Official Report: Tuesday 08 December 2015

Mr Speaker: Before we proceed to today's business, I have an announcement to make. I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Mr Pat Ramsey giving me notice of his intention to resign as a Member for the Foyle constituency with effect from 31 December 2015. I have notified the Chief Electoral Officer in accordance with section 35 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I am satisfied that the requirements of Standing Orders have been met.

I also want to say a brief word, having worked with Pat for many years as a Derry city councillor and then as an Assembly Member. I also worked with him on the Assembly Commission when I was appointed Speaker. I just want to express my appreciation for the service that you have provided to this Assembly. Thank you very much, and I wish you all the very, very best of luck for the future.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Speaker: The first item of business is the consideration of business not concluded on Monday 7 December. You will be glad to hear that we concluded all the business on yesterday's Order Paper, so we will move on.

Ms Ní Chuilín (The Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Before I commence my statement, I, too, wish Pat and Chris all the very best. Pat is a great public servant and is liked by everybody across parties, which is sometimes rare for this place, and I wish him, Chris and the girls all the very best.

Mr Speaker, with your permission and in compliance with section 52 of the NI Act 1998, I wish to make a statement regarding the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) inland waterways meeting, which was held in the Tyrone Guthrie Centre, Annaghmakerrig, County Monaghan, on 6 November 2015.

The Executive were represented by me as Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure and by junior Minister Emma Pengelly from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. The Irish Government were represented by lead Minister McHugh TD, Minister of State with special responsibility for Gaeltacht Affairs, and Heather Humphreys TD, Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. This statement has been agreed with junior Minister Pengelly, and I am making it on behalf of us both.

The meeting was chaired by Minister Humphreys TD and dealt with issues relating to inland waterways and its constituent agency, Waterways Ireland. The following topics were discussed and decisions taken where appropriate.

The Council received a progress report from Dawn Livingstone, chief executive of Waterways Ireland, on the activities of Waterways Ireland, including the following: management and maintenance of waterways continued, with over 95% of waterways remaining open for navigation in the period from April to October; capital expenditure focused on infrastructure repairs, with embankment strengthening and wall and bridge repairs; development work to refurbish waterside facilities and to extend towpath development is being enabled through third-party funding of €1,020,000; the dredging of the River Finn phase of the restoration of the Ulster canal from Upper Lough Erne to Castle Saunderson has been completed; Waterways Ireland is working with local authorities to explore options for the development of a greenway along the route of the Ulster canal; and 112 events were offered sponsorship support.

The UK winner of a 2015 Living Waterways Award was Row the Erne, a community-based organisation that is facilitated and supported at Waterways Ireland's headquarters. Ministers noted the update on Waterways Ireland's work to maximise the benefit of EU funding opportunities. The Council approved the determination made by Waterways Ireland regarding legacy scale linkages for Northern-based staff. The Council consented to a number of property disposals. The Council approved the appointment Ms Georgina McIntyre to the post of chief executive of the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB), on the basis of a seven-year, fixed-term contract, subject to the final agreement of the contract of employment. The Council agreed to meet again in inland waterways sectoral format in spring 2016.

Mr McCausland (The Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure): I thank the Minister for the report on the meeting. In length, at least, it is a modest report. Given the reference to the use of Waterways Ireland's headquarters by Row the Erne, a community-based organisation that was faciltated and supported there, and that there have been comments regarding the scale of the headquarters in Enniskillen, whether it is larger than actually needed and whether some of it could be sublet or used by others, has there been any progress on that, and is this an example of that sort of thinking?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Chair for his question. I agree that concerns have been raised about the size of the Waterways Ireland headquarters building in Enniskillen. Perhaps, if there is excess office space that people could make use of, that should be explored. I think that this is an example of where that has happened. I am not aware of any other requests for space, but I will try to find out whether there have been requests and if they have been facilitated; or, if there is still additional space, what plans there are to have that space filled in future.

Mr Ó hOisín: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. Can the Minister outline the main priorities for Waterways Ireland in 2016?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I think that the Member will join me in ensuring that we continue to recognise the achievements of Waterways Ireland in keeping navigation open. It is now at 95% and over. I think that its priority is to ensure that navigation is kept open and that another priority is the restoration of the Ulster canal. As the Member will have had a chance to see in the statement, Waterways Ireland is actively exploring other opportunities for additional funding through European routes and is looking at partnerships with other nations and countries, particularly on canals and waterways, to ensure that it not only gets additional funding but helps the sustainability of the waterways currently open.

Mrs McKevitt: I thank the Minister for her statement. Rightly so, Waterways Ireland has concentrated in its progress report on capital expenditure. It focused on infrastructure repairs, embankment strengthening and bridge repairs. Can the Minister tell the House whether any of those plans have been thwarted because of the extreme weather conditions that we have seen over the last week, and with more to come?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Member for her comments and her acknowledgement of the work of Waterways Ireland in keeping the navigation system and waterways open. I am not aware of any adverse impact as a result of the weather conditions. However, as we get the reports, even those from yesterday and today, I am keeping a daily watch on them. After today, I will ask for an update. I know that Waterways Ireland has a very good and effective working relationship with county and district councils. It takes a partnership approach to all government agencies, irrespective of the jurisdiction in which they are based. It has certainly done that in the past, and I have no indication that it will not happen if needed this week or in future. It will be willing to do whatever it can.

Mr Cree: I thank the Minister for her statement. Two points caught my eye. The first concerns a substantial sum of money from third-party funding for towpath development. Can she tell us where that is likely to take place? The second concerns the Ulster canal. We have been told that Waterways Ireland is exploring options with local authorities for extending a greenway along the canal. That would be helpful. Can she give us a bit more detail on that, please?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I know that blueway developments are very successful, and some funds have been received from some Departments for them. In Enniskillen, our colleague Michelle O'Neill was involved in exploring options for blueways and, indeed, greenways.

On the Ulster canal restoration, as the Member may be aware, dredging has taken place on the River Finn. Waterways Ireland is looking at how it can extend that from Castle Saunderson to further afield. Through the work of the inter-agency group, and from meetings with local representatives that Minister Humphreys and I have had recently, it was very clear that there is a good energy. A can-do approach is being taken to try to secure additional funds — known as third-party funds — to look at opportunities to open up not only the canal but the walkways around our waterways. That is a really good development, and we are all keen for it to continue.

Ms Lo: I have complained before about the brevity of the Minister's statements on previous meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council. I think that this is the worst that I have ever seen. The statement was very, very brief. It would be more helpful if we got more details so that we could ask you more questions. I do not understand why there is a reluctance to provide more details in statements. I want to ask questions. On EU funding opportunities, you could have told us something more about what opportunities and what work have been generated through maximising funding. Then —

Mr Speaker: I am waiting for a question.

Ms Lo: What does "legacy scale linkages" mean? Can the Minister elaborate on that, please?

Ms Ní Chuilín: The Member has complained in the past. I am not aware of her approaching either Waterways Ireland or Foras na Gaeilge for additional information, or even, for that matter, coming to me in between statements on one sectoral format meeting and another. Notwithstanding that, the statement was agreed by both Departments and reflects the joint communiqué. As for the linkages, there are differences in pensions and travel costs between members of Waterways Ireland staff, depending on the jurisdiction. I am sure that the Member will agree with me that it is important to ensure that all pensions and travel costs, as well as any other employment-related matters, are synergised across the island.

If the Member wants any additional information, I am open to receiving questions and answering them as best I can, but she needs to be proactive as well. If she is so discontented or unhappy with the level of detail provided, there is nothing stopping her from asking questions.

Mr Hilditch: I think that the difficulty with a short statement is finding something to ask on the issue. One thing that jumps out, Minister, is the European funding opportunities. Will you work with the Agriculture Department, for instance, on the rural development programme to potentially try to provide mix-and-match schemes?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I know that the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and Simon Coveney in the Irish Government have been working with Waterways Ireland to explore opportunities. Indeed, many bodies are trying to do that. There has been a great collaborative approach between Enniskillen and Monaghan and Cavan councils. That was evident in planning, first with the environmental impact assessments, and then with the planning regulations that were achieved. That partnership and relationship have continued. They will be pursued, and I will do whatever I can. Indeed, Waterways Ireland will do whatever it can to try to maximise opportunities to ensure not only that there is additional funding but that opportunities are not lost, particularly along the waterways.

Ms McCorley: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagraí agus cuirim fáilte roimh an ráiteas s’aici anseo ar maidin. I thank the Minister for her statement this morning, which I welcome. Which stakeholders are represented on the inter-agency group that has been set up to examine all options for the Ulster canal? Does it include elected representatives?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Member for her question. At this stage, the group does not include elected representatives. When Minister Humphreys and I met stakeholders after the NSMC meeting, that issue was raised. In fact, I met some representatives before the meeting and raised it in advance with Minister Humphreys. While the county councils are involved in the inter-agency group, and while that is appreciated and accepted, it was felt that elected representatives need to be involved because they are the real voice of the councils in trying to ensure that the direction that the councils are going in is appropriate to the needs of the people they represent. It would also mean that there would be better involvement and participation and, sometimes, a better joined-up approach. It is anticipated that, in the not-too-distant future, elected representatives will be involved in the inter-agency group.

Mr Dallat: In the lead-up to Christmas, I am in a very buoyant mood, and I readily acknowledge that Waterways Ireland has done a great deal to transform the River Bann from a large drainage system into what could be the Riviera of the North. Will the Minister assure the Assembly that everything possible is being done to encourage private investment that is capable, in the long term, of creating many sustainable jobs in leisure, hospitality and tourism?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Member for his question. I know that Waterways Ireland has been extremely proactive and has met tourism sectors right across the island. As I mentioned earlier, it is working with local government and Departments to try to ensure that there is a better joined-up approach, particularly to events and sponsored events. You will see from the statement that it was successful in securing sponsorship for at least 112 events. It is also looking at using our waterways and canals to add to the tourist product. I know that it is has spoken to, for example, the Heritage Lottery Fund and some private trusts about the possibilities. Some of that work was particularly evident in the restoration of the Ulster canal, where an inter-agency approach was taken. However, it is not resting there; it is looking for opportunities right across. I think that it has been very proactive and I am content that the same energy and focus will continue in the future.

Mr Allister: Why have the 2014 annual accounts and reports disappeared off the radar? When the Minister made a statement six months ago, she advised of the advanced state of preparedness of those accounts. Yet, in this statement, there is not a single mention of them. So, where have they gone? As for the 2016 business plan, has that yet been approved?

Ms Ní Chuilín: The business plan has been approved. The Member asks the same question after each statement on a sectoral meeting, so he should know that the accounts have to go to both Finance Departments and both Comptrollers and Auditors General before being read into the record of each jurisdiction, the Assembly and the Oireachtas. At that stage, the accounts for Waterways Ireland are in preparation, and, while there is a delay, it is much better than it was in previous years.

Ms Ní Chuilín (The Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Mr Speaker, with your permission, and in compliance with section 52 of the NI Act 1998, I wish to make a statement regarding the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) Language Body meeting that was held in the Tyrone Guthrie Centre in Annaghmakerrig, County Monaghan on 6 November 2015.

The Executive were represented by me as Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure and by junior Minister Emma Pengelly from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. The Irish Government were represented by lead Minister McHugh TD, Minister of State with special responsibility for Gaeltacht Affairs; and Heather Humphreys TD, Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. The statement has been agreed with junior Minister Pengelly, and I make it on behalf of us both. The meeting was chaired by Minister McHugh TD, and the following topics were discussed and decisions taken, where appropriate.

Ministers noted progress reports from the chairpersons and chief executive officers of Foras na Gaeilge and the Ulster-Scots Agency, which included the following achievements relating to the period from June 2015 to October 2015. The app for the new English-Irish dictionary was launched at Oireachtas na Gaeilge, and the Foclóir Beag was added to the online dictionary and language library. The Clár Leabhar Gaeilge campaign, under the auspices of the marketing support scheme for the Irish language publishing sector, is progressing well, with branded stalls in place in 15 shops. The Irish language scheme for primary schools is being implemented, and new digital facilities are available from junior infant level to second class. Funding was provided for youth projects, including 92 summer camps to cater for 3,800 children, which is an increase of 200 from 2014, with 74 groups organising youth activities during the year in addition to the 428 Gaeltacht scholarships for young people here.

The promotion of Ulster Scots in education included the award of flagship status to six schools; the enrolment of 12 schools on the flagship starter programme; the delivery of five after-school clubs and 10 workshops; and two further east-west twinning projects between primary schools. Two key events were organised, comprising a conference in Trinity College Dublin to mark the 700th anniversary of the arrival of the Bruces in Ireland, with an attendance of 300; and an Ulster-Scots heritage day in Raphoe that had an attendance of 450. Support was provided to 21 summer schools, 12 community festivals and 12 community showcase events. Public awareness of Ulster Scots was increased through 19 group visits to the Discover Ulster Scots Centre, the publication of two editions of the Ulster-Scots newspaper and the establishment of a further three blue plaques around Ulster, celebrating pivotal figures from Ulster-Scots history.

Ministers also noted progress on collaboration between Foras na Gaeilge and the Ulster-Scots Agency, including two joint events as part of a community relations and cultural awareness week, comprising a lecture on Irish and Ulster-Scots elements in place names in Northern Ireland and a panel discussion on language traditions in Belfast; engagement in year 2 of a programme to raise awareness of Irish language and linguistic heritage and Ulster-Scots culture, heritage and language in post-primary schools; and the ongoing evaluation of the possibilities of participation in the United Youth programme under OFMDFM's strategy Together: Building a United Community, which seeks to provide an outlet for 10,000 young people who are not in training, education or employment.

The Council noted that the field audits of the 2014 accounts have been completed, and, following work by the Comptrollers and Auditors General to finalise the accounts of each agency, it is envisaged that the consolidated language body annual report and accounts for 2014 will be laid by spring 2016. Ministers noted that the agencies of the language body continue to engage in the identification of possible opportunities to maximise the benefits of EU funding.

Ministers also noted that the Ulster-Scots Agency is continuing to explore opportunities under the INTERREG transnational programmes — the northern periphery and Arctic programme, and the Atlantic area programme, including the organisation of a workshop for the latter. The agency has applied to join the European route of industrial heritage network, which has 200 members in 43 countries, and is monitoring progress with the development of the LEADER/rural development programme whereby there may be opportunities to promote Ulster-Scots heritage.

Ministers noted developments arising from Foras na Gaeilge's success in securing EU funding for the Other Words literary project under the Creative Europe programme, and that two working groups — one internal and one with the six lead organisations — continue to assess other opportunities, including Slí Cholmcille — the Colmcille heritage trail. Advanced discussions have been held between Foras na Gaeilge, Argyll and Bute Council and Derry City and Strabane District Council with the aim of submitting a preliminary application under the Atlantic area programme. Work is ongoing to identify other eligible partners outside Ireland and the UK.

Larger partnership projects are being explored by the lead organisations EU funding working group. One of those organisations, Conradh na Gaeilge, has submitted an application under the recent round of the ERASMUS+ programme under key action 3 for youth structured dialogue. A larger project focusing on Families and Schools Together (FAST) for Gaeltacht and Irish-medium schools is being investigated.

