Dr Farry: The Member and, indeed, the entire Assembly will be aware that we released a new strategy for apprenticeships in Northern Ireland in June this year. This is a radical departure from the previous situation with apprenticeships, and we hope to see a considerable expansion of the range of occupations and the skill levels to which they are being applied.

One of the key areas that we seek to do differently is to ensure a much stronger voice for employers in relation to apprenticeships. We are working to develop sectoral partnerships that will focus on the needs of particular sectors, and I am confident that engineering will be one of the first that we will seek to develop. Last week, I met employers in the ICT sector with a view to setting up a sectoral partnership. The meeting went very well, and I am due to meet the action group on 14 October. One of the items on the agenda for that meeting will be the creation of a sectoral partnership in the engineering sector to develop more opportunities for apprenticeships.

Dr Farry: While plans for the new Craigavon campus that is due to replace the current Lurgan and Portadown facilities are at an early stage, the potential for the college to utilise the new leisure facilities is actively being considered. Southern Regional College has confirmed that it is fully aware of the proposal for new district council leisure facilities and, consequently, does not intend to build a sports hall, a swimming pool or football or other sports pitches as part of the new campus in Craigavon. The college is in regular communication with the district council and will continue this engagement with a view to establishing formal arrangements whereby the college can utilise the new leisure facilities. The Member will appreciate that the discussions have been at a strategic level, given that the locations for the new leisure facilities and the college campus have yet to be identified.

I fully recognise the mutual benefits that can be obtained from the use of shared services. My Department’s successful capital bid to the Together: Building a United Community programme to fund the Craigavon campus project demonstrates the focus on integration across the further education estate. At a time of increased pressures on funding, there is a heightened awareness of and attention on the importance of maximising the use of resources through developing shared facilities.

Mr Moutray: I welcome the Minister's answer. The potential for the two bodies to work together is enormous. Is he confident that this vital project will proceed, given the wrecking tactics of Sinn Féin in relation to welfare reform?

Dr Farry: Some degree of assurance can be given, in that this is a capital programme. Indeed, the first tranche of money has been secured as part of the Together: Building a United Community funding programme. That gives a degree of certainty in relation to this. There will be a need for further capital bids to be made around the balance of money required to make this happen.

At present, most of the pressures in the budgets are in the revenue area. The Member is right to express alarm: what is already a difficult situation is set to deteriorate rapidly over coming years. I see a difficulty arising if we end up having to make cuts in the further education sector. We will end up building colleges of a world-class standard but without the resource to equip them properly or to ensure that we invest in the students who will take advantage of them.

Mrs D Kelly: Minister, I note that permission has been given to go ahead with the development proposal, and I think that the work is to conclude some time in the new year. How much of a guarantee can you give us that there will be the money to deliver the project within the next three to four years?

Dr Farry: Maybe I will ask the Member to give us a guarantee that her party will see sense on Budget issues and ensure that we have sustainable finances in Northern Ireland. In that, we will have the answer to her question.

Dr Farry: In implementing Graduating to Success, my Department has established a project group to facilitate cross-border cooperation and student mobility. A key part of that project is addressing the relevant recommendations from the Irish Business and Employers Confederation and the CBI joint business council study of obstacles to cross-border undergraduate education. In particular, my Department’s Careers Service continues to build the knowledge of its advisers to ensure that students are fully informed about opportunities in the UK and the Republic of Ireland. An anomaly on student finance has been resolved, and, since 2013, students from Northern Ireland studying in the Republic of Ireland have had access to a repayable student contribution loan and other financial support.

The Department of Education is in the lead regarding A-level and leaving certificate equivalences. However, a number of individual universities have introduced interim measures to attract students from here. My officials are working with officials in the Department of Education and Skills to research and analyse cross-border student flows. A joint report that will inform policy development is scheduled for completion in the autumn.

I met Minister Quinn of the Department in April 2014 to discuss matters of mutual interest. I have also written to his successor, Minister Jan O’Sullivan, and will discuss matters with her at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting this Friday.

Mr Flanagan: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. Given that we are nearly at the end of the autumn, even though you would not think it with the weather, does he have any indication of what will be in the report that he is teasing us with?

Dr Farry: I am not sure what the weather is like in Fermanagh, but, in my mind, the autumn extends to the end of November at least, so there is still time for the report to come through. As I have said on a number of occasions, there is no lack of willingness in this jurisdiction in the Department of Education or my Department to address the issues and the barriers to student flows on the island of Ireland. Most of the obstacles lie in the policies and practices of the Government in the Irish Republic, and at times we have to question their willingness to be proactive in addressing some of these points. If the Member has any influence, I encourage him to use it, alongside the influence of others, to see how we can address the issues.