The Council noted the key features of a revised scéim phobail Gaeilge/Irish language community scheme, which includes transition from a three- to a four-year scheme, the consolidation of progress to date and the facilitation of new communities to avail themselves of the scheme by increasing the number of possible grantees from the current 19 groups to a maximum of 26, which is an increase of 37% The Council noted a maximum grant level of €37,000 in year 1, rising to €40,000 in year 4, including 80% of the employment costs for development officers, and it noted a new focus on sustainable development in the communities, which will empower groups to retain ownership and stewardship in their target areas and ensure that permanent outcomes result from funding.

The Council noted that Glór na nGael, as the lead organisation in community and economic development through its network of development officers, will have a role in fostering, sharing and encouraging good practice in funded projects and will provide a mentoring, support and advice service to organisations whose applications do not meet the required standard for a grant offer. Ministers approved the revised scéim phobail Gaeilge/Irish language community scheme for implementation from 1 July 2016.

Ministers received a presentation from the CEO of the Ulster-Scots Agency outlining the agency's cross-border activities, consistent with its legislative remit for the promotion of greater awareness and use of Ullans and Ulster-Scots cultural issues. They noted the wide range of key activities that have been expanded on in both jurisdictions, including music and dance tuition; the Ulster-Scots flagship scheme; North/South school twinnings; a post-primary curriculum pilot project; annual community picnics; heritage research and the development of heritage trails; continuing support for Monreagh Heritage Centre; blue plaques; touring exhibitions; the organisation of an Ulster-Scots heritage day; and a conference on the Irish-Scottish world in the Middle Ages.

The Council agreed that its next language body meeting will take place in the spring of 2016.

Mr McCausland (The Chairperson of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure): Historically, if we go back to the early days of these two organisations, there were difficulties with annual reports and accounts. Are we getting much closer to the point at which they are entirely up to date and that those difficulties have been addressed?

The Minister's statement mentioned the Irish language community scheme. She referred to:

Will the Minister explain what that means in practical terms?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Chair for his questions. The current position regarding outstanding annual reports and accounts is moving on from where it was in the past. As the Chair knows, even in his previous role, there was a significant backlog of accounts which was of neither of our makings — it preceded us — but we are certainly heading in the right direction. The 2013 accounts were laid in the Assembly and in both Houses of the Oireachtas in June of this year, and we are proceeding with the 2014 accounts for both the Ulster-Scots Agency and Foras na Gaeilge.

In relation to Scéim Phobail Gaeilge, it is felt that smaller groups do more of the coalface community development. They should look at securing their future for the next four years, and try to develop and help groups that are not only practising and participating in the Irish language, but those who are learning the language and giving support to parents and grandparents in the wider community, in after-school groups and provision for young people and teenagers. It goes right across the whole of the North. If there is any work to be picked out as an example of the successes of Foras na Gaeilge, it is Scéim Phobail Gaeilge. It is, in my opinion, one of the best examples of its work.

Mr Ó hOisín: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an dara ráiteas seo aici anseo ar maidin. I am delighted that the Minister has alluded to European funding in both statements. How can Foras na Gaeilge and the Ulster-Scots Agency access it, and what discussions has she had with both bodies?

Ms Ní Chuilín: Chief executives and chairs of both organisations gave a report at the last sectoral meeting in November. It is true that Foras na Gaeilge has been able to proceed in a much more speedy way because there are natural linkages. I know that it is working with Macedonians, Swedish, Basques and Slovenians, particularly around minority languages in their written forms. There was almost a natural place for Foras na Gaeilge to apply for European funding.

In fairness to the Ulster-Scots Agency, it is trying to explore opportunities as well and it is looking at and discussing transnational and interregional programmes. The agency is not there yet. It needs to make a decision as to which programme it should apply to. Applying to Europe is very intensive, both in terms of human resources and finances. It needs to put that recommendation to its board and then pass it on to us before making a decision. It is certainly doing a lot of the preliminary work which will help it make a decision on which fund to apply for. It is actively considering all those opportunities as we speak.

Mrs McKevitt: I thank the Minister for her statement. Under the "Joint Projects between both Agencies", Foras na Gaeilge and the Ulster-Scots Agency, the statement says that there is:

Will the Minister outline to the House what programme she envisages being delivered to the 10,000 children who are not in education, employment or training?

Ms Ní Chuilín: The emergence of the Executive's Together: Building a United Community strategy has, I believe, presented many Ministers and Departments with additional opportunities to try to provide a better all-round approach to service delivery. Foras na Gaeilge and the Ulster-Scots Agency have identified possible opportunities, and they have done that through working jointly. The Member has already cited the joint working referred to in the statement, using both the Irish language and Ulster-Scots culture and heritage, particularly around place names. The feedback, particularly from teenagers and young adults, is that that is something that has been particularly useful. It is trying to get those young people, who are not in training, education or employment, engaged in programmes that may be a gateway or provide opportunities for them to get involved in other schemes or other service provision.

I think that both Foras na Gaeilge and the Ulster-Scots Agency should be commended for seeing these opportunities and trying to exploit them, particularly for a group of young people which, by and large, has been very hard to reach.

There is an opportunity here to do it and to do it in a cross-community way.

Mr Cree: I thank the Minister for her report. There are indications in your report that certain expense headings will be extended into the next Budget year. I am just wondering this: how can you do that, bearing in mind that we have not started the Budget process? How, indeed, will that dovetail into a Budget process?

Ms Ní Chuilín: All the Departments and their ALBs and, in the context of this discussion, their constituent North/South bodies will have received their indicative budgets. Going into what will be primarily a new mandate for both Governments, they have begun and will continue with discussions on what a new mandate and new Ministers in both jurisdictions will perhaps have. They have a flat budget, which is an indicative budget at this stage. Anything else will be on top of that. I know that, in relation to Foras na Gaeilge and the Ulster-Scots Agency, there have been concerns raised about the need for additional funding, particularly if they want to explore some of the opportunities that we have just spoken about, which may mean additional support. Some of that may come from T:BUC, but some needs to come from central funds. While they have a budget at the minute, which is an estimated budget, they are looking at increasing that for the new mandates in both jurisdictions.

Ms Lo: I thank the Minister for her statement. I just want to go back to the question on participation by the two agencies in the United Youth programme. Is the Minister aware that DEL is piloting the programme but that there is money allowed only for this year and none designated for next year? I wonder whether the Minister can comment on that.

Mr Speaker: Someone's phone is interfering with the microphone system. It is not you, Minister; you are not guilty. I ask Members to check their phones, please. Minister, sorry about that.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I assure you, a Cheann Comhairle, that my phone is behaving itself.

Perhaps the Member would like to ask her party colleague what he is trying to do to work through the T:BUC programme, because I know that other Ministers and I have already begun the process. Budgets are indicative from one year to another, so we have had our budget for the programmes until the end of this mandate. I know, through the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, that it is looking for that programme to be continued. As I said, I assume, and I have no evidence to say otherwise, that the Minister for Employment and Learning, along with other Executive colleagues, is already working on plans for future delivery.

Foras na Gaeilge and the Ulster-Scots Agency have identified opportunities through T:BUC. They have already got a proven track record and great experience through their joint approach to using place names as a conduit to further discussion, and they have done it in a cross-community way. I believe that the Member and other Members have given credit to them in the past. If we can continue that into the future, I think that it will go a long way to help to meet the aspirations of the T:BUC programme.

Mr Humphrey: I thank the Minister for her answers so far. I encourage everyone in the House to visit the new Discover Ulster-Scots Centre in Belfast. It is an excellent experience, and congratulations to those who established it.
A disparity exists between Ulster Scots and the Irish language — a disparity in funding for the agency and Foras na Gaeilge of 8:1, and the Minister's pet project Líofa has made a £1·1 million investment in the Irish language. What is significant in the statement is what is not in it. Where is the work that is supposed to be going on for the equivalent of a Líofa for Ulster Scots? Where is the parity and equality that was promised for Ulster Scots?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I resent the accusation that I have pet projects, and it is regrettable that the Member continues to use and abuse the Irish language in the Chamber. As he knows, the Líofa programme is not part of the NSMC statement. Maybe he just did not bother reading it before he came in; that would not surprise me.

I have asked the ministerial advisory group on Ulster Scots for a similar type of programme and believe that one will come forward in the new year. I ask the Member to use his influence, particularly with the agency over the next period of months, to try to support and help it with a better delivery of product for the Ulster-Scots culture and heritage. I do not believe that it would want to be part of any commentary that he has made about pet projects. That is not where it is coming from, and he really needs to take a leaf from its book.

Mr Humphrey: No answer.

Mr McCausland: Double up on the dose.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Ms McCorley: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas. I thank the Minister for her statement. Mar is eol don Aire, tá buarthaí móra ann maidir le cur chuige Fhoras na Gaeilge ar an Scéim Phobail Gaeilge (SPG) i gcomparáid leis an togra infheistíochta. An dtig leis an Aire sonraí a thabhairt ar an dóigh a dtabharfar tacaíocht don SPG le hinbhuanaitheacht a fhorbairt uaidh seo amach? As the Minister is aware, there are huge concerns about Foras na Gaeilge's approach to the SPG and the investment that has been given to the dictionary project by comparison. Will she give details on how the SPG will be supported so that it has better sustainability?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Member for her question. I share her concern. I, too, have met many representatives of Scéim Phobail Gaeilge from across the North. While they welcome the opportunity for the programme to be extended from three to four years, there appears to be some clarity needed on the availability of running and operational costs. That needs to be clarified, and I will do my best to ensure that it is.

Concerns have also been raised, not just by people in Scéim Phobail Gaeilge but by recipients of the services provided by the groups, particularly those provided by the six lead core-funded groups. Everybody can see what Conradh na Gaeilge does, but there is concern about the rest and what support Foras na Gaeilge can give, particularly to groups in the North. I accept that and hope that that can be resolved as soon as possible.

Mr D Bradley: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a ráitis. Ba mhaith liom a fhiafraí den Aire cad é an tionchar a bheas ag na ciorruithe Thuaidh agus Theas ar obair Fhoras na Gaeilge san am atá romhainn? I thank the Minister for her statement. What effect will budgetary cuts, North and South, have on the operation of An Foras Teanga, the language body, in the time that lies ahead?

Ms Ní Chuilín: The Member will be aware that I have been consistent in ensuring that the percentage of cuts has been minimised, and that has been the pattern over a period of years. I have met colleagues in the Irish Government to state the case for the need for those services, particularly in the North in the absence of an Acht na Gaeilge or anything else. It is vital that I continue to do that. I am, however, concerned that, unlike the Arts Council, Foras na Gaeilge needs to demonstrate to me and, indeed, to Ministers McHugh and Humphreys, how it is absorbing efficiencies rather than passing them on fully to the groups, as that has an impact on the outcome of delivery and services.

I am sure that the Member was here when I answered my colleague Rosie McCorley's question about the Scéim Phobail Gaeilge. That is an example of where a small amount of money would go an awful long way with a big outcome. As the Member will be aware, the legacy of that scheme — I know that he is very supportive of it — will endure. I am still having those discussions with Foras na Gaeilge and, indeed, with colleagues in the Irish Government.

Mr Allister: Where is the 2016 business plan? When was it approved? Why is it not mentioned in the statement? What is the budget, and what efficiencies does it embrace?

Ms Ní Chuilín: The business plan is not mentioned in the statement because it has not been agreed yet; it is still under consideration. The budget at this stage is still over £12 million. As I said to Mr Leslie Cree, that is the indicative budget for the language bodies until the preparation of budgets for the new mandates. Those conversations will continue. When the business plan is agreed, it will be brought forward for consideration to the next NSMC sectoral meeting in spring 2016.

Mr Dallat: In this season of goodwill, love and peace, which, I hope, extends to the Chamber, I ask whether the Minister agrees that cultural tourism is one of the fastest-growing tourism markets. Does the meeting between Argyll and Bute Council and Derry City and Strabane District Council indicate that there is an appreciation that cultural tourism is a very significant part of our tourist market? Will that mean that the aspirations of the research done by people such as the late Robert Welch of the then University of Ulster will now come to fruition and that Ireland and Scotland can exchange and appreciate all the cultural things that they have in common?

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Member for his question and, indeed, for his Christmas cheer. There are some people in the House who definitely need a hug, but I am certainly not up for that. [Laughter.]

Mr Humphrey: I would give that a bye-ball.

Mr Campbell: As long as she is not coming towards you.

Ms Ní Chuilín: To be frank, I would not even ask Buddy the Elf to hug you, Gregory, but anyway.

In response to the important question that the Member asked, I can say that opportunities are being discussed, particularly for tourism. Indeed, the work around the Colmcille heritage trail and the Ulster-Scots Agency, with their east-west dimension, was purely focused on exploring opportunities. The Ulster-Scots Agency in particular, in its work in Donegal and Cavan, has looked to exploit tourism opportunities. I believe that that is an example of bringing added value to what is already there. In fact, when we are talking about our cultural heritage, it will help the tourist boards on both sides of the island to have experts here. People who are practitioners in the field can add to the value brought.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions on the statement.

Ms J McCann (Junior Minister, Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister): I beg to move

The motion was tabled, in accordance with Standing Order 42(4), to seek Assembly approval to the Departments Bill proceeding under the accelerated passage procedure.

Accelerated passage is an exceptional procedure. It allows a Bill to proceed without the normal Committee Stage, and less time than usual can elapse between legislative stages. On Monday of last week, in advance of the Bill's introduction in the Assembly, junior Minister Pengelly and I attended a meeting of the OFMDFM Committee, as is required by Standing Order 42(3). We had to explain the reasons behind the accelerated passage procedure being needed for the Bill, the consequences of it not being granted and the steps taken to minimise its future use for OFMDFM Bills.

I am pleased to say that the Committee heard our explanations, questioned us and supported the proposal for the accelerated passage procedure by a majority vote. I wish now to explain those same issues to the Assembly and to seek Members' support for the use of the procedure for the Departments Bill.

Reform of the structures of government here has been an issue for a long time. There was a commitment in the Programme for Government to agree changes to the structures that would apply in the next mandate. In 2012, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee produced a report on the reduction in the number of Departments. The report identified areas of commonality broadly comparable to what is now being proposed. The policy proposals underpinning the Bill were the subject of detailed consideration during the political process that led to the Stormont House Agreement in December of last year. That agreement determined on a nine-Department model to be established in time for the 2016 elections, with a future allocation of departmental functions to be agreed by the parties.

The Executive discussed departmental restructuring on several occasions earlier this year and decided on the names and responsibilities of the future Departments. On 2 March 2015, the decisions that had been reached by the Executive on the new departmental structures in consequence of the Stormont House Agreement were announced in a statement by the First Minister to the Assembly. He set out a future model of nine Departments with all the powers, functions and services of the current 12 Departments. The allocation of responsibilities was further refined during the recent talks process.

The purpose of the Departments Bill is to establish the framework for a new nine-Department structure. It renames seven Departments and dissolves another three. It also makes necessary amendments to the Departments (NI) Order 1999, which provides the basis for the existing 12-Department structure.

I will now detail the reasons why accelerated passage is needed for the Departments Bill. Although it had initially been hoped to introduce the Bill at an earlier stage, it is only now, with the conclusion of the recent talks process and the publication of 'A Fresh Start: The Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan', that it has been possible to bring it forward.

'A Fresh Start' reaffirmed the commitment to reduce the number of Departments from 12 to nine in time for the 2016 election and committed to the introduction of the Bill to the Assembly no later than the end of November 2015. It would, of course, have been preferable for the Bill to be introduced in time for it to move forward under the usual processes, but, as with the other Stormont House Agreement matters, progress on departmental restructuring became possible only following the conclusion of the talks process and the establishing of a new consensus with 'A Fresh Start' three weeks ago.

It is essential that the new structures are ready immediately following the 2016 Assembly election so that an Executive can be formed on a nine-Department basis when the next Assembly convenes. To achieve that, it will be necessary for the Departments Bill to complete its passage with sufficient Assembly time left for a debate and affirmative vote on the separate transfer of functions Order that is needed to allocate functions to Departments. That Order can be made only once there is legal certainty regarding the names of the future Departments, which can be achieved only if the Departments Bill has completed its passage by February 2016.

The consequences of accelerated passage not being granted are severe. If it were not granted, it would mean that restructuring could not take place in 2016 and that the incoming Executive after the election would be formed on the basis of the existing 12-Department structure. It would be extremely difficult to achieve restructuring between elections without major disruption to the Executive and the political institutions. Those special circumstances have occasioned this exceptional request to the Assembly for the use of accelerated passage.

The commitment in 'A Fresh Start' to a better way of doing business together should reduce the likelihood of such circumstances reoccurring and future use of accelerated passage by OFMDFM. 'A Fresh Start' has provided a basis for addressing some of our most intractable issues. In relation to departmental restructuring, it has made it possible for us to move forward, but the opportunity needs to be taken quickly, and we ask Members to support the Departments Bill being progressed by accelerated passage. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Lyttle (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister): Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence, very briefly, to add my tribute to outgoing MLA Pat Ramsey. It has been a privilege and a pleasure to get to know Pat and to work with him on the Employment and Learning Committee and on a number of all-party groups in the Assembly, including the one on learning disability. Pat is a compassionate and courageous MLA, and he has been a passionate advocate for some of the most at-risk and vulnerable people in our community. I extend my best wishes to him in his retirement on behalf of myself and the Alliance Party.

In relation to accelerated passage for the Departments Bill, I will initially speak on behalf of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister as its Deputy Chair. The rationale for the request for accelerated passage has been set out by junior Minister McCann, along with the rationale for the Bill.

Junior Ministers met the Committee on Monday 30 November, which fulfilled the requirements of Standing Order 42(3), which states that, where it is thought that a Bill should proceed by accelerated passage, the Minister or Member in charge shall:

The First Minister announced the decisions that had been reached by the Executive on the proposed new departmental structures to the Assembly on 2 March 2015. It is, in the opinion of the Committee, regrettable that it has taken nine months for the legislation to be introduced and that, as a consequence, it is unlikely that a full Committee Stage will be possible, subject to the Assembly's agreement to the motion.

Junior Minister McCann advised the Committee that it would have been preferable for the Bill to be introduced in time for it to complete normal passage through the Assembly. However, she also explained that the Bill needs to pass through all stages before the transfer of functions Order, which is the mechanism by which the functions and the detail of each Department will be considered, can be introduced. It is in the consideration of the transfer of functions Order that the detail of the changes to departmental structures and functions will be scrutinised. Without the use of the accelerated passage procedure for the Departments Bill, progress to the transfer of functions Order and the new nine-Department structure would not be in place in time for the Assembly election next year. Given that no functions of government are being removed and no polices terminated as a result of the planned restructuring of Departments, the Committee agreed by a majority to support accelerated passage.

If I may, Mr Speaker, I will speak very briefly as an Alliance Party MLA. We support the reduction in the number of Departments and will set out the rationale further in the Second Stage debate. The Departments Bill is a simple aspect of that process. The Bill is relatively short and just names the new Departments. In our opinion, the real scrutiny should fall on the transfer of functions Order. The Alliance Party wants to ensure that all the remaining time can be focused on that, with detailed discussions at the OFMDFM Committee and on the Floor of the Assembly. Therefore, support for accelerated passage should not be misrepresented as curtailing scrutiny. On the contrary, it should be considered as maximising the opportunity for scrutiny where it matters. The Alliance Party will certainly play a full role in that scrutiny to ensure that we devise an efficient Executive structure that can deliver for everyone in Northern Ireland.

Mr Lyons: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate on this motion and, I hope, in the Second Stage debate that will follow. We have before us a Bill that I believe now has the support of people and of Members right across the House. I understand that there is some concern about accelerated passage. However, I think that it is necessary for us to grant accelerated passage if we want the Bill to become law, which is, I think, what everybody here wants. That was not always the case, however. My party has been calling for this for a long time, but there was opposition. As a result of the Fresh Start Agreement, we have the necessary cross-community support, and it is only now that we can proceed. We would have loved the Bill to have been introduced at the start of the mandate, with the opportunity for the proper scrutiny required. However, at this stage, we have a choice: to grant the Bill accelerated passage or not have the Bill at all.

I understand that, by not having a full Committee Stage, there will be less scrutiny. However, Members have the Bill before them and can see that it is very simple. The Bill simply changes the names of the Departments and reduces their number from 12 to nine. As Mr Lyttle said, the real work and the real scrutiny will come when we talk about the transfer of functions Order, which OFMDFM has said that the Committee will have time to look at. The Assembly will have to approve that as well. In addition, the determination of ministerial offices and functions will have to be approved by the Assembly.

Before any of that can happen, we need to make sure that the Bill progresses through all its stages. It is very clear that, if we do not grant accelerated passage today, it is likely that the Bill will fall. The junior Ministers made it very clear that it could not be completed in time without it. I believe that we should grant accelerated passage because we should not give up the opportunity to have this much-needed reform of the Assembly and Departments. If everything went to plan, we would all want to have the additional Committee Stage, but that is not possible. We have this choice to make, and I think that it is right that we move forward and give it accelerated passage. I support the motion and encourage other Members to do the same.

Mr Hazzard: Go raibh maith agat. I do not wish to add an awful lot to what Members have said; I will probably accelerate my comments. We are all touching on the same issues: reform has been needed for quite a while, and that has been agreed between the parties for quite a while. We have had cross-party support for the reform of our Departments, how we do that and a reduction to nine Departments. As the junior Minister and the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee outlined, the real work will be on the transfer of functions Order and the scrutiny and debate during Second Stage, which, of course, is to follow this. It is important that we have accelerated passage to allow us to get to a better place for Departments. It is what the public and the parties want. I support this accelerated passage, but it is right that we touch on the use of accelerated passage and the fact that we need to be careful about where and how often we use it. I am more than happy, however, to support accelerated passage in this instance.

Mr Attwood: I apologise to the House: I was delayed upstairs at an event when the Deputy Chair of the Committee spoke.

I will take up Mr Hazzard's last comments. It should be the operating principle of the Chamber, whether it is accelerated passage or any vehicle that sidelines or goes around the good authority of the Chamber, that the Chamber should caution itself against any such approach, so that it is rarely used as opposed to routinely used. Unfortunately, we have had examples, even in the last two or three weeks — such examples might increase in the coming two or three months — where the option of an accelerated mechanism, either accelerated passage or a legislative consent motion, has become the practice or attempted practice of some. Whether it was yesterday's LCM, which was rightly defeated, the LCM on welfare reform — the 2012 and 2015 versions — which were wrongly supported, or today's proposal for accelerated passage for the Departments Bill, we need to caution ourselves about going down that road routinely rather than rarely. By using it routinely, we are degrading the character and content of devolution, the good authority of the House and the achievements of democratic struggle in this part of Ireland over many years, which brought into life the institutions that we now value. We need to be cautious about going down this road.

I know that that is broadly the view of all parties, although, in my view, that has been challenged over the last number of weeks by the option of accelerated mechanisms being preferred for a number of matters relating to the authority of the Chamber to the point at which we had an accelerated mechanism yesterday that visited on the people of Northern Ireland not just the 2012 but the 2015 version of welfare reform. The dilution and degrading of devolution, never mind the impact of all that, has been referred to as a "technicality".

Mr D McIlveen: I thank the Member for giving way. I accept his argument, and I am certainly not a huge fan of accelerated passage. However, on 23 December 2014, the Stormont House Agreement was, to the best of everyone's knowledge in the House, agreed, but it was reneged on. Had that agreement, which carried the original blueprint for the reduction in the number of Departments, not been reneged on, we would have had 18 months to scrutinise the Bill, to go through it with a fine-toothed comb and not have to use accelerated passage. Will the Member accept that it is the result of some parties reneging on an agreement that has, unfortunately, brought us to this position?

Mr Speaker: I advise that we need to return to the specific discussion that we are having this morning. I do not think that we are dealing with a generalised drift towards accelerated passage. I did allow you some scope to make that point, but I am afraid that we are heading off in the wrong direction. If you have an issue with the rationale that was provided by the junior Minister for accelerated passage in this particular instance, I would be glad to hear it. Otherwise, we have to move the debate on and back to the subject matter.

Mr Attwood: I thank the Speaker for that intervention. To conclude, I just want to make two points. Without detaining the House and getting into conflict with the Speaker, my first point is that one person's reneging on the agreement, so-called, at Stormont House is another person's honouring of it. Has that not been the dispute over the last six to nine months; that one party's view is, in many instances, in great tension and conflict with the view of other parties?

That all having been said, and having cautioned myself and hopefully a few others about routinely going down the road of using accelerated mechanisms to deal with important business, given the character of the motion that is before us and the opportunity that will arise with the transfer of functions Order, and whilst acknowledging, as was said, that this is a very simple proposal, but one that has very significant consequences — taking all that in the round — on this occasion, we will not dispute with the House that the accelerated passage motion that is before the Chamber is appropriate in these circumstances.

Mr Allen: The Ulster Unionist Party is opposed to accelerated passage for this measure. We fully support the principle that the number of Departments should be reduced and that a more streamlined Administration should be able to deliver better government for the people of Northern Ireland. The Bill should have been introduced earlier and been subject to proper debate and scrutiny. It is not as though this is some idea that has been plucked out of the air: a reduction in the number of Departments has been a subject of discussion for quite literally years. In 2012, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee produced a report on the reduction in the number of Departments and identified areas of commonality, which, to quote junior Minister Pengelly, were:

This then fed into the Stormont House Agreement process, which hit the buffers. Part of it was resurrected in 'A Fresh Start', bringing us to where we are today. In essence, it is the failure of the Executive to agree this matter that has put us in the position in which we find ourselves today.

This is not an insignificant Bill. It may be small in terms of clauses, but it is extremely far-reaching in its impact. The Ulster Unionist Party has concerns that it is being introduced so late in the mandate and that the attempt to use accelerated passage means that it will not receive the attention that it deserves or the scrutiny that it merits. Indeed, when the junior Ministers appeared before the Committee on 30 November, junior Minister McCann replied to the Deputy Chair:

The simple fact is that we are not arguing against the rationale for going from 12 to nine Departments. We do, however, have an issue with accelerated passage.

Mr Lyttle: Will the Member give way?

Mr Allen: I will not because I am just finishing up here; sorry.

We are, after all, Members of the Legislative Assembly. The clue is in the title. Our job is to legislate. That includes a proper scrutiny function. I oppose accelerated passage.

Mr Allister: There is one reason and one reason only why the motion is before us today: it is because of the dysfunctional failure of the Executive to progress their programme. As it has been pointed out, it was nine months ago, on 2 March, when the First Minister trumpeted the fact that there was agreement to reduce the number of Departments to nine.

Those nine months have been lost and wasted, and now the guilt of that is to be put on us all. We are all meant to feel responsible for that dysfunctional failure of this failing Executive and to rescue them by abrogating the normal processes and proceeding to accelerated passage. That is what is being asked of us.

I must say that I feel no guilt for the failure of the Executive, nor do I feel inclined to share it. It is a failure of their own making. Of course, with the same Executive — What was it? Three or four years ago? — we had the pantomime of DEL going to be abolished, but that all just melted away. As I say, nine months ago, we had the great breakthrough of nine Departments and then nothing until today when we are told that with superhaste we must do this to make up for the abysmal, dysfunctional failure of the Executive. I do not think that is an appeal that I want to respond to, because it only confirms to that Executive that failure is acceptable and they can go on failing as, undoubtedly, they will.

Mr McCallister: Looking at what we are being asked to do today on accelerated passage, I note that colleagues have set out the history of this issue. I remember that, in May 2011, DEL's going was discussed, that it was going to happen in October 2011 and that the following March at the end of the financial year would be the best time to do it. Minister Farry did not know how long he would get to be Minister. The main debate on that ended up being about the injustice of Alliance having two Ministers, rather than what the model was going to be and whether it was fit for purpose.

Suddenly today, we are faced with accelerated passage. We had a deal on 23 December, almost a year ago, and we knew what the nine Departments would look like. To be fair to the Executive and those who drew them up, they looked on the face of it to be reasonably sensible changes. They were announced on 2 March, but no legislation progressed. The argument that there was political disagreement around it did not stop us continuing to make the argument about welfare reform, and it did not stop Ministers bringing forward a Budget that was based on the Stormont House Agreement. It did not stop all those things happening. Now we are being asked to put through by accelerated passage what some might say is a relatively simple Bill that is not contentious, but it has far-reaching consequences and that goes to the heart of the way the Executive work and the way they treat the legislative arm here.

We get legislative consent motions — one of them was defeated yesterday — and we did our entire welfare reform via a legislative consent motion, which seemed to be a most bizarre way of dealing with it and of building in mitigation measures. Now we are asked to accelerate this Bill. This is not the way that we should do our business.

Mr Lyttle: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCallister: I will give way in a second.

Other Bills are going through this place through the normal process. We could have had the Bill one month or even two months ago. There was nothing to stop that, even if it had been ready immediately after the Fresh Start Agreement.

Mr Lyttle: I thank the Member for giving way. Mr Allen, Mr Allister and Mr McCallister have used the vast majority of their time to raise concerns that I share, but none of them has mentioned any specific concerns about the actual Bill or the issues that they would like to raise in a more extended scrutiny process. I ask Mr McCallister this: are there issues in the Bill that, he thinks, we need more time to scrutinise, given how simple the Bill is?

Mr Speaker: I caution that we are discussing accelerated passage, so you do have to confine your comments to that subject. If you take issue with the explanation that the junior Minister provided, that is something to discuss, but let us not go into the generality of the rationale behind introducing the Bill in the first place.

Mr McCallister: Mr Speaker, I was about to remind the Member of your earlier ruling and guidance on this, and I certainly will take up Mr Lyttle in the later debate on those issues. His earlier comments that, because it is simple, we are almost going to accelerate it to improve the scrutiny process raises the question of why we do not accelerate every Bill.

Mr Allister: Surely, part of the fallout from accelerated passage is that there is not the normal Committee Stage whereby there could be an informed debate about whether nine Departments is the right number. Maybe there is an argument for six or seven; we used to be governed with six. However, once we adopt accelerated passage, we have de facto concluded the argument about whether or not it is nine, with no options.

Mr Speaker: You should resist the temptation to discuss that aspect now; we are talking about accelerated passage or not.

Mr McCallister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will desist from it until the later debate. I think that there are good points for the coming debate. Those are the reasons why I am against the executive arm of our Government using the legislative branch as a rubber stamp to get its business through. This is not the way. It does not lead to good legislation and does not make an Executive or Assembly look functional when we desperately need public confidence in our Executive and our Assembly.