Mr Campbell: The Minister will know that my constituency extends from four miles from the border to 50 miles from the border and, while a very small number of people might want to extend their mobility to take advantage of classes in the Irish Republic, the vast majority do not. Will he give the House an assurance that whatever resource he deploys will not be at the expense of promoting mobility for students within Northern Ireland who are trying to avail themselves of classes that they will require to get themselves into full-time employment in this country?

Dr Farry: It is important that we look at mobility in a range of ways. As the Member says, we have mobility within Northern Ireland, but some students may wish to study in Great Britain, and others may wish to study in the Republic of Ireland. It is not only geographical proximity that will influence decisions but the availability of courses. While I want a very broad range of courses to be provided in Northern Ireland, there may be areas in which certain specialisms are more effectively taught elsewhere in these islands — I stress that in the broadest sense — and it is important that we facilitate mobility. It is also the case that, when we have to invest in specialist equipment or specialist teaching, neither jurisdiction on the island has the resources to invest in that alone, so there may be opportunities for joint initiatives.

So it is important that we do not just see mobility on the island as just a cross-border issue; it may well be about ensuring choice right across the island and, indeed, these islands.

Mr Rogers: I thank the Minister for his answers thus far. Minister, some universities in the South have put in place interim measures. What steps are you taking to ensure that students who want to do high-quality courses that are available in the South but not here have good opportunities do so?

Dr Farry: Most of the courses available in the Republic of Ireland are offered in Northern Ireland. There are a very small number of exceptions. Veterinary science is one example, and there are also opportunities in Great Britain, notably Scotland, in that regard. It is important that, first, we signpost people so that they are aware of the opportunities. The number of students from Northern Ireland going to the South is remarkably small, given that we share an island, and has been quite small for the last number of years. There is a greater flow of students northwards. The issue that we have is multifaceted but considerably unbalanced. A lot of work has to be done to redress the balance so that we have a natural flow, based on informed choice, in both directions on the island.

Mrs Overend: Following the Scottish referendum, has the Minister had any conversations with his counterpart in Scotland about support for students from Northern Ireland who travel to Scotland for undergraduate study?

Dr Farry: I have not had the opportunity to have any discussions in the past week or so since the referendum. However, the situation remains largely unchanged on the back of the outcome. The Member will be aware of the fees that students from here are charged. There was a lot of speculation before the referendum about what would be the situation in the event that Scotland opted for independence. In that context, all the legal advice, and the Scottish Government's advice, was that students from Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the European Union would have to be treated the same as Scottish students.

Dr Farry: According to the college, 1,141 students and trainees participated in work placements in the 2013-14 academic year as part of their programme of learning. In addition, the college has extremely good working relationships with employers in its area and engages with over 5,000 employers to obtain relevant work placements as close to students' homes as possible. The process of obtaining, monitoring and evaluating work placements takes significant effort from the college but is a key element of the student experience and an integral part of their study.

I can also advise that the college has developed bespoke software called business engagement and student tracking to monitor placements. Research emphasises the importance of work placements. In particular, learners benefit from experience of the work environment to complement their studies. It is also a very effective way for learners to acquire the all-important employability skills required by employers.

My Department’s reviews of further education and youth training are considering how work placements can be included in the most effective way in individual students' programmes of learning. The youth employment scheme is a voluntary scheme designed to help young people to develop the skills needed to get a job. It also recognises that employability skills are more readily obtained by active participation in a work setting with an employer or a voluntary organisation.

Mr Easton: I thank the Minister for his answer. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the excellent work that Charter NI does in training and providing education courses for young people, especially those from a Protestant working-class background. The only problem is trying to get work placements. Is there anything more that the Minister, through his Department, could do to help Charter NI to get work placements?

Dr Farry: First, I stress that any contracts that Charter NI provides on behalf of the Department and with public money are open to all sections of the community. It is important that that is made extremely clear. The Member may be conscious of particular issues for one section of the community, but it is important that we have a neutral approach in the provision of resources.

The Member is right to stress the importance of engaging with employers to source placements. This is an ongoing challenge and one that we have experienced with the current Training for Success programme and other schemes that we have been working with.

We can take some encouragement from the experience with the youth employment scheme, where a considerable number of employers came forward. That was largely driven by very good, proactive engagement with employers directly and the various business organisations. It is also important to get the message out that employers want to have surety that they will have a strong pipeline of young people coming through, and the only way in which they can ensure that they have the right technical skills and the employability skills is to offer work placements to young people so that they can begin the task of investing in those skills. I am pleased to say that more and more employers are recognising that.

Dr Farry: With your permission, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I will group questions 6 and 15. I wish to request an additional minute for the answer.

Members are aware from my statement of 1 July that the international panel completed its review and delivered its report 'Aspiring to Excellence' on the initial teacher education infrastructure in Northern Ireland. The report has proposed four options for future structures: a collaborative partnership; a two-centre model with a Belfast institute of education and the second centre based in the north-west; a Northern Ireland teacher education federation; and a Northern Ireland institute of education. I do not regard those options as being mutually exclusive or as the totality of the range of possibilities before us. Rather, they serve as a very useful guide, shaping discussions as we go forward.