Ms J McCann: I am grateful for Members' contributions to the debate. The decisions taken by the Executive on restructuring will result in the most extensive reorganisation of the departmental system since 1999. A reduction to nine Departments will lead to a leaner, more streamlined and efficient Administration; it will provide for more joined-up government with greater cohesion within and between Departments; it will eliminate layers of unnecessary bureaucracy; and there will be greater scope to align functions, to move beyond the silo mentality, to find better ways of achieving our objectives and to improve services to the public.

The introduction last week of the Departments Bill marked an important first step in establishing the legislative basis for departmental restructuring. The Bill will provide the framework for a future nine-Department structure. In due course, a transfer of functions order will make detailed provision for the movement of statutory responsibilities between Departments. It will be subject to Committee scrutiny in draft, and any Committee suggestions for improvement will be given due weight in finalising the order. That order will have to be approved in its final form by affirmative resolution of the Assembly; however, it can only be made in its final form when there is legal certainty regarding the number and names of the future Departments. That can only be achieved if the Departments Bill completes its passage by February 2016.

If the Bill were to miss that target, it would mean that restructuring could not take place in 2016, and the incoming Executive after the election would be formed on the basis of the existing 12-Department structure. Given the difficulties of restructuring an Executive and Departments between elections, it might be years before the opportunity occurred. At this late stage in the mandate and given the need for additional steps in the Assembly after the Bill has cleared Final Stage, there is no alternative to accelerated passage if restructuring is to be achieved in time for the 2016 election.

As I have already indicated, we would have preferred it if the Bill had been introduced in time for it to proceed under the usual processes for Assembly Bills. However, its introduction only became possible with the conclusion of the recent talks process and the publication of 'A Fresh Start: The Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan' on 17 November 2015. 'A Fresh Start' committed to the introduction of the Bill in the Assembly no later than the end of November 2015, and no time has been wasted in ensuring that that target was achieved.

The First Minister and the deputy First Minister immediately obtained Executive agreement to seek Assembly approval for accelerated passage. We briefed a special meeting of the OFMDFM Committee on 30 November, securing the Committee's support. The Bill was introduced immediately after that meeting, and that demonstrates the priority that we attach to it.

I will pick up on some of the issues raised by Members. I thank Chris Lyttle, the Deputy Chairperson. He recognised the reasons for taking the Bill forward under the accelerated passage procedure and mentioned having a longer and better debate on the transfer of functions order, which will be with us in February of next year. Gordon Lyons, Chris Hazzard and Alex Attwood reiterated that point. Although they would prefer accelerated passage not to be used, they, particularly Chris Hazzard and Gordon Lyons, accepted our reasons for using it.

Andrew Allen quoted part of what I said to the Committee's Deputy Chairperson last week, but, if he had gone on to finish the quotation, Members would know that I said why we were doing it. Both junior Minister Pengelly and I recognise the concerns of the Committee and those of other Members, but this is being done totally because of time constraints.

Jim Allister used the debate to make his usual speech about the dysfunctionality of the Executive, and John McCallister rehashed that a bit.

I thank Members for their contributions, and I wish to say that, as with the other Stormont House Agreement matters, the conclusion of 'A Fresh Start' has provided a basis for progressing this important legislation. The provision for good government through streamlined and efficient administration, improved opportunities for policy development, savings on unnecessary bureaucracy and the delivery of better services to the public will be the ultimate outcomes of the Departments Bill. We must move quickly, however, if we are to grasp the opportunity to have restructuring in place when the new Assembly meets in May 2016. That requires accelerated passage of the Departments Bill. I therefore ask the Assembly to approve the motion.

Mr Speaker: Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Mr Speaker: Although there was a shout of No, I am satisfied that there was support from all sides of the House.

Mrs Pengelly (Junior Minister, Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister): I beg to move

In their introduction to the document 'A Fresh Start: The Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan', published on 17 November 2015, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister stated:

One of the ways in which 'A Fresh Start' provides for that will be by delivering on the commitment in the Stormont House Agreement to reduce the number of Departments from 12 to nine in time for the 2016 Assembly election.

Reform of our structures of government has been an issue for a considerable time. The departmental system established in 1999 has long been regarded as cumbersome and ripe for reform. There was a commitment in the Programme for Government to agree changes to the structures that would apply in the next mandate. In 2012, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee conducted a review and produced a report on the reduction in the number of Departments. It received 21 consultation submissions from party political, academic, economic and community stakeholders. Although the Committee refrained from making recommendations, it identified areas of commonality that broadly reflected its views on how Departments could be reorganised, with the retention of the Department of Health, the Department of Justice and the Department of Education; a new Department for the Economy; a Department embracing agriculture, environment and rural development; a new social and community Department; and the reform of OFMDFM. All those suggestions prefigured what is in this Bill.

The policy proposals underpinning departmental restructuring were the subject of detailed consideration during the political process that led to the Stormont House Agreement, and the Executive discussed the matter on several occasions in the early part of this year. On 2 March 2015, the First Minister announced to the Assembly the decisions that had been reached by the Executive on the new departmental structures as a consequence of the Stormont House Agreement. He set out a future model of nine Departments with all the powers, functions and services of the current 12 Departments. Most importantly, no functions will be done away with and no policies will be terminated at this stage as a consequence of the restructuring.

The nine Departments are to be known as follows: the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs; the Department for Communities; the Department for the Economy; the Department of Education; the Department of Finance; the Department of Health; the Department for Infrastructure; the Department of Justice; and the Executive Office. In almost all cases, the departmental titles are short and focused, with the exceptional case of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, where a longer title has been chosen to reflect the three significant pillars of its work.

The purpose of the Departments Bill is to create a statutory framework for the new model of nine Departments. It is a short Bill. It renames seven Departments and dissolves three others: DEL, DCAL and DOE. The names of two existing Departments — the Department of Education and the Department of Justice — are unchanged.

The Bill also makes necessary changes to the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which provided the basis for the current departmental system. However, important provisions of the 1999 Order on the legal status of Northern Ireland Departments generally and the exercise of their functions will not be amended.

The Departments Bill sets out the framework of nine Departments, as envisaged in the Stormont House Agreement endorsed by party leaders and agreed by the Executive. It is, as I mentioned, a short Bill to establish the new departmental framework in law. It consists of just three clauses and three schedules. Clause 1 renames seven existing Departments and dissolves three Departments — DEL, DCAL and DOE — as required to establish the new structures. There is no reference to the Department of Education and the Department of Justice, which are not affected by the Bill. It applies the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 to the new set of nine Departments. Clause 2 references schedules 2 and 3, which contain, respectively, consequential amendments and repeals. Clause 3 gives the title of the Act and arrangements for the commencements of clauses 1 and 2 on a day or days to be appointed by the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Clauses 1 and 2 are likely to be commenced very shortly after the election in May 2016.

Schedule 1 lists all nine future Departments under the titles that they will carry from 2016, and schedule 2 makes necessary amendments to the Ombudsman (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. The Bill reflects the law as it stands, but we are conscious of the progress in the Assembly of the Public Services Ombudsman Bill, which will supersede the Ombudsman Order. Pending the progress of that Bill, the Departments Bill may require a technical amendment to schedule 2 at a later stage. Schedule 3 repeals provisions in the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, as subsequently amended. It has the effect of removing references to the 12-Department model.

Changing the name of a Department does not, in itself, have any immediate impact on its functions. However, the dissolution of three Departments will involve the reallocation of their existing functions, and there is to be some additional reallocation of the functions of others. Those details, however, are not addressed in the Departments Bill before the House today. Instead, the reallocation of statutory functions will be provided for in a separate transfer of functions order, which is at an advanced stage of preparation. It will make detailed provision for the statutory responsibilities that are to move between Departments in consequence of the Executive's decisions. The order will be sent in draft form for scrutiny to the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, and we will pay due attention to the Committee's views in finalising that order. In due course, the order will also be subject to an affirmation debate in the Assembly near the end of the session, after the Departments Bill has completed its Final Stage.

The decisions taken on restructuring and the reduction in the number of Departments will provide for a leaner, more streamlined and more efficient Administration. There will be fewer Ministers, and departmental hierarchies, permanent secretaries, central management units, press offices and support functions can be rationalised. However, we re-emphasise that, at this stage, no functions impacting on the public are being done away with and no policies terminated. These are changes to the machinery of government, but they are changes that will help us find better ways of doing things and improving services to the public.

At an operational level, it will be a challenging exercise to reduce 12 Departments to nine. A major programme is being taken forward across Departments to ensure that the necessary administrative arrangements are in place at the appropriate time. This work has been continuing since last spring and is making rapid progress towards all Departments achieving operational status on day one. It will ensure that support for the next Executive, future Ministers and the institutions is in place, with full access to key systems and information.

The conclusion of the recent talks process and the publication of 'A Fresh Start' has provided a basis for addressing some of our most intractable issues. In relation to departmental restructuring, it has made it possible for us to move forward quickly. We all want to improve the performance of Departments and to provide the best possible services to the public. The Departments Bill will help us do that by providing a firm basis for good and efficient government from the outset of the next Assembly mandate. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Mr Lyttle (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister): I rise to speak initially on behalf of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister on the Second Stage of the Departments Bill. The Bill will give effect to the Executive's agreement to reduce the number of Departments from 12 to nine in time for the 2016 Assembly election. It renames seven Departments and dissolves three others, while the names of the Department of Education and the Department of Justice remain unchanged.

The OFMDFM Committee received a pre-introductory briefing on the Departments Bill from junior Ministers on 30 November. The junior Ministers advised the Committee that the aim of the Bill is to deliver more effective, more streamlined and better government for the people of Northern Ireland. In response to questions from Committee members, the junior Ministers also advised that, while the number of ministerial appointments would naturally be reduced as a consequence of the legislation, no decision had been made regarding the appointment of junior Ministers — for example, whether the junior Minister positions will remain in the Executive Office or move to another, larger Department that may be facing significant challenges, such as the Department of Health.

At our meeting, the junior Ministers provided information on the programme board chaired by the head of the Civil Service, which is making practical preparations for the reduction in the number of Departments. Members heard that the head of the Civil Service has given a commitment that the new departmental structures will be ready for the first day of the new mandate following the election scheduled for May 2016.

The Committee was advised that changing a Department's name will not have an impact on its functions and that no functions impacting on the public will cease and no policies will be terminated as a consequence of the structural changes. However, members heard that the functions of the three Departments to be dissolved will need to be reallocated. There will also be some additional rearrangement of functions. These changes will be made by a transfer of functions order that will be brought forward after the Bill has completed its passage through the Assembly. Junior Minister Pengelly advised that it was her understanding — she has confirmed it today — that the drafting of that order is at an advanced stage.

The Committee made it clear that it will require as much time as possible to consider what is likely to be a comprehensive transfer of functions order, and it welcomed a commitment given by the junior Ministers that the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister would work with the Committee on the matter. To ensure that it is informed in its consideration of the order, the Committee has already written to Statutory Committees to seek their views on the proposed functions of the nine new Departments.

There may have been concerns and cautions correctly and sincerely given in the Committee on the use of the accelerated passage procedure for the Bill, but, as the Chair stated at the end of our session with the junior Ministers, there is no disagreement about the urgent need for departmental reform and a reduction in Departments. On behalf of the Committee, I therefore support the Second Stage of the Bill.

Speaking briefly as an Alliance MLA, in supporting the Bill, I make it clear that Alliance has long advocated a reduction in the number of Departments. In our 2011 Assembly manifesto, we argued and proposed a reduction from 12 to eight, but, in the interests of compromise and good governance, we have agreed to the nine-Department structure. There will hopefully be financial savings, but the primary rationale for the proposal is, indeed, to have more efficient and effective government for the people of Northern Ireland. It is hoped that the reorganisation will bring more joined-up government and that synergies can be delivered. However, the Alliance Party would go further and reduce the number of MLAs to 90 in time for the next election. We would also like to see greater use of a statutory duty on Departments to cooperate.

Institutional reform alone, however, will not deliver the effective power-sharing government that I believe the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want to see. We need to see greater cooperation and collaboration between all Departments and difficult decisions being taken. There is a need for cooperation on key issues to unite our community, to build a shared, fair and prosperous society and, indeed, to deliver environmental justice.

In supporting accelerated passage for the Bill, the Alliance Party still very much reserves the right to robustly scrutinise the transfer of functions order that will come forward. We do, indeed, have some concerns about how policy provision for children and young people, for example, will be dealt with, how good relations will be across all Departments and, indeed, where the employment service will rest. Indeed, we make an early indication that we believe it should be in the Department for the Economy. We also have questions about the need for junior Ministers in the Executive Office and, indeed, whether there may be other Departments where there could be a more appropriate use of resources.

I think that Mr McCallister made the most substantive objection to accelerated passage. He mentioned clearly that the Executive branch should not use the legislature as a rubber stamp: I strongly agree with Mr McCallister on that. Accelerated passage is not ideal; it should be used rarely, rather than regularly.

Mr Speaker: We dealt with that matter.

Mr Lyttle: The Assembly should make it clear that it will not be a policy that is tolerated on a regular basis.

The decision before us today is whether we allow failings beyond our making to hold up much-needed institutional reform or show leadership in delivering departmental reform in time for the scheduled elections in May 2016 and to allow proper Programme for Government planning to be delivered further to that election. Alliance, therefore, supports the Bill and supports better, more effective government for everyone in Northern Ireland.

Mr Frew: I support the Bill's Second Stage. Without incurring the wrath of the Speaker, I will also say that I support the accelerated passage. In the House, we are here to make decisions, and it is unfortunate that, for so many months, parties and politicians here were prevented from making decisions because partners in government did not have the courage to make the hard decisions that make this place tick and make Northern Ireland thrive. I am glad that that impasse has been unblocked and that things will move forward. Of course, I deeply regret that it has happened so late in the day and so near to the end of the mandate that, unfortunately, things have be done in an accelerated and fast way. Nonetheless, we are here, and the Committee will be able to scrutinise the transfer of functions order, which will be subordinate legislation but very important and detailed subordinate legislation.

The Bill has only three clauses, but three clauses of something that I believe must happen. If you are on the ground, as I am — some of us may not be, but I am on the ground — you will see how the silo mentality works, where it does not work and how it affects the people we represent in the House. Of course, it is fair to say that a good bit of the population blames everything on the council: if there is a pothole in the road, it is the council's fault; if the grass is not cut, it is the council's fault; if there is something wrong with a house, it is the council's fault. Of course, some people have not caught up with the previous reorganisations. We spend nearly every day trying to educate people in that regard, because poor old council gets the blame for everything. It is slightly different here, of course, but, nonetheless, it is more important and something that I believe has to happen.

When you look at the experience of the last mandate in Westminster, you see that it was hard enough for the coalition Government to function with two parties and all the problems that that led to. Think how much more difficult it is in the Assembly with five parties. It is now four, of course, as one party has walked away. There are four parties in government trying to make decisions, trying to push things forward and trying make things happen. It creates silo mentalities and problems when four or five parties are all coming from a different place, all wanting to go to a different place and all occupying a different space.

I welcome the reduction in the number of Departments from 12 to nine, which our party has campaigned for ever since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement and ever since the institutions have been up and running. We promised the electorate on that day that we would make things better and would repair the damage that was caused by the Good Friday Agreement and the functions of government that were formed in it. We stand here today having completed some of that work and are now moving forward, but we have to recognise that, for that to happen and for progress to be made, we must have agreement from all the parties involved. We will strive to do that day in, day out to persuade people of our arguments, persuade them that we are right and persuade them that this is the way to go. I believe that this is the way to go.

Savings will be made, but what we really want is efficient and effective government for our people, as they deserve nothing less; we will push and probe and work every day for that to happen. Even the reduction in the names of the Departments is a good thing, as it will help people to understand exactly what those Departments do and what functions they hold. That is something to be positive about because it will help to educate people on where they need to go and what they need to do.

The functions, roles and responsibilities of Departments will not change. Some are being merged and some grown, but that is a good thing. That will take away the silo mentality that I talked about and result in more efficient and effective government. With that, there will be savings in pounds and pence in the everyday functions of Departments, and those savings will filter down into the everyday lives of our population. Again, that has to be welcomed.

There is not much more to talk about. It is a three-clause Bill. It needs to happen, and I put it to the House that it should be passed. This is good business, as it is us moving forward. Let us keep going and let us keep making hard decisions. A lot more decisions than just that on this Bill have to be made, and I am glad that those will be made in the following months to try to get the legislation over the line before the mandate is finished. Let the Committee scrutinise the transfer of functions order, which will be the subordinate legislation.

Mr Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I speak on behalf of Sinn Féin to support the Bill and to commend junior Minister Pengelly for explaining to the House the rationale behind it. She went through the clauses and what they represented comprehensively. It is fair to say that, for some time, there has been all-party support for reform of the structures. There has been agreement on a reduction in the number of Departments. We now have that proposal in front of us, and, as far as we are concerned, this is the time for us to get on with it.

It is about delivering what we promised we would deliver. I hope that, in the context of the recent discussions and negotiations, this will form part of evolving this place into a more efficient place with more effective working relationships. On that basis, I commend the Bill and support it on behalf of Sinn Féin.

Mr Attwood: First, I acknowledge the contribution of Pat Ramsey to politics in the north-west, on the island and in the Chamber. His craft in working with other parties, his craft in his contributions on the Floor of the Assembly and his craft in taking forward many issues in a very productive way are the measure of what he will leave in the Chamber as he moves forward in his life.

In her opening remarks, the junior Minister sourced this proposal not just in Stormont House last Christmas but in 'A Fresh Start': I wish that people would stop doing that. Everybody knows that 'A Fresh Start' — this is the kindest comment that I can make about it — is a false start. All the hopes, expectations and ambitions of so many of our people in those negotiations can be best summed up as a false start rather than a fresh start. May I also again caution us? If you analyse the contributions of both junior Ministers — I know that this is not what they intended in their contributions, and I am sure that it is not what others, including Mr Frew, intended in theirs — there is a sense that, somehow or other, the reduction to nine Departments is a panacea for the failure of politics, government and Ministers over recent years.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Attwood: I will give way, but I will finish this point before I do.

The junior Ministers say that having nine Departments:

and "eliminate ... unnecessary bureaucracy" and so on and so forth. We hear scores of warm, meaningless phrases on how, somehow, the mere reduction to nine Departments will have a transformative impact on the character of government and the content of our politics. That view, if anybody indulges it, is as idle as it is casual, false and foolish.

Having nine Departments can mean more joined-up government and the elimination of unnecessary bureaucracy, but the mere fact of having nine does not bring that into reality.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. I do not think that anyone in the House in this debate has said that having nine Departments is a panacea for good government. However, what makes bad government is when elected representatives do not make hard decisions. Not making hard decisions will affect our populace and make their lives worse. That is what makes for bad decisions and bad politicians in the House.

Mr Attwood: I am glad that the Member made that point because I am going to address it in my next comments. I accept that nobody said that the reduction in the number of Departments to nine — or, if Mr Allister had his way, to six, seven, eight, or whatever notion might be presented by any Member — would by itself improve things. I am making the point that Mr Frew made, namely that having nine Departments may help, but only if the wider architecture and character of government is such that it maximises the opportunity presented by having nine, rather than more than nine, Departments.

Let me ask the junior Minister something. There was a phrase that she used. I know why she put it on the record and I would like to probe her a wee bit in this regard. She, rightly so, said:

Obviously, that is a very important thing that she should say. However, let me refer to the contribution that she made two weeks ago at Question Time when she made reference to the High Court judgement in relation to the failure of the Government to have an anti-poverty strategy. I will conclude this point quickly because I am sure that it is already beginning to irritate the Speaker, but I think that it is fair to ask, in the context of this proposal, what she was getting at in the contribution that she made on behalf of the First Minister, who has now joined us, when she said, in response to the questioning of Members in respect of the anti-poverty strategy:

I am wondering, behind the comment that she made this morning that no policies will be terminated at this stage, what all those words mean in relation to the core value and principle of objective need rather than spatial deprivation? Is there a rebalancing about to go on, if some people get their way, in relation to all those sorts of issues? The junior Minister may want to come back on that.

I will now deal with the point Mr Frew rightly made in relation to what will happen on the far side of nine Departments being established. That is the key issue. What is going to be the character and content of the Government on the far side of nine Departments being created? In my view and that of the SDLP, if we are going to maximise the opportunities of having nine Departments and the opportunities for the Government into the next mandate and beyond, a range of other interventions are complementary and mutual to the nine-Department model. In that regard, these are the points that I would make to Mr Frew. He may have heard me say this before, because I say it all the time, no doubt somewhat tediously, that there is a huge difference between Ministers being in the Government and being in power, and that any Minister —

Mr P Robinson: Nobody should know that better than you.

Mr Attwood: You may well make that point from a sitting position, First Minister. However, there is a huge difference between being in the Government and being in power. In fact, when I left the Government, I got a letter from the First Minister and deputy First Minister about the contribution that I made during the time that I was in the Government. You may recall that. I do not know whether the First Minister writes to all former Ministers when they have vacated office, but, on this occasion, he certainly found it necessary, for some reason or other, and I acknowledge the letter and thank him and the deputy First Minister for it.

The point that I am making is that, when I was in the Government, I know when I did not live up to the difference between being in the Government and being in power. I know where I made errors and mistakes, and I still regret some of them; because what I left behind when I left the Government was less than I might otherwise have achieved if I had not made those mistakes and errors.

The wider point is this: do we as a political institution, and do those who are going into and are in the Government, fully appreciate the difference between being in the Government and being in power, in the way that, as I have always said, in my view, the Scottish Nationalist Government did? That was long before they led the campaign for independence and had the election result that they had last May and in anticipation of the results that they are likely to have next May. Long before all that narrative, I was saying that Sturgeon, Salmond, Swinney and the other Ministers in Scotland knew more than any panel of Ministers on these islands the difference between being in the Government and being in power. Whether it is nine, 10, 11 or 12 Departments, if you end up with Ministers who are still short in knowing the difference between being in the Government and being in power, the nine-Department model will not remedy that failure. Mr Frew seems to be nodding in agreement.

In terms of the quality and character of our Government going into the next mandate and for decades thereafter, we in the SDLP believe that, whilst one day we will win the argument for the reunification of our country, part of the architecture of the reunification of our country will be an Assembly in the North for a multiplicity of reasons. However, if we are going to have assemblies in the North over many decades, are we going to have a panel of Ministers that demonstrates the difference between being in the Government and being in power?

The reason why that is so important is that a consequence of nine Departments is that Ministers will have a wider range of responsibilities and, if the Ministers are not fully facing up to and able to deal with the wider range of responsibilities that they have within their Departments because the Departments are bigger, there could be a greater failure of government on the far side of nine Departments than before. The need for coordination and integration between Departments could also be at some risk, given that Ministers, even in their day-to-day work, will have a higher level of responsibility and power.

The second point that I will make is this. There is a curious reference in A Fresh Start/False Start. The decision to bring in Eileen Evason in order to make recommendations on how welfare moneys might be spent in mitigation was, in my view —

Mr Speaker: I ask you to clearly establish the connection between this current point and the discussion before us. We are discussing the Departments Bill.

Mr Attwood: I appreciate that, but I am really taking up what Mr Lyttle said in his contribution when he was not speaking as Deputy Chair of the Committee. I am looking at the model of nine and trying to outline, as the SDLP sees it, where there could be added value over and above the fact that there will be nine Departments. The point that I am making, Mr Speaker, is that bringing in Eileen Evason is a recognition that there is such a scale of authority outside government that can inform the work of nine Departments, when we have the nine Departments established. Going by that model, all the Eileen Evasons should be brought in to help government in order to maximise the working of the nine Departments in the next mandate and beyond.

For all the skills and craft of many in the Civil Service, the lateral and most imaginative independent thinking often comes from outside the nine Departments that we will have. The scale of input that we could have — not through the civic advisory forum alone, useful though limited as that model will be — and the opportunity to bring in people who are the specialists in business, anti-poverty, human rights, disability, the environment or whatever it might be, as we are doing with Eileen Evason on the recommendations on allocations of welfare mitigation moneys, is a model that we need to escalate. The experience that I had in Departments, certainly in the Department of the Environment, was that the freshest thinking often came in when it was structured into the life of the Department through various summonses. Maybe the First Minister thinks that that did not add up to very much; my experience was that it added up to an awful lot. If we are going to maximise the opportunities with nine Departments, there is another way to do it. The reason why I say that is that, in an event held upstairs in the last two hours, the Equality Coalition launched a report called 'Austerity and Inequality: A Threat to Peace?'. I might not necessarily agree with that contention, but, nonetheless, one of the speakers said that the relationship between civil society and government had to be of a different character in the future from what it had been in the past.

Mr Frew has gone, but I want to make the point that it required a private Member's Bill from Steven Agnew to put into law a statutory requirement on Departments to cooperate on children's services. That was echoed by, I think, the Deputy Chair of the Committee, Mr Lyttle, who called for a more general statutory duty between Departments. My sense is that, while nine Departments could have more coherence internally and externally with the other Departments, the best way to discipline everybody to ensure that we have the best form of government going forward is to have statutory duties to cooperate and statutory requirements in respect of any policy sector. Whilst nine Departments may accommodate that, although it may not for the reasons that I have outlined, in our view, there is a need to build into the legal architecture of government responsibilities and duties to ensure that that to which we all aspire — joined-up government and the best outcomes for our people — is secured, rather than put in jeopardy.

Save those comments, we are content to support the motion.

Mr Allen: Let me say from the outset that the Ulster Unionist Party fully supports the principle that the number of Departments should be reduced and a more streamlined Administration should be able to deliver better government for the people of Northern Ireland.

As I said earlier, the Bill could and should have been brought before the House for proper debate and scrutiny a long time ago. It is not some new idea that has appeared out of the ether. In September 2009, the independent review of economic policy (IREP), chaired by the then vice chancellor of the University of Ulster, Professor Richard Barnett, put forward a series of significant policy recommendations intended to assist the Executive in realising their goals of strengthening productivity and raising living standards in Northern Ireland. The review was commissioned by the then Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister, Arlene Foster, to advise on the extent to which existing polices could help to meet the objectives stated in the Programme for Government and to put forward new policies if needed. One of the key recommendations was that the core economic functions covered by DETI and DEL's areas of responsibility should be brought under a single Department of the Economy.

It should be noted that the IREP report was welcomed by Minister Foster, who said that she would give it her:

She also said that, given the importance and complexity of the matters addressed, she intended to carry out a short period of consultation on the report and wanted to reach timely conclusions and initiate purposeful actions as soon as possible. That was just over six years ago.

As far as the Ulster Unionist Party was concerned, we were fully signed up to the idea of a single Department of the Economy, which the party leader, Mike Nesbitt, endorsed at our AGM in March 2013. It entailed effectively scrapping DEL and combining it with DETI. That was followed up in our 2014 European manifesto, which stated:

With regard to the Assembly more generally, in 2012, the Assembly Executive and Review Committee produced a report on the reduction in the number of Departments. It identified areas of commonality that — I quote junior Minister Pengelly when she appeared before the Committee on 30 November — were:

That fed into the Stormont House Agreement process, which hit the buffers, and part of it was resurrected in Fresh Start, bringing us to where we are today. This is not some idea that has emerged out of left field; it has been around the block on a few occasions. As I said earlier, this is not an insignificant Bill. It may be small in the number of clauses, as Mr Lyttle outlined, but it is of acute importance. It will, quite literally, impact on every person in Northern Ireland from the day and hour that we eventually reduce the number of Departments from 12 to nine. That is why, in this debate on accelerated passage, I state that the Ulster Unionist Party has concerns about such an important Bill being introduced so late in the mandate. The attempts to use accelerated passage mean that it will not receive the attention that it deserves or the scrutiny that it clearly merits.

I say again that we are not arguing against the rationale for going from 12 to nine Departments. Our quarrel is not with the content of the Bill per se; it is with the failure of the Executive to run a Government and to get this matter agreed. That is why the Assembly is in the position that it is in today. The IREP report was produced in September 2009. The fact that it has taken more than six years to get to a position where we can firmly begin to see a single Department for the Economy take shape is nothing short of pitiful. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better.

Mr D McIlveen: I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly on the Bill. Before I move to the substantive nature of what I want to say, I, too, pay tribute to Mr Pat Ramsey, who, I understand, will have his last plenary today. Some might say that, in this business of politics, gentlemen are in short supply; therefore, it is regrettable when we lose one. I can certainly say that I have always found Mr Ramsey to be an exceptionally good man and a huge encouragement, and I have enjoyed very much getting to know him over the last few years.

Anybody who knows me will know that, when I speak sometimes, in order for me to process it in my own mind, I like to demonstrate with an anecdote, and I will start with a little story to set the scene for what I want to say. Some people may know that I am a keen motorcyclist. The motorcycle sits in the garage for 49 weeks of the year, given our wonderful Northern Ireland climate, but, in the three weeks of the year that I manage to get it out of the garage, I get on it and do not really choose where I am going. I do not really care where I am going. It is about the experience of the journey and the freedom and enjoyment that come from it. The reason that I tell that brief story is that, in my time in politics, I have met people who fall into that category. They are not overly concerned about the destination; all they seem to be consumed with is the journey. In politics, that is a dangerous position to find ourselves in.

I have found that some people are on a journey of electability. They are more concerned with sound bites and what might be happening around them than with concentrating on their destination.

There are others who are on a journey of — I use the word guardedly — vengeance. They are disappointed by things that have happened in the past and, rather than concentrate on where we should be going, dwell on those things, which allows them to become bogged down in preventing the progress that is required. You may even meet some who are on a journey of inflexibility and do not accept the fact that the world around them is changing. Rather than focusing on the destination, those people are completely bogged down by the changes that are happening around them that they find very difficult to accept.

As my colleague Mr Frew said, that is not what we are elected to do. We are not elected to renege on our responsibilities as elected representatives. Sometimes, decisions will be easy; sometimes, they will be difficult. For the first time in a long time, we are debating a Bill that, in the world outside this little bubble, people are very interested in. We have spent the last four and a half years in the knowledge that we have had spending cuts imposed on us, asking the public and the public sector to tighten their belt, feel a bit of pain and do something to be more efficient. This is our opportunity, as a Government, to contribute. I share Mr Lyttle's aspirations to make the Assembly more efficient, to make it work better and, ultimately, to make sure that there is not wastage in it.

We have been asking doctors, pharmacists and civil servants to tighten their belt. Therefore, we should be very proud of the Bill. It could be better, but it could always be better. We have finally got to a point at which the number of Departments as they stand will be reduced to nine. Of course, there are then the outworkings of that, with a reduction in the number of private offices, special advisers and permanent secretaries and in the whole infrastructure that comes with government.