In my statement, I asked the sector to use the summer months to consider the content of the report and the options. I also committed to engaging with the initial teacher education sector in the autumn to discuss the review panel's report. As a first step, earlier this month, I met the four initial teacher education providers — Queen's, Stranmillis, St Mary's and the University of Ulster — to hear each institution's views and discuss how best to find a way forward. The meetings have been constructive, and engagement will continue as we consider how best to align the views put forward by each of the institutions with the options suggested by the panel. However, I remind Members that both the international panel and the stage one report on the cost of teacher education training and the financial sustainability of the university colleges agree that the status quo is not an option because of the quality of initial teacher education provided and financial reasons. My main aim in the process continues to be how we can best structure a system that can deliver world-class standards of teacher education, is financially sustainable, promotes greater sharing and integration, and is in the best interests of our young people.

Mr Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his response. He obviously agrees that the status quo is no longer an option. Can he advise the House how he proposes to take the issue forward, given that St Mary's, unlike the other colleges, has refused any of the four options that are on the table?

Dr Farry: I am still considering the best way forward, and we are not taking any fixed approach. At present, we are working through bilateral discussions with the institutions. I can say that I have had some very constructive discussions with St Mary's in the past week, and we have made a commitment to have further discussions. While the Member is correct to report that St Mary's does not favour any of the four options on the table, it is nonetheless willing to consider what is the best way forward for the institution and, indeed, the system. It is fair to say that St Mary's itself recognises that the status quo is not an option. Obviously, the Member and others in the House, perhaps even including me, will have more ambitious views on how we can take forward reform, but, at this stage, I will say that all the institutions are willing to engage in further discussions with me and the Department.

Mr Sheehan: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra. Will the Minister give the international expert panel time to examine a proposal on shared education that was put forward by Peter Finn from St Mary's University College before he brings forward his own proposals on the review?

Dr Farry: No further pieces of work are excluded from current discussions. The panel has formally discharged its commitment to the Department and, indeed, has given evidence to the Employment and Learning Committee in recent days. What the Member set out can take place at any stage and, indeed, could have taken place at any stage in the past. There is no doubt that there will be issues that we will wish to reflect on when considering any potential for progress.

Mr Attwood: Whilst you are not ruling anything in or out, what is your view on the previous proposal from Queen's University, which was essentially a land grab of the Stranmillis site and more to do with development and less with education? What is your view of the comments made by the board of governors of Stranmillis to the Employment and Learning Committee in this place a couple of weeks ago, when they said that they had proposals with St Mary's? Many of the staff at Stranmillis College have said that they know nothing about those proposals.

Dr Farry: There were quite a lot of issues in the question, which I will try to work through as best I can. As to my view of the way forward, I am not sure that it would be terribly productive for me to stake a claim and say that this is the way forward and the only way forward. It is important that we have a proper discussion amongst all the providers. I have made clear the direction of travel that I want to see in that regard, but it is important to recognise that a variety of different institutional formats could fall within those parameters.

The only thing that I would say is that the status quo is not sustainable. We need to encourage more sharing and integration in teacher education. We also have to ensure that it is of world-class standard and, in particular, that it has greater interaction with research excellence. We also have to ensure that we have a financially sustainable system. Those are the key principles as we move forward.

While Mr Attwood may wish to ascribe certain ambitions, or perspectives, behind the approach of Queen's University, let me be very clear that the three principles I have outlined are the basis of my approach to the issue. It is about ensuring that we have a world-class system of teacher education in Northern Ireland — nothing more and nothing less.

With respect to Stranmillis, we will obviously wish to take the views of staff on board, but, constitutionally, the Department deals with the board of governors. The board and its chair are appointed by me, and we will officially receive the views of the college directly from them.

Mr McGimpsey: Listening to the Minister's answer to Mr Attwood, it appears that we are very clearly hearing his view, and the concern of course is that his view is the one that the review will come up with in the end. Will he be satisfied with a review finding that is at variance with his viewpoint and with that of his party? Will he ensure that there is proper consultation within the various colleges so that no one feels that they are being disenfranchised in what appears to be a very long and convoluted process?

Dr Farry: I would say two things to the Member. First, on the point about fixed viewpoints, his party, through my predecessor Mr Kennedy, issued a consultation document before the last Assembly election that quite clearly endorsed a merger between Queen's University and Stranmillis as the way forward. That was a fixed view, and it is down on paper as part of the formal record.