I am bemused when I listen to some people in the Assembly, regardless of how long they have been here, who seem to fail to see the complexities that exist in a coalition Government. Whether we like it or not, we are in a Government in which we rely on an element of agreement to get things through. I am hugely regretful that there are some parties in the Assembly who have failed in their duty to step up to the mark, do the right thing and do the things that the people want us to do.

I am glad that 'A Fresh Start' has been produced and that there is agreement on it. I am glad that legislation has already been brought to the House that will enable the decisions that were taken in that agreement to happen, and to happen as quickly as possible. Members should not be in the business of insulting not just the intelligence of the people in the Assembly and on the Executive but the intelligence of people outside the Assembly who know that there is a coalition Government in this place, know the reason for that and know that every effort is being made to try to make this place work as well as it possibly can for the people whom we represent. For anybody to be in denial about that shows, with respect, an element of naivety about the position that we find ourselves in.

I am not going to dwell on the accelerated passage procedure any further. We are where we are with that. If we are to get the Bill passed before the election in 2016, we have to be realistic. It would have been better had we been able to do that this time last year, but, unfortunately, circumstances somewhat overtook us.

In relation to staff, there will obviously be concerns around a contraction of any element of the public service. My understanding is that the terms and conditions of employment will remain relatively unchanged. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that. Trade unions will be consulted. I understand that trade unions will have their own views, and there is always an element of hysteria among the trade unions when there is any sort of suggestion around a reduction in the number of public servants, the size of Departments, and the number of staff who come along with that. However, I am sure that those consultations will happen. Whilst we may not be able to deliver everything that the trade unions are asking for, I am sure that every effort will be made to make this as smooth a transition as possible.

There is also the issue of arm's-length bodies. I ask the Minister to address in her closing comments what the likely impact will be on those. Will there now be an opportunity, with a reduced government size as far as the number of Departments is concerned, to take a look at the arm's-length bodies — these unelected quangos, if I could call them that? I accept that many of them deliver a very good service. However, I do not believe that they should be any more immune from cuts than the rest of us.

I know that there had been some suggestion that the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, which I have done a lot of work with, would be brought into the new Department of Justice. I hope that I am correct in my understanding that that is now not going to be the case and that it will remain in the Department of Health. I would welcome that; perhaps we could get confirmation of that.

I support the Bill and I hope that we will see it progress as quickly as possible. I hope that, for once, the news about the Assembly that is carried this evening will be that we have agreed something that is going to save the public some much-needed money. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate and hope that we have cross-House support for the Bill.

Mr Lyons: I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate and very much welcome the Bill. It is very good that we are now at the stage where we are able to progress it. It is another significant step in the much-needed reform of the Assembly and the Executive. It is no secret that my party has been calling for measures such as these for quite a long time; in fact, since 1998. It has to be said that, when these institutions were established in 1998, decisions around the number of Departments and, indeed, the number of MLAs were made not in the best interests of people or government in Northern Ireland but with political considerations factored into them. It was about giving parties seats not only in this place but around the Executive table. The institutions here, which came about as a result of what took place in 1998, are not what they should be. Reform is necessary. I am pleased that we are taking this step today.

When we consider this Bill, what are the benefits that we find in it? Mr Attwood made a number of points. I do not know whether Mr Attwood is trying to steal the crown from Mr Allister for who can be the most negative Member in the Chamber. It seems that he has been quite negative about a lot of things of late, and that is obviously his right as a Member of the Assembly. However, we have in front of us a very good Bill. First, what we have here are savings that will come from our having a smaller government. A reduction in the number of Departments means a reduction in the number of Ministers, a reduction in the number of private offices, a reduction in the number of special advisers, a reduction in the number of permanent secretaries, a reduction in departmental central management units, a reduction in the number of press offices, a reduction in the number of Assembly liaison offices and a reduction in the number of finance and HR branches within those Departments.

Mr McCallister: Will the Member give way?

Mr Lyons: I will, of course, give way.

Mr McCallister: Does the Member accept that, yes, you will save money in the categories he is talking about, but it will be quite a small amount, unless you have a much larger reduction in the overall number of civil servants?

Mr Lyons: I am just getting to that point. Yes, we will have savings. It is obvious that those savings will be made; after all, what I have just listed will not be there any more. However, those savings will, perhaps, be small compared with the benefits that will come as a result of us having more efficient government.

I go back to the point I was making. We will reduce all of those things. That will make savings, but no functions will be done away with, and no policies will be abolished. They will be important savings, but the best thing to come as a result of the Bill will be the transfer of functions and the joining up of functions that should be together. I want to give one example of that. Yesterday, my colleague Lord Morrow wanted to raise a point of order in the Chamber in relation to flooding that had taken place in his constituency. He asked the Speaker what the best way was for him to raise that matter in the Chamber. The Speaker replied that he had decided not to allow a question for urgent oral answer because:

That is the problem that we have with a number of issues: functions are found in different Departments.

Mr Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr Lyons: I give way to Mr Beggs.

Mr Beggs: The Member rightly highlights the duplication that exists with regard to flooding. There is the involvement of the Rivers Agency, Transport NI, obviously, and Northern Ireland Water, potentially. In recent years, the former Minister for Regional Development argued that we should bring forward the transfer and create one Department that would be responsible for flooding to try to better coordinate such events: why has that not happened sooner?

Mr Lyons: I do not know why it has not happened sooner, but I am glad that it is happening now. What we see in section F of the Fresh Start Agreement is that a lot of these issues will be brought in under the control of one Department. I would certainly like to see that happen, and I am glad that it will happen.

Obviously, we are here to talk about the general principles of the Bill. I am pleased that we will have further opportunity to talk about what functions are going where, by way of the Committee's scrutiny, which has been promised by OFMDFM. That will give us an opportunity to talk about that further. This is a short Bill. In my view, it brings savings in the cost of government, it brings functions together and it moves around departmental responsibilities, which will allow for more efficient government. However, it does something else: it continues the reform that is needed in this place. I am pleased that we will have a reduction in the number of MLAs. Although that will not happen until 2021, it shows that the process of reform continues. I think it was my colleague Mr Frew who said that we were in a system where we have to get the support of other Members and we have to convince people of the merits of our arguments. There are Members and parties in the House that were opposed to cutting the number of Departments from 12, and we have now secured that agreement. There are parties in the House who disagreed with cutting the number of MLAs, and we have now got that agreement. We are making progress, and that is welcome. There is, of course, more to be done, but this Bill has my full support, and I urge Members to support it.

Mr Beggs: The Ulster Unionist Party welcomes the proposed reduction in the number of Departments from 12 to nine. It is better late than never. There are advantages, such as saving on personnel, but, more importantly, as I briefly outlined, there will be greater clarity of areas of responsibility and an ability to better coordinate.

As my colleague Andy Allen pointed out, the reorganisation of Departments has been in the pipeline for years, with none more so than the creation of a single Department for the Economy. That goes back to 2009, when the independent review of economic policy made its recommendations. We were told at the time by the then Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Minister Foster, that she would give the report "full and urgent consideration". Improving government structures for the economy has been so urgent that it has taken six long years to get to where we are today. Given the current situation, with the Republic of Ireland's economy reported to be growing three times faster than Northern Ireland's, the sooner that happens, the better.

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for giving way. I am a little surprised, and perhaps he could provide some clarity for me. He complains about the time that this has taken. However, his party was opposed to accelerated passage, which would allow this to happen in the first place. Does he not see a contradiction in holding those two positions?

Mr Beggs: We are simply pointing out what good government is. Good government should not rely on accelerated passage. This has been talked about for years and years; with regard to the Department for the Economy, it has been six years. Why has this legislation not been moved sooner? It is absolutely ridiculous that we are facing it only now, a few months from the end of the Assembly term. Remember, the Assembly was originally to be a four-year Assembly. We are already on nine months of borrowed time and are beyond what should have been our life.

Mr Lyons: Will the Member give way?

Mr Beggs: I want to proceed.

In its latest forecast, the consultancy firm EY, formerly Ernst and Young, has predicted that the Northern Ireland economy will grow by 1·7% in 2015, whilst the Republic of Ireland's growth is forecast to be 5·8%. I reiterate: three times as fast as ours. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better. The Assembly was supposed to be about delivery, not survival. It was supposed to be about delivering for the people of Northern Ireland. It is past time that this Northern Ireland Executive started delivering. Their time is running out. It is time for a new Executive to be in place and to deliver to meet the needs of the people.

Mr Lyttle: I thank the Member for giving way. Briefly following on from the last intervention, I appreciate that the Member's party has now taken an oppositional stance, but can he advise what his party did on departmental reduction and government reform when it was in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister?

Mr Beggs: The Member is referring to something that happened several decades ago. I do not have the details at hand. You are trying to rely on something that happened decades ago, but that was a very different time. Clearly, we need to move forward. Having sown the seeds of a stable, democratic Northern Ireland several decades ago, we think it should now be about delivering and good governance. That is what needs to happen today.

For too long, the Executive have played fast and loose with people's prospects for jobs and of having money in their back pocket. Youth unemployment remains stubbornly high — among the highest in the United Kingdom — and the so-called Fresh Start Agreement is beginning to look like a false start, with Sinn Féin already rowing back from its support for the devolution of corporation tax-varying powers and setting the rate at 12·5% in 2018. If the reorganisation of Departments is to happen, it should be done correctly and should not be rushed through. We have not seen the transfer of functions order, which is mentioned in the Fresh Start Agreement. The agreement states:

Earlier in the debate, Mr McIlveen referred to other changes that have been agreed. Whatever is happening behind the scenes should be happening transparently, with the public being able to make suggestions as well. It should not be a case of deals being made in smoke-filled rooms where one side gets this and the other side gets that, or something equally ridiculous. This should be about good governance for Northern Ireland. Hopefully, the Executive will move forward, giving the public and MLAs a copy soon.

Where is this transfer of functions order? The latest that we have been told is that we can expect it some time in the new year. Well, we know that we will definitely get it before the election in May 2016. It is easy to say that we will get it some time in the new year, because if we do not get it then, we will not get it at all. Why do we not have a date for its arrival? Why was the Bill afforded accelerated passage, and why has it not been given proper time for scrutiny?

Every party in the House wants to see a reduction in the apparatus of government to give us a more streamlined and efficient Executive. Sinn Féin and the DUP should have absolutely nothing to fear from proper scrutiny; it makes for better government.

Mr Maskey: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he not agree that, had his colleague stayed in the Executive, he would have had all those answers and, not only that, he would have had his input into the decision-making on the answers that he now seeks? You gave up your opportunity to have an input and to come here and ask questions.

Mr Beggs: I thank the Member for his contribution. If it was a real partnership Executive, with everyone valued and treated with respect, the Member's assertion would have some merit, but that is not my understanding of how his party and the DUP run the Executive. They made their side deals and treated everyone else like fodder. We have to move on to improve things for everyone in Northern Ireland.

I want to pick up on the earlier intervention on the issue of flooding. The Department for Regional Development is responsible for Northern Ireland Water and, when storm water enters our sewerage systems, it has a role, under the responsibilities that it has, to react during floods. Similarly, Roads Service, which is now Transport NI, has a responsibility for culverts and grilles etc. We have learned that there is potential for road grilles to be blocked, and they have to be maintained to avoid flooding. The Rivers Agency, under the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, has responsibility for the flow of rivers and ensuring, for example, that ditches do not become clogged and result in flooding. It is also responsible for producing flood maps and determining new development.

The flood helpline service was located in the Department of Finance and Personnel — someone may put me right if I have got that wrong. When there is flooding, the public can contact the Department of Finance and Personnel or go straight to Rivers Agency, to Northern Ireland Water or Transport NI. Frequently, they do not know whom to contact — they just want help — and, in other instances, councils frequently assist. Several years ago, recognising that difficulty, Danny Kennedy, the former Minister for Regional Development — bravely to my mind — suggested that he would be willing to take all this on in one single Department so that there could be single responsibility, better coordination and better delivery for the public. What happened? It was not agreed. Why do we have to wait until there is some big deal and a stitch-up? Why can we not be mature as an Assembly and, when we see areas for improvement, move forward, improving things as we go along? We are meant to be serving the people of Northern Ireland. We are meant to be legislating for improvements and meeting their needs, not the needs of the political bubble that may exist here at Stormont. The changes that are being proposed to reduce the number of Departments from 12 to nine can allow that to happen, and I hope that they will. There is an indication that that is the direction of travel, but why are we taking so long? Why are we not publishing the changes in a draft format, thus allowing the public to have an input? Someone might spot another area for improvement that the experts have overlooked and make a suggestion to the Committee that will be scrutinising it. Again, that would have widespread support. And guess what? It would deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. After all, as the First Minister once said, this Assembly term was to be about delivery, not about survival. We all know what has happened. Where has the delivery been? The current Executive have let the people down. They have failed them. They have not delivered much, apart from stumbling from one false start to another.

It is more important than ever that the next steps that the House takes are the right steps, with a clear direction and sense of purpose. They should be about delivery for the people in Larne, in Carrickfergus, in Newtownabbey and, indeed, right across the Province, not just about what suits some parties here in the Stormont bubble. Why can the House and, indeed, the community not be presented with all the facts on all the proposals, instead of a Bill being railroaded through under accelerated passage? If the Assembly is going to legislate, let us make sure that it does it right. The Bill should get the attention that it deserves. Let us be clear: the Ulster Unionists fully support the reduction in the number of Departments from 12 to nine, but we do not support the rushed job that is being driven through by the Sinn Féin and DUP coalition, which appears to be afraid of scrutiny and seems to be obsessed with retaining its control and its fingerprints. It is about not what is best for the community but whatever Sinn Féin and the DUP decide.

Mr McCallister: I listened intently to Mr McIlveen's story, and, when he talked about being on the journey, it reminded me of what I have often said about the Executive. The old adage is this: if you do not know where you are going, any road will take you there. The Executive have never quite looked as though they have had that purpose and direction, and, if they were to come to a fork in the road, to use Mr McIlveen's analogy, they would not know what direction to go in. To deal with it, they would probably form a commission or hope that Westminster or somewhere else would come in and make the decision for them. From listening to many Members in the debate, I can see that that demands almost a culture change for our Executive, whatever the number of Departments happens to be. Whether it is six, nine 12, they have to get to the point at which, as Mr Attwood put it, they look as though they are in power, not just in office, and able to exercise the Departments in a collective manner. That has bedevilled the process almost from when we began with these devolved institutions in 1998, from collapse through to the St Andrews Agreement, where there was almost a trial run at stopping what the DUP termed the end of solo runs by Ministers.

That comes back to how we share power here.

You will have heard me say before that we do not have genuine power-sharing; we have shared-out power. If going to nine Departments helps us to genuinely share power, that is the challenge. Not only do we need a clear direction on where the Government want to go, but there is an onus on political parties to start to work and think about what they want the Government to do. What do they want from whatever Departments or Executive there are and what do they want in a Programme for Government?

I welcome some of the things in 'A Fresh Start'. I welcome some of the changes to the Departments that we are debating today. I also welcome the idea that you would negotiate at the start. It is the wrong way round in 'A Fresh Start': you have to declare that you want to take up your position in the Government before entering negotiations. However, that, I suspect, is something for the parties that qualify to get to.

Once you reduce the number of Departments and whether you like it or not, you change the dynamic of how many parties might qualify for government. If the election results were exactly the same as in 2011, with nine Departments, Alliance would not be a party of government in the sense that it would not qualify under d'Hondt in the current arrangements. That is a change.