Secondly, in response to Mr Attwood, I set out the three broad principles that will guide the approach that I am taking forward in this regard, and I have said that a range of different institutional formats could fall within the parameters of those three guiding principles. I do not see the potential for any outcome emerging, that will find favour across the board and with my personal opinion, being difficult to establish. I think that it is important that everyone works constructively so that we can achieve that. If everyone shares the ambition around those principles and a desire to see a world-class system, we will find an answer.

Dr Farry: Youth unemployment remains a major challenge in Northern Ireland, in common with other parts of these islands and elsewhere in Europe. Almost one third of those who are unemployed fall within the 18- to 24-year-old age group. The challenge is being proactively addressed by my Department and the wider Executive. Responses include the youth employment scheme and the Pathways to Success strategy. Wider reforms including the review of careers, the new strategy on apprenticeships and the forthcoming new youth training system will all help to reduce the incidences of youth unemployment in the future.

The situation around youth unemployment no doubt causes young people to reflect upon their future opportunities. The statistics collected do not fully capture the internal and external movements of young people. Figures produced by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency give an indication around long-term migration flows. In 2012-13, 7,700 18- to 24-year-olds left Northern Ireland and 5,900 came in — a net outward migration of 1,800 or 1% of that age group. In 2000-01 when youth unemployment was much lower, 5,700 18- to 24-year-olds left Northern Ireland and 4,000 came in — a net outward migration of 1,700 individuals or, again, around 1% of that age group.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: That is the end of the time for listed questions. We now move on to topical questions.

Dr Farry: The Member is probably aware that we are in the process of doing a major review of youth training, which is very much geared around those young people who would be leaving school at the age of 16 or 17 and who have the potential to engage in the world of work. An expert panel from a range of stakeholders is in place to advise us on the development of the strategy. It is envisaged that there will be two different strands — an employed strand through what you could term a traineeship and an unemployed strand that is, nevertheless, still linked to work placements. That builds on the comments that I made to Mr Easton earlier. We hope to have a draft consultation paper ready within the next few weeks and to go out to public consultation towards the end of the autumn with a view to having agreement on a new strategy in the spring of 2015.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his answer and for the information that he has given the House today. He may not be able to answer my next question, but I ask him to look into it and find out why funding has been removed from the Michael Hughes academy BTEC diploma in sport development, coaching and fitness at the Newtownabbey campus of the Northern Regional College. This has ended four weeks after the commencement of the course.

Dr Farry: I am happy to assure the Member that she will be provided with a full answer. Obviously, the college is responsible for the courses that it provides and how it manages its budget. It is only speculation on my part, but, given the time of year, it may be based on the enrolment figures.

Dr Farry: We have a number of different interventions. First, we have the excellent resource of the South West College. As the Member knows, our further education system in Northern Ireland is recognised as being the best in these islands and, within that, the South West College has been recognised as being one of the very best colleges in these islands. Therefore, that is a very good resource to draw on. We also have the local jobs and benefits offices and the Careers Service, all of which are vehicles to engage with the local community.

The Member will also be aware that we officially launched the next tranche of the European social fund in the past week. We are keen to ensure that there is a more even geographical drawdown of funds and that we have better engagement with local communities, particularly through the new council structure, to work with us around the various proposals that will come forward. Hopefully, the Member will see the fruits of that over the coming months.

Mr McAleer: Go raibh maith agat. Is the Minister concerned that an increasing number of very highly skilled and trained people are being forced to take up jobs that are considered to be low skilled, thereby minimising or not making full use of their repertoire of skills and training?

Dr Farry: Absolutely. As Minister for Employment and Learning, my overriding objective is to ensure that we have proper efficiency of supply and demand in the labour market and that we address our skills needs.

Overall, it is clear that we will have a much higher demand for higher-level skills over the coming years and, in particular, in STEM subjects. Even within higher-level skills, there can sometimes be a skills mismatch, and that is why it is important that we have proper careers advice and encourage people to take up opportunities in some of the high-growth sectors in the economy. The Member is quite right: when that goes wrong, we have a situation of underemployment, in terms of either the number of hours that people work or the areas in which they are employed, where they are overqualified. That can have knock-on consequences elsewhere, in displacing other people's opportunities. Through what we are doing in careers, apprenticeships and investing in further education and higher education, we are trying to drive that situation out of our economy. We all stand to benefit if we get it right.

Dr Farry: I am glad that the Member stressed the words "could have". At this stage, the current budget uncertainty has not impacted on that particular intervention around FE awards and hardship funds. There has been a little bit of confusion around the fact that we have identified underspends in student finance as one of the areas through which we are seeking to manage the current in-year pressures. That is a reflection of the fact that we have to set a budget allocation based on an estimate of demand, and our projection is that demand will come in below the budget, allowing us to have what is, in effect, a reduced requirement that can be moved elsewhere within the system.

Members will be aware that we are looking at cuts of 4·5%-plus on an in-year situation. The current speculation is that, next year, there will be cuts well in excess of 10% and that that will continue into future years. That will have a massive impact, right across the board, on what my Department does.

More immediately, I make the point that, while I am nonetheless seeking to act strategically and to protect the most vulnerable in society from the cuts, we have a certain inequity in the approach that has been taken to date with the protection given to the Department of Education. That means that the 16- to 19-year-olds who are in school will benefit from that protection, whereas the 40% of 16- to 19-year-olds who are in further education and training are not given protection. The fact that we have sought to protect them is due to our own actions, not the strategic decisions taken by the Executive. That is an inequity, and it becomes doubly so when you consider the different socio-economic backgrounds of the two cohorts that we are talking about.

Mr Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his response. Obviously, the protection of those front line services will have a knock-on effect on other programmes. Will the Minister advise what other programmes in his Department will suffer as a result of the protection of the youth services and the continual reduction of funding in his Department?

Dr Farry: We have explained to the Committee how we have approached the situation in-year. Our books are balanced, so far as the 4·5% that has been announced so far is concerned. What we do beyond that has still to be determined. We have some options in that regard. While I have sought to act strategically and to protect those who are most vulnerable, when we are in a situation where we face cuts in excess of 10% or 15%, all bets are off, and it becomes next to impossible to give any guarantees of protecting any particular area of activity in the Department. If we were to try to do that, we would massively skew commitments elsewhere. The only thing I can say to the Member is that going down this route is really not sustainable. We cannot simply keep cutting and cutting budgets in order to put off taking a difficult decision. It is not the way that any mature Government goes about its business.

Dr Farry: The timescale for the full implemention of the new strategy is September 2016, so, to give the Member a very direct answer, that is the timescale. Between now and then, a lot of work will take place around the implementation of the strategy. Already, we have had pilots of higher-level apprenticeships, and we are working to create the first of our sectoral partnerships, which gives employers a direct voice.

I also stress to the Member that a lot of work is being done to create jobs in Northern Ireland both by local companies and through attracting inward investment. The Member will be aware that Invest NI has had a very successful year; indeed, its most successful year ever. That is strongly supported by my Department's Assured Skills programme, whereby we can give guarantees to investing companies that they will have the skills base locally to take up the jobs that they create.

We are being successful in creating jobs locally, and, while outward migration is still, sadly, a factor for Northern Ireland, I expect that it will decrease over coming years. Also, a number of people who have left Northern Ireland may seek to return, given the job opportunities that are now being created.

Dr McDonnell: I thank the Minister for his full and direct answer. He will be aware that, due to various liabilities that have arisen in recent times such as insurance demands, public liability, insuring the apprentice and so on, it is increasingly difficult for a business or trade to take on an apprentice. Can we build a mechanism into the system that would take care of such insurance liabilities for the company and cover the individual apprentice from any damage that might happen to him or be done by him or her? That seems to me to be the biggest obstacle for many tradesmen taking on apprentices.

Dr Farry: I suspect that the issue that Dr McDonnell raises is more of an issue around work placements, where the person in question is not the employee of the company as such. In an apprenticeship, the apprentice is an employee of the sponsoring company and would be covered by the existing insurance policies that the company has.

In a wider sense, it is also worth highlighting that we are developing a central service, which, again, is a new departure for Northern Ireland. That will be run by my Department and will work with employers directly in advertising vacancies to a portal that will encourage young people to apply for apprenticeships and deal with a lot of the bureaucracy.

One issue that we are trying to address is the barriers that SMEs experience around apprenticeships. Around the world, we see a pattern that apprenticeships are more readily provided through larger companies and less so through SMEs. Even in countries such as Switzerland or Germany, that is the case. It is important that government seeks to put incentives and assistance in place, as far as we can, to try to break the barrier that discourages SMEs from engaging. Some of the issues that the Member touches on beyond insurance are the type of issues that we will explore through that mechanism.

Dr Farry: That depends on the particular circumstances that prevail. We had a useful debate this morning on student finance, and we have stressed that, in a large number of situations, there is access to support through disability student allowances as well as access to the additional support funds that allow a lot of mechanisms to be introduced to help students with a range of disabilities. It depends on the individual circumstances and cases that arise.

Mr McMullan: Go raibh maith agat. Does the Minister agree that, under equality legislation, those classes should be free to deaf people in order for them to be able to participate in all aspects of their life as fully as possible?

Dr Farry: I go back to what I said. If there are any inequalities in the system, I am committed to driving them out. A range of support already exists, and our colleges are bound to abide by equality legislation in all its forms. If something is not quite right, I am happy to look at that on the Member's behalf, and it will be remedied.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. That concludes Question Time. I invite the House to take its ease while we change the top Table.