My Bill is in Committee at the minute, but I have set out in it some of the issues around unitary government and collective responsibility. Some of what is in this Bill and was agreed in 'A Fresh Start' does not go far enough, but it starts to move us down a certain road. Other parties seem to have accepted that we cannot continue with a model of government that looks so dysfunctional that even the head of the Administration has to refer to it as dysfunctional. These are all things that have to be addressed.

Mr Lyttle: I thank the Member for giving way. Would the Executive not be, arguably, less representative, given what you propose for qualification for the Executive?

Mr McCallister: If you put in a threshold? Absolutely, it would be. You change that by improving collective responsibility. Not everybody who is in government honours those principles. Look at yesterday's debate on a legislative consent motion: two parties in the Government voted one way, and the other half of the Government voted against them. You cannot continue with that, as I have often said about government policy. If this Bill helps to deliver more cohesive government with nine Departments, you start to build in some of that. We cannot continue with a Government in which half the parties vote one way and half votes the other. That is where collective government comes from. I make the point that, if having nine Departments starts to move us, even slightly, down that road, it is to be welcomed. However, you are relying very much on a culture change to deliver that.

Mr Lyttle talked about needing a statutory duty to cooperate. What I have proposed and what I would like to see in the Departments Bill goes much further than a statutory duty; it will enshrine that collective Cabinet responsibility. It goes significantly further.

On some of the issues around the Bill and the transfer of functions that will come, I note the change in intention to move the Fire and Rescue Service to the Department of Justice. That is probably welcome: the last thing that we need is our Fire and Rescue Service coming into some political mess, which there was a risk of with it coming into the Department of Justice.

The ultimate aim of all of this has to be delivering good governance. The fact that we are changing the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, which has been described by many as the most dysfunctional Department in government — to the Executive Office and to a coordinating role is to be welcomed. That is why I supported Mr Allister's SpAds Bill. It is important that with these changes we set limits on how many special advisers there should be. For example, the new Executive Office will clearly not need eight SpAds and two junior Ministers. I look forward to the junior Minister responding to this. A much more sensible use of junior Ministers would be to have one in the Department for the Economy to make sure that we did not take our focus off skills and universities, as could become the case. Perhaps there could be a junior Minister in the Department of Education looking at early years and early intervention and how we can really raise our game on that subject. Certainly, there should be one in the Department of Health specialising in social care and how we can deliver on that. I would also like to see, possibly, a junior Minister in the Department for Communities looking at some of the impacts of welfare reform on social mobility and what could be done there. This gives the sense of a broader set of reforms that I would like to see flowing from a Bill like this.

Once you start down the road of change, there are things that, naturally, should flow. Once you bring in junior Ministers to look at things such as social care or at rights and protections for our elder population, you start to question whether we need a Commissioner for Older People or a Commissioner for Children and Young People. Should those responsible not, in the idea of representative democracy, be under the control and scrutiny of this Chamber? That is what is interesting about the current reform, in moving to nine Departments and looking not only at how we get a functioning Executive and a robust Assembly and opposition holding that Executive to account but at how we build in purpose and direction and that challenge to political parties to come up with policies, costed ideas and an idea of what they want to do, what they want to get into a Programme for Government and what they want to do if elected to serve in the Government.

Being in the Government comes with huge privileges, but it must also demand huge responsibility when making decisions. This is something that we have not seen. Under our current model, we have no idea about what is government policy. The Health Minister is now in the Chamber: if he goes to make a decision under Transforming Your Care, how many other Ministers will protest against him? That is why, when you move to a smaller number of Departments and you have fewer parties in the Government, you will help to bring in a collective Government, a disciplined Government and government policy that makes sure that, when Ministers speak, they do so on behalf of the Government of Northern Ireland and not just on behalf of their Department. There would be no solo runs in Departments. That is where we have to move to, and I very much hope that that will be the direction of travel set out in the Bill. I do and will support the broad principles outlined today.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I call junior Minister Pengelly to conclude and wind up the debate.

Mr Allister: On a point of order, I understood that my name was down to speak in the debate.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Your name was down to speak on it, but you were not in for the previous speaker and are therefore ineligible to speak.

Mr Allister: I explained my predicament to the Chair, but there we go. As you please.

Mrs Pengelly (Junior Minister, Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister): I am grateful for Members' contributions. They have been invaluable and informative, although some were disappointingly negative, given that this is a good news story and a good day for government in Northern Ireland.

Reforming institutional structures has been a declared objective of government here for many years, and reducing the number of Departments has long been recognised as a key element of reform. The Bill represents a major element in the process of reform. The issues addressed in the Bill featured in a Programme for Government commitment; they were the subject of a review and report by the Assembly and Executive Review Committee in 2012; they underwent detailed consideration during the political process leading to the Stormont House Agreement in December last year; they were extensively discussed by the Executive at the beginning of this year; and they featured in the recent talks process that led to last month's Fresh Start Agreement. It is therefore disappointing that some Members have taken issue with the speed with which we are trying to bring about this reform, given that it has been discussed so extensively over the last four years. I say to those Members that this is the time for action. It should be done, it should be done now and it should be done in advance of the new mandate in 2016.

There is a broad consensus on a nine-Department Executive as a viable model for our future Administration. The Bill creates a framework for the most extensive reorganisation of the departmental system since 1999. Although it is quite a compact Bill, its impact on future Administrations will be far-reaching. A streamlined nine-Department system will offer fresh opportunities for improving the way we do business. The future Departments will have a clearer identity that, in my view, will be appreciated by citizens. The new slimmed-down structure will enable related policies and functions to be brigaded together and synergies to be achieved. It will provide a leaner, more efficient Executive.

The changes will have consequences for the Assembly too. Having fewer Departments should simplify Assembly Committee structures and business scheduling. Together with wider public-sector reform initiatives, restructuring will lead to a more efficient Administration on many levels. That will help us to deliver the excellence in public service and value for money that the citizen rightly expects.

I will turn briefly to the various contributions and thank all those who contributed. First, Mr Lyttle outlined the role of the Committee thus far in this issue and in the Bill. We appreciate the Committee's support for our actions on accelerated passage and the reform of the Departments. Mr Lyttle welcomed that the Committee will get to scrutinise the transfer of functions Order. I am happy to put it on the record that we will appreciate the Committee's help in this in the next few months and its comments on and analysis of the proposals set before it.

I welcome the support of the Alliance Party on reform. I am fully supportive of driving forward better government and a better Assembly. That is why I have been very involved in the Department, as has junior Minister McCann, on driving forward better working across Departments, trying to break down silo mentalities and to get better cross-policy working. Delivering Social Change is one example of trying to get a delivery framework.

However, Mr Lyttle mentioned rubber-stamping. What I will say is that we exist within a legislative and Executive context that requires hard graft to bring about brokered agreements. That was picked up by a number of Members. As the Member is well aware, the formal procedures are not always conducive to getting those negotiations and agreements that are required to bring these matters forward. So, we have to look outside the formal structures, but, of course, we liaise and interface with those formal structures when required and when appropriate to get that type of feedback.

I will turn to the contribution made by Paul Frew, who welcomed that we have agreement. I absolutely and wholeheartedly concur: getting agreement across a mandatory coalition, especially one that is so ideologically opposed or which comes from such different ideological positions, is not easy. Yes, it is slow and difficult, but it is worth persevering and achieving those agreed actions.

There was negativity, and I will come to that shortly. Others will snipe, sneer and condescend from their utopian fantasy world of what should be instead of what is. What I would say is that we will try to achieve action and agreement within the context that we exist in while striving to make the necessary changes to improve the system, and I believe that today is a very important step towards improving the system.

Alex Maskey welcomed the fact that we are getting on with implementing the agreement on those actions, and I absolutely concur with that sentiment. I think that action is good, but it takes a long time, as I mentioned, to get agreement. I believe that it is right to use this process to ensure that that is in place for the next mandate and to give the next mandate the best possible opportunity to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.

I move on to the contribution from Alex Attwood. Again, there was a bit of negativity from him. He wanted to pour cold water on 'A Fresh Start'. What I would say to him is that, for many people, this is not a disappointment. Some elements will require further discussion, and we have made commitments to continue to discuss those very difficult and tricky issues. We got agreement on how to deal with welfare reform, on having in place 12·5% corporation tax by April 2018, and on comprehensively taking on cross-border crime and tackling paramilitarism. Those are big, big issues of agreement. They are intractable problems that people have struggled with for very many years. There is an agreement there and, while it may not have everything in it that we would hope for, it is a good agreement and a fresh start on a range of issues, and that should be welcomed, not received with such negativity. I believe that it is ambitious and comprehensive.

Mr Attwood raised the issue of the nine Departments and said that it is not a panacea or the answer to inefficiency or bad working. I absolutely agree. I do not think that anybody is suggesting that it is, but it is a good start. It is one of a range of necessary measures. My colleagues in other Departments, including the Department of Health and the Department of Finance and Personnel, are pushing forward an ambitious agenda for efficiency and reform, and we will continue to do that. We have made it absolutely clear that one of our key commitments is providing better public services for people in Northern Ireland, and that will require a change in how we do things and deliver services. We have made a commitment to drive through efficiencies and reform to bring about those changes.

The Member mentioned the issue of objective need that I had raised. To clarify for him, I am not necessarily saying that we should move away from objective need but, rather, that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about what objective need is. I know, from talking to very many groups, including those involved in the legal challenge, that there seems to be a sense that objective need is almost entirely to do with spatial deprivation. My comments were to try to make it absolutely clear that that is not the case. I mentioned objective need in the Department of Health — the objective medical expertise for your needs. As for unemployment, it does not matter where you live or what the spatial deprivation is, you will get your benefits and the help that you are entitled to. So, my point was more one of clarification about the understanding of objective need, not about actually changing that.

However, we need to step back and change some of what we do right across government. I do not think that anybody is suggesting today that the policy areas in Departments are crystallised and cannot or should not be changed. I have already mentioned the Delivering Social Change agenda, which was a new policy area to be pushed forward. I think that we need to look at the way that we have operated for very many years to see what is working and what is not working, and what is not working should be left behind. On previous occasions, I have mentioned the approach of Departments to strategies. We have started to take an approach of putting many strategies on a statutory basis.

I am firmly of the view, for example, that a huge strategy that collates a range of actions happening in Departments is not the way to bring about change. We need to have an outcomes focus and to look at delivery frameworks and a better way of doing business across policies, within Departments and between Departments and other agencies. Mr Andy Allen —

Mr Attwood: I thank the Minister for giving way. I think that I have proposed five interventions, all of which were meant to be positive and should in no way be portrayed as negative. May I probe you further? Hansard will confirm, Minister, that you have just said that you are:

You subsequently said that you were "not actively changing objective need". Can you confirm what your position is? Given that you have said that you would not necessarily move away from objective need, are you saying to the House that there might be circumstances in which you might find it necessary to move away from it?

Mrs Pengelly: There are a range of policies that any Department can implement, and you implement those policies on the basis of the problem that you are trying to resolve. There will be some problems with need, and, in that case, absolutely, there should be an objective-need approach. Section 28E of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 clearly states that there is a statutory obligation that a poverty strategy needs to be based on objective need. There are other strategies, of course, as you and your party will be well aware. For example, there is a statutory obligation in section 75(2) on good relations. There will be other policies and statutory requirements that mean that we will use a different range of criteria.

I will clarify my comments in that context. We have made it clear in the Chamber that we are committed to bringing forward a poverty strategy under section 28E based on objective need, and I seek to give better clarity on what "objective need" means. It is used colloquially to mean "spatial need", and that is a mistake.

Andy Allen said that this should have happened many, many years ago. The first thing that I will say back to the Member from the Ulster Unionist Party is that, given what happened last Christmas and given that the Ulster Unionist Party did not agree to 'A Fresh Start' or want to be part of that agreement, if it were left to that party, it still would not be done. It certainly would not be done in time for the Administration in the next mandate. I find it difficult to take criticism from a party that is not prepared to step up and make the difficult decisions, the compromises and the agreements that are required to move Northern Ireland forward and get those issues moving.

My colleague David McIlveen paid tribute to Pat Ramsey: I add my best wishes to that sentiment. I did not have much opportunity to know Mr Ramsey, except by reputation, or work with him. Warm words have been said, and it has been mentioned many times that he is a gentleman. Probably all of us around the House would like to have that type of tribute paid on leaving a political career, so I support David's comments on that.

David told a story in which he talked about a destination and asked this: where do we want to go? I absolutely concur with that sentiment. We need to have a vision. There are many visions contained in many strategies and many documents, but, for the Programme for Government, we will strive to have a clear vision of where we want to bring Northern Ireland. I have heard it said by all parties around the Chamber that we have a shared vision of wanting to build a better and brighter future for Northern Ireland. That means economic growth and reforming government, and today is a critical step in doing that.

I will clarify some of the Member's comments. He is not here at the moment, but hopefully he will read this in Hansard. Terms and conditions for staff will be largely unaffected. The only change that is possible may be a change of working location. There is a programme board being led by the permanent secretary in DEL, presumably under the guidance of the head of the Civil Service, and I know that the board has been liaising with the trade unions throughout the process. He mentioned the efficiency of arm's-length bodies. I can give him a confirmation that arm's-length bodies have not been immune from efficiencies over a number of years. We made it clear through the Department of Finance and Personnel that arm's-length bodies must be included in efficiency measures. They have made year-on-year efficiencies, but we will continue to look at how we can improve that relationship. There has been some rationalisation of arm's-length bodies, and we will continue to look at what is necessary. Where it is unnecessary, that should be merged and examined in terms of a better way of working.

Perhaps there was a little misunderstanding by Mr McCallister of whether the Fire and Rescue Service would be retained in the Health Department. I just wanted to clarify that. David McIlveen queried that as well. I can confirm that, and I know that that will be welcomed by the Fire Service and the health service.

I move to the negative contribution of Mr Roy Beggs, who, unfortunately, has not stayed to listen to the response to the many questions that he posed. He started by saying that it was "better late than never". I welcome the agreement. It was hard fought for, hard won and finally achieved, but, quite frankly, that was no thanks to him or his party.

Mr Lyons: I thank the Minister for giving way. Mr Beggs was not able to answer my question but, in the Minister's view, it is not contradictory for the Ulster Unionist Party to oppose accelerated passage, which would allow the Bill to become law and make the progress that we want, while complaining that it has not taken place soon enough?

Mrs Pengelly: I thank the Member for the intervention. Absolutely, I concur. It is deeply ironic that they have opposed accelerated passage. If we want to have better government and a better Assembly, perhaps a good place to start would be our legislative process. Quite frankly, it is far from agile in getting these issues through, necessitating the fact that, to get changes in the last nine to 12 months of an Administration, we have to look at accelerated passage. Perhaps it is a challenge to the Assembly to look at how we can bring about changes and deliver for people in the last year of the Assembly term.

It is also deeply ironic that the Member's party walked away from the agreement. They walked away from the Assembly. He talked about smoke-filled rooms. That is probably testimony to the fact that the Ulster Unionist Party absolutely live in the past. It has been a considerable time since a smoking ban was put in place. There certainly were not any smoke-filled rooms in these discussions. He talked about 1998 and the Belfast Agreement being many decades ago. That was a long, long time ago, so they are going to wash their hands and take no responsibility for that whatever. That is an utterly ridiculous argument. He stands up there and says, "Better late than never" and "It is about time" and tries to pour scorn on the parties trying to bring about the changes, while his party created these Departments. The Ulster Unionist Party created those Departments and the burdensome system that we are now trying to deliver change on.