Ms Fearon: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am delighted to see such massive interest in the Chamber for our motion on cross-border postal services. At the outset, I express my disappointment that the Minister has not seen fit to be with us to respond and comment on the issues raised throughout the debate. I do not think that we have been given a reason why or been notified that she was not going to be here. So, that is disappointing.

The motion refers to the —

Mr Douglas: Will the member give way?

Ms Fearon: Yes.

Mr Douglas: I will respond to the Member's point. I spoke to the Minister this morning, and she said that, because it is a reserved matter, she felt that she did not need to be here in that it is not her Department's responsibility.

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

Ms Fearon: I am sure that she does not need to be here, but there is a precedent for the issues raised to be discussed.

The motion refers to the barriers to cross-border economic development, and I know only too well the barriers that local people who live along the border and businesses face. I have lived there my whole life and worked on both sides of the border. Citizens are not well served by the border in the provision of health, education, environmental protections, jobs, banking charges, business costs, mobile phone charges and the cost of postal services. The border area is largely rural, and, while this is probably a discussion for another day, there are still huge black spots in the provision of rural broadband, which can create huge difficulties for local businesses. Increased connectivity along the border would eventually reduce reliance on the postal service.

It also has to be welcomed that the Ofcom report mentioned in the motion shows high levels of satisfaction with our postal services in the North. However, there are problems and issues with cross-border services. Despite the geographical proximity of Ireland, North and South, consumers face an average delivery time of two to three days when posting or receiving mail from the South of Ireland. To address that, we require an integrated approach to postal services across the island. In 2010, Consumer Focus Post called on the main postal service providers, Royal Mail and An Post, and their respective regulators, Postcomm and ComReg, to work together to provide a faster, more consumer-driven service that reflects the demands of consumers and the importance of a more effective postal service in developing the island economy through cross-border trade. Four years on, however, we have not seen any improvement; if we have, it is very little.

The same report also showed that 68% of businesses in the North send post to the South, while 85% stated that it was fairly important, and almost half said that it was absolutely essential to their business. The Ofcom report also showed that 47% of people are unsatisfied with the cost of posting a standard letter, and that does not include larger documents or parcels. So, the motion calls for the introduction of a single pricing structure for mail anywhere on the island of Ireland, which is a perfectly reasonable suggestion. We need a common-sense approach to issues pertaining to the border. It is ridiculous that Royal Mail expects people to pay almost 90p to post a letter from Newry to Dundalk, when the same thing can be sent anywhere in England, Scotland or Wales for less than half that.

Differential postal rates are also used in other areas of the EU — the Czech Republic and Slovakia are an example — so we should seek to adopt the same kind of approach here. Alongside the cost are the unnecessary delays in having items delivered. However, the good thing is that no issues were raised about reliability. Satisfaction rates are high, but it is hard not to argue that there are certain inefficiencies that could be addressed.

The postal service is a basic infrastructure that underpins trade and commerce. While it is good that most businesses are satisfied with the quality and reliability of the service, it is worrying that as many businesses are concerned about the cost differential in posting between the North and the South and to Britain. Any steps that can be taken, however marginal, to improve the speed, reliability and cost-effectiveness of the cross-border service could make a significant contribution to the ease with which business is carried out across the island. We need to focus on our economy and creating jobs. The success of our private sector and our economy are dependent on having an efficient, affordable and reliable island-wide postal service. Many companies and organisations depend on it as an essential element of business. Growing the success of island-wide trade is essential to consolidating and building our economy. At present, we in the North receive the largest return from the island economy, and that would only increase with greater harmonisation and reduced transaction costs, of which postal charges are only a small example.

We need to work together to ensure that we provide the best climate for business development and the best services for our citizens at the same time as addressing the costs of duplication on the island. Health provides a good example of how a better service can be developed by using an all-island approach. The new joint cancer centre in Derry will provide services for patients from throughout the north-west. Patients from Donegal and Derry will no longer have to go to Belfast or Dublin for treatments. There are opportunities in a new integrated island-wide structure to reconfigure how we deliver health services across the island. The total spend per person in the current regressive health system in the South of Ireland is less than it is in the North or in Britain.

The same island-wide approach must be adopted for our economy. Addressing inefficiencies and the high costs of cross-border post is only one aspect of that. Greater cooperation and integration make sense and would benefit all our people. Cooperation is not a threat to any identity.

Mr Dallat: The history of postal services in Ireland is fascinating. They really swung into top gear with the introduction of the penny stamp in the 1840s, which is when the mail coaches began rushing up, down and across the country. Just for the record, sending a letter from Belfast to Dublin took a few hours then; today, it takes up to five days, and the cost is prohibitive. It seems a bit strange that, 170 years ago, a mail coach, pulled by four black horses on roads that had yet to experience tarmacadam, could do the job better. That is despite the fact that, today, we have modern motorways.

One of the dangers of the 1840s was the highwayman, who was a great tradition in Ireland and often relieved passengers of their gold bullion. That was described by the poet Alfred Noyes in recording the activities of the period in the poem, 'The Highwayman'. I will quote a few lines from it to give you a taste of what it must have been like:

Often, the old inn, referred to in the next line, was the staging post for the mail coach. That is where the horses were changed and passengers sometimes lost their gold and silver. Nothing deterred the post office of the day from delivering the mail, come hail or high water. Today, if I post a letter in Derry for Muff, which is just five miles down the road, it takes a week to deliver it. It goes to Athlone, is sent back up to Lifford and, eventually, drops on the carpet of my friend in Muff. That is partition gone daft.

What happened to the mail coach of the 1840s, when that letter would have been delivered the next day, highwayman or no highwayman? What happened to the true grit of the Post Office and the brave people who risked their lives day and daily to provide a decent postal service that was fit for purpose? We know what happened: foolish people sold off part of the Post Office. They flogged it for the silver — perhaps the same silver as the highwayman was stealing — and they seriously damaged the universal principles of the postal service. Today, the lucrative pieces of the Post Office are farmed out to private enterprise. They take the spoils and leave the rest for the poor Royal Mail of today to deliver. Of course, that has caused to stagnate any serious attempt to re-establish a universal postal service that is fit for purpose.

I do not want to make this controversial, but I am here long enough to remember good debates in the Assembly on the Post Office and mail delivery. Those debates were effective, and I know that there is an all-party group on the mail service. Therefore, without wishing to criticise the Minister, the weight of the debate has been devalued by her absence. I am genuinely sorry that she was not here to give her strength to it.

Sometimes, when I am crossing the great Glenshane Pass, I tend to dream about better times — perhaps times when politicians were more effective. I can see those stagecoaches coming down the Glenshane Pass at high speed and stopping off at the Ponderosa to change the horses. Today, we are debating an issue that should not need to be debated. Yes, there is political partition: we know that.

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

Mr Dallat: But, really, it has gone mad.

Mr D Bradley: Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Tá mé buíoch as an deis cainte ins an díospóireacht seo faoi chostais poist. Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to wind on the SDLP amendment. During the debate, we have seen a picture emerge that clearly illustrates the anomalies and inconsistencies that have arisen in the current system. One must ask why people here face higher costs to send mail within one island than to send mail across the water. That is all the more frustrating when their friends, relatives and business contacts in the South are subject to An Post's single standard tariff.

We have heard that almost half of our adult population have expressed their dissatisfaction with the cost differential and the snail's pace of cross-border delivery times. In my area, it takes almost a week to deliver a letter from Newry to Dundalk, a mere 12 miles. One wonders what circuitous route that letter travels in order to cover that short distance.

The taxpayer in this case is denied value for money, However, the same cannot be said of the big corporations who benefited from the privatisation of Royal Mail, with one valuation estimating that it was undersold by £6 billion. I do not want to revert to references to highwaymen, but the conclusion to come to there is clear: the public were robbed once again. As usual, the ordinary citizen is left to deal with rising prices and the threat that direct delivery services pose to the universal postal service.

The digital revolution has certainly made a permanent and, for the most part, positive impact on our communication technology, but it has not made the postal service obsolete. I am sure that there are many who would like to complete the transition to digital, but, for the foreseeable future, that will not be the case. There are many individuals and businesses here that continue to rely on courier services, and their needs cannot be dismissed. Take, for example, the majority of UK-based banking customers, who still value being able to determining for themselves whether they prefer online banking or paper statements. According to the Keep Me Posted campaign, that amounts to 81%.

The postal service continues to play a vital role in our community and in the business world. We must ensure that it provides the best value for money and the most efficient and reliable service possible. The Consumer Council has stated:

The council has published a number of useful statistics that give evidence to that.

A reliable and affordable postal service is particularly critical for our small and medium-sized businesses. A massive two thirds of our businesses regularly send post to the South, and it has been deemed an essential service by almost half of them. Such cross-border trade is a vital component in our economy, yet nearly one fifth of businesses here that trade with the Republic have had to travel across the border to post mail destined for Southern addresses to avail themselves of the superior postal service there. It would be comical if it were not so ridiculous. It is absurd that businesses here have to resort to that.

A Consumer Focus Post report stated:

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

Mr D Bradley: The speeches by all contributors point clearly to support for the motion as amended by the SDLP.

Mr Boylan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle Ba mhaith liom labhairt i bhfabhar an rúin agus i bhfabhar an leasaithe. Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá. I would like to speak in favour of the motion and the amendment. First and foremost, being a former postal worker, I pay tribute to the men and women who day and daily provide an excellent service, particularly to people in rural areas. It is important that those people are facilitated.

There have been good contributions to the debate. It is important to recognise that having an affordable and effective postal service cannot be overestimated or overstated. It is a key service that many citizens continue to rely on heavily in their day-to-day affairs. That is especially so of people in rural areas, who do not have the same access to adequate broadband or Internet facilities.

The postal service is also especially relevant to small businesses, many of which continue to rely on it as a key component of their needs. In increasingly competitive markets, it is incumbent on us to find efficiencies that can help those businesses to develop and succeed. We need to look constantly at ways to help local businesses overcome the barriers and obstacles to trade that have resulted from the artificial partition and division of this small island economy.

Additional and unnecessary business costs quickly add up, especially for small and micro companies. Trimming those costs where possible can make a huge difference to the competitiveness of those companies. With that in mind, we must look at anomalies that can severely impact on those businesses' needs and, indeed, the value-for-money service that is provided to domestic and business customers alike.

For the purposes of Royal Mail costing, the Republic of Ireland is treated as a European destination in the same bracket as Kazakhstan, Greenland or Turkmenistan. That is utterly nonsensical and absurd. It costs someone from my home town of Keady £8·05p to send a 1kg package to Clontibret, nine miles away — the same price as somewhere in Azerbaijan. That is absolutely absurd. In comparison, it would cost only £3·20p to send the same package 550 miles to Margate in the south of England. Whilst I recognise that there are financial considerations for deliveries from England, Scotland and Wales, which require air and sea transport, here the extent of those additional costs cannot be justified and should not be inflicted on customers. This is an obvious and significant obstacle to local trade and services in the border areas and, indeed, the whole of the region. It is high time that this matter was addressed properly and adequately by the stakeholders. I support my colleagues in calling for a fair single pricing structure for deliveries on this island, one that removes all obstacles for trade and provides a good value-for-money service for our citizens.

I want to turn to some of the comments made by some of the contributors. My colleague Mr Flanagan opened up by talking about a family member who was going down South to post invitations. The cost up here compared with the cost down there is an absolute disgrace. It is disgraceful that that happens in these times. To be fair to him, he also highlighted the opportunities for business. I know that Mr Flanagan talks to local businesses daily and that he fights and campaigns for the people in the west. For me, it is sad that the major issue from Mr Flanagan's contribution was the fact that he and my colleague Megan Fearon have put this together and the Minister did not see fit to be here to listen to it. That is very sad. I know that he is on the all-party working group, which is trying to assist on delivering for his area and other areas. The Minister was not here to listen to the debate.

Mr McGlone talked about the threat to universal service obligation, and I have shared that with him. We certainly try to fight a strong argument on that. I do not think that it is the intention of my colleagues who tabled the motion today to cause any issues in relation to the universal service obligation.

Mr Dunne opened up —

Mr Flanagan: I thank the Member for giving way. It might be useful to point out during Mr Boylan's emotive speech that I did not raise many of those issues because there is a motion on the no-day-named list from the all-party group on postal services that will deal with many of those issues.

Mr Boylan: I thank the Member for the intervention. No doubt, we will take the opportunity to debate those issues when that comes to the Floor.

Mr Dunne said that, despite the digital revolution, we were still reliant on the postal service, and he is correct. As a former postal worker, I still talk to my former colleagues. The service is growing, and, as I said, it is very important in rural areas that this service continue. On the intervention that his colleague made about this being a reserved matter, regardless of that we as a devolved Government need to do all that we can to work this through and reduce fares. Some of the contributors to the debate highlighted that.

Mr Elliott said that there were other matters that we could be discussing. There are other matters that we could discuss, but I think that this matter is just as important to people out there as any other. It is vital that we discuss this because it would not have been brought to the Chamber unless the matters had been raised by my colleagues or other Members who have made contributions today. It is important that we take the opportunity to discuss that. He talked about the 47% increase in the price of second-class stamps and the number of people who now use them. That has risen, I think, over the last three years, so it is a big increase.

Megan Fearon, my colleague, outlined a lot of the issues from the environmental side of things right through to banking and the challenge that people face. She lives in the border region, as I do, and she understands well. She alluded to the fact that it has been four years since some reports and there still has been nothing done. I hope that the motion will put something in train, along with the motion that is coming forward from the all-party group in the future, and that it will lead to some success.

Mr Dallat gave us a very entertaining contribution, going back to the horse and cart. I was just waiting for him to mention Dick Turpin, but he did not take the opportunity to do that. He talked about over 100 and whatever number of years — I did not catch the exact number of years — and said that it took only two days then and takes five days now. Mr Bradley also said that it took five days to send a letter 12 miles.

I will wind up on that. I support the motion and thank my colleagues for bringing it to the Chamber today.

Mr Flanagan: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify what the convention is if a motion is tabled asking a Minister to take some form of action and the Minister decides not to come? How is it communicated to those who tabled the motion or to other Assembly Members that there will be no ministerial response?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): The attendance of a Minister in the Chamber is a matter for the Minister and the Executive.