Mr Attwood: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Pengelly: I am trying to move business on. This has been a lengthy response, but I thank the Member for also standing up to take responsibility for the shocking example in relation to —

Mr Hamilton: The ugly scaffolding.

Mrs Pengelly: Yes. The Member also asked what the Executive had delivered. I wanted him to be in the Chamber just, so that I could throw out a few headline statistics: 33% more spend on health; 22,000 jobs created; 12·5% corporation tax secured by April 2018, giving security to businesses that will attract further foreign direct investment and create further jobs for the people of Northern Ireland; no water rates; and the highest foreign direct investment per head of population. We have people sneering and condescending from the peripheries of the Chamber and the peripheries of the political parties in Northern Ireland, trying to pour negativity on what has been achieved. Yes, it has been hard and it has taken a long time, but we have got agreements and are changing things for the better. The Bill is representative of that.

I welcome John McCallister's contribution. He talked of a change of culture, and we can all support that. There is a saying that does the rounds at conferences or between officials that "Culture eats strategy".

The reality is that, unless we change the culture within Departments — the culture of working in silos and of inefficiency — we will not get better outcomes, regardless of how we change the structures. So, this is an important contribution in terms of the reductions, but we are also very conscious that we need to change the way people work. We have been trying to drive that forward, and it has been challenging. However, we need to get officials, bodies, Departments and, quite frankly, people across the Chamber working better outside the silo of where they are comfortable.

We need to be realistic. I take the points that Mr McCallister has raised about the systems that we have, but, if we were to hold out for all parties in the Executive to agree everything, we would have even less agreement and it would make it very difficult to move forward. We have striven to get agreement on a range of these issues. As I mentioned, these changes have been discussed for four years now. The changes in this piece of legislation are very straightforward. It is three clauses. Although some Members have expressed concern about wanting to sit and look at this even further, and add another six or 12 months to that process, it is three clauses, and they are very clear. It has been in the public space for the last four years, and now is the time for action and moving on that. I welcome that today.

In moving to some concluding paragraphs, I thank Members for their contributions to the debate and for the questions and issues that they have raised. I hope that I have answered comprehensively the issues raised. 'A Fresh Start' has provided a basis for addressing some of our most intractable issues. In relation to departmental restructuring, it has made it possible for us to move forward to an area that will benefit good government and society as a whole. A leaner, more joined-up Administration, with improved cohesion within and between Departments, is in all our interests. Most importantly, hopefully, it will help us to achieve our outcomes in a better way. I commend this Bill to the Assembly.

Mr Hamilton (The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety): I beg to move

The Bill includes two distinct Parts. The original purpose of the Bill was to amend anomalies in the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 2008. Those amendments are now contained in Part 2 of this Bill. Part 1 of the Bill contains provisions dealing with nicotine-containing products, the most common form of which are e-cigarettes.

I would first like to speak about Part 1. In the past four or five years, the market for e-cigarettes has grown considerably, and it is now estimated that there are almost three million users in the United Kingdom, the vast majority of whom are ex- or current smokers. A recent Northern Ireland health survey revealed that 14% of people here have tried e-cigarettes at least once and that around 5% of the adult population consider themselves to be current users.

E-cigarettes differ from regular cigarettes in that they contain no tobacco. They are made up of a nicotine-based liquid, which is then vaporised and inhaled. No smoke is produced, and, therefore, they can be legally used in places where tobacco-cigarette use is banned. As the e-cigarette market has expanded, concerns have arisen about the health consequences of using these products. A limited amount of research has been carried out, and Members may indeed be aware of a recent report commissioned by Public Health England that estimated that e-cigarettes are about 20 times less harmful than tobacco cigarettes. While this report offers some reassurance, the e-cigarette market remains largely unregulated. Consequently, the quality and safety of existing products on the market cannot be verified. I glad to say that the position on regulation is shortly to change. From May 2016, the new EU tobacco products directive will require that all nicotine-containing products, which contain less than 20 mg per millilitre of nicotine, are regulated as consumer products.

In practice, that means that e-cigarette manufacturers will be obliged to comply with a number of requirements if they wish to sell their products within the European Union. These include a limitation on the nicotine content of e-cigarettes; obligatory reporting of the ingredients of and emissions resulting from the use of e-cigarettes, including toxicological data; the provision of information to consumers, including a health warning on packaging; and restrictions on cross-border advertising and promotion.

Application to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) for medicines licensing is an option for those manufacturers wanting to promote their product as a smoking cessation aid or to sell products that contain more than 20 mg per millilitre of nicotine.

There are no age restrictions applied to the sale of e-cigarettes, and there is no requirement in the EU directive for member states to introduce any such restrictions. However, a 2014 report by the World Health Organization (WHO) considered the emerging evidence on the health risks associated with nicotine-containing products. It concluded that there is sufficient evidence to caution children and young people against using these products. Nicotine is a highly addictive substance, and adolescent nicotine exposure is known to have long-term adverse consequences on brain development. In addition, I am concerned that the availability and promotion of e-cigarettes is reversing the progress made by smoke-free legislation to de-normalise smoking.

Action to address concerns about youth access to e-cigarettes is at various stages of development across the United Kingdom and Ireland. A Government amendment was included in the England and Wales Children and Families Act 2014 to restrict the sale of nicotine-containing products to persons over the age of 18. These regulations came into force on 1 October this year. The Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc. and Care) Bill, introduced in Scotland in June, also seeks to ban underage sales of e-cigarettes, and the Republic of Ireland is committed to introducing similar measures in the near future.

It is important that young people in Northern Ireland are similarly protected. To that end, my Department sought and obtained the agreement of the Northern Ireland Executive for the inclusion of relevant provisions in the Bill. Part 1 contains provisions that will enable the Department to make regulations prohibiting the sale of nicotine-containing products to minors. A provision to allow the Department to create an offence of the proxy purchasing of these products — in other words, an adult purchasing an e-cigarette on behalf of a minor — is also included.

It is not intended that the legislation will apply to licensed nicotine replacement therapy products currently on the market as aids to smoking cessation. To exempt existing nicotine replacement therapy products, the regulation-making powers will allow the Department to apply the age of sale restrictions either to all nicotine products, nicotine products of a specified kind or nicotine products subject to specified exceptions.

Schedule 1 amends the Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 to allow for offences in relation to the underage sale of nicotine-containing products to be included as an offence that could lead to an application for a restricted sale order or a restricted premises order. This is one of three offences that could result in a retailer being banned from selling tobacco and/or nicotine-containing products for up to three years, so in practice it will mean that, if a retailer commits an underage sales offence in relation to a nicotine-containing product, an enforcement officer could include a ban.

Two small amendments were made to Part 1 of the Bill following the consultation process. The first provides my Department with regulation-making powers in relation to banning the sale of e-cigarettes from vending machines. While there is no evidence of that happening at this stage, I believe that it is important that we have measures in place to prevent such an eventuality.

The second amendment raises the level of fine for sales of tobacco from vending machines to a level 5 fine. That ensures a consistent approach to fines for all underage tobacco or e-cigarette sales offences. I believe that the provisions in Part 1 offer a proportionate response to concerns about youth access to e-cigarettes. This is a new and evolving market. My Department will continue to review the latest developments and research with a view to ensuring the best outcomes for the health of our population.

Before I move on to Part 2, I want to address an issue that is not in the Bill but that many believe should be. Many were understandably concerned at the omission from the Bill of a clause banning smoking in cars with children. I have listened carefully to the arguments made by many that Northern Ireland should follow the example of other parts of the United Kingdom, and I can confirm to the House today that it is my intention to bring forward an amendment at Consideration Stage to ban smoking in cars with children.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

I would like now to address Part 2 of the Bill. As already mentioned, the original purpose of the Bill was to amend anomalies in the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 2008, which I shall refer to as the 2008 Act. The 2008 Act amended existing legislation covering the provision of health service dental, ophthalmic and pharmaceutical services in Northern Ireland. It also amended provisions concerning charges for services provided to persons not ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland.

The amendments that we now need to make to the 2008 Act are mainly technical in nature and do not affect the original policy intent. We have already consulted on the amendments, and respondents were content. Mainly, they will ensure that the legislation contains the correct references to the various categories of people and bodies involved in providing dental, ophthalmic and pharmaceutical services. I will now briefly describe the background to the amendments.

The 2008 Act contains the legislation to change the way dental services are organised in Northern Ireland. The provisions move away from the current arrangements whereby only dental practitioners can provide health service treatment. In the new provisions primary dental services are often referred to as the new dental contract. Once introduced, a wider variety of providers will be able to provide dental services, including corporate bodies. Certain anomalies have been identified in the dental provisions in the 2008 Act, and the Department needs to amend particular wording in legislative references. Specifically, we need to amend the description of the dentists who will perform those services. The amendments are technical in nature, and the original policy is unaffected. The relevant amendments are set out in clauses 6, 9 and 10 respectively.

The Health and Social Care Board, which is referred to as the "Regional Board" in the Bill, maintains lists of individuals or bodies that provide pharmaceutical services — that is, dispense health service prescriptions and related services. The Health and Social Care Board also holds lists of those who provide ophthalmic services — in other words, those who carry out health service eyesight tests. There are set application procedures before an individual or body can join either of those lists. Those listed have to abide by certain terms and conditions, the Health and Social Care Board has disciplinary powers over them, and, ultimately, they can be suspended or disqualified by a tribunal. Lists are limited to those who hold contractual arrangements with the Health and Social Care Board; they do not include employed pharmacists or opticians.

The 2008 Act aimed at extending the current listing system to include pharmacists and opticians employed by contractors. Again, anomalies were identified in the 2008 Act, and we have decided that we need to revisit our policy in that area. That will be conducted in a separate exercise and will be subject to further consultation. In the meantime, the Bill returns the general ophthalmic and pharmaceutical services provisions to their pre-2008 Act position. Relevant amendments are set out in clauses 7 and 8.

Under existing legislation, the Department can make health services available to persons not ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland. The Department may determine charges for such services and prescribe exemptions from those charges. In rewording that provision, the 2008 Act removed the phrase

To avoid any ambiguity and for clarity, the Department wishes to make the minor amendment of restoring those words. Currently, the exemption is implied. Those amendments are set out in clause 11.

The provisions in Part 2 amend anomalies identified in the 2008 Act. The amendments are technical in nature and will ensure that we have the correct legislative references in place when we are ready to introduce the new dental contract. We have restored the Health and Social Care Board's ophthalmic and pharmaceutical listing powers to their pre-2008 position. We will consider the extension of ophthalmic and pharmaceutical listing systems in a separate exercise, and, for clarity, we have restored a specific reference to exemptions in relation to charging persons not ordinarily resident. The Bill also makes important changes to the regulation of e-cigarettes and will, if the Assembly supports my amendment, ban smoking in cars with children.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I call the Chair of the Committee, Ms Maeve McLaughlin, I advise her that, as Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, it may be necessary to interrupt her at that stage.

Ms Maeve McLaughlin (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety): Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. On behalf of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, I support the Second Stage of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.

The Minister has outlined that the Bill is split into three parts. Part 1 contains provisions to enable the Department to make regulations prohibiting the sale of nicotine-containing products to minors. A provision to allow the Department to create an offence of proxy purchasing is also included. Part 2 makes provision to amend the 2008 Act in respect of areas such as primary dental services, pharmaceutical services and charges for services provided to persons not ordinarily resident. Part 3 makes provision in respect of the interpretation of the Bill, subordinate legislation and repeals and sets out the title and commencement dates.

The Committee first took evidence from departmental officials on the proposals for the legislation on 1 October 2014. That was during the Department’s public consultation on the draft Bill. Back then, officials advised that it was the Department's intention to introduce the Bill in the Assembly by February 2015. It was, however, introduced late last month. On 23 September 2015, officials came before the Committee again to provide a further briefing on the Bill and to update us on the changes that had been made to it following the public consultation.

Two changes were made to the draft Bill after consultation. The first was the inclusion of the ban on e-cigarettes from vending machines, and the second was the increase in the fine for sales from tobacco vending machines to a level 5 fine. During the briefing, the Committee asked questions on the detail of the Bill, but no objections were raised about its overall aims and objectives. Questions asked sought clarification on the difference between nicotine replacement therapy and nicotine-containing products and whether the legislation would apply to licensed nicotine cessation products. The possibility of a ban on domestic advertising of e-cigarettes was also raised. Members also sought clarification on the Department's rationale for the technical amendments to the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008 on the listing of dentists, pharmacists and opticians.

If I may, in conclusion, I wish to say a few words as a Sinn Féin MLA. In a strange outburst of cooperation today, I had planned to announce my intention to table an amendment to ban smoking in cars carrying children. I very much welcome the Minister's intention to do that and look forward to working directly with him in that spirit of cooperation to bring forward a robust, comprehensive ban that is ultimately about the public health of our children and young people.

Finally, if I may, I indicate my intention to table an amendment on a sugar tax, thus ensuring that the Department will consult on a levy on sugar-sweetened drinks. They are a major source of ill health, particularly among our children and young people, causing conditions such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and tooth decay. The consumption of sugary drinks is higher among young people and those on low incomes. My amendment will deal with the issue of a levy on sugar. I urge Members to support the Second Stage of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, so I suggest that the House take its ease until then. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member called to speak will be Mr Alex Easton.

Mr Hamilton (The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety): In overall terms, the total level of current expenditure funding awarded to my Department in 2015-16 is some £123 million greater than that available in 2014-15. That increase takes account of the uplift that was outlined in the Executive's Budget for 2015-16 and the additional non-recurrent in-year allocations made to my Department through the monitoring round process.

The Executive's Budget for 2015-16 provided an additional £200 million for front-line health services, but my Department was also required to make some £50 million in savings in other areas of its budget, including the Fire Service and my other arm's-length bodies. In addition, the level of assistance available to my Department in 2015-16 through the monitoring round process is approximately £30 million less than that received in 2014-15.

I welcome the Executive's past support in providing additional funding to my Department, and I will look to their continued support in the future so that my Department is best placed to meet the health and social care needs of the people of Northern Ireland.

Mrs Overend: I thank the Minister for that information. Obviously, I welcome the recent allocation of £40 million, but, as the Minister rightly said, there was far more money awarded last year, yet the situation continued to worsen. Aside from temporary reprieves, what has he done to get to grips with the escalating costs?

Mr Hamilton: I think that everybody understands and appreciates — I am sure that the Member does — the increasing pressure on health in our society and across most societies, with huge increases in demand for most services. Some of that demand is driven by positive things like technological advances and advances in drugs and medicine. That puts increasing pressure on a system that is facing pressure all the time, which is why I have been focusing on the need to reform our system. It is very clear to me that continuing with the system as it currently operates will not suffice in the future.

We are starting to see the pressures build up. We understand the problems that are being caused by having a growing and ageing population. Great that it is that we are all living longer, many of us are living longer with one or more chronic conditions. Earlier, in a different context, the Chair of the Health Committee was talking about unhealthy lifestyles and the ticking time bomb that that presents for society. That necessitates reform of our system.

In the short term, we need to spend more in health, in part to address the immediate needs and to start to reform and transform our system. We have to be realistic that that increase, particularly at a time of pressure on our budget, is not sustainable in the very long term. So, we need to make those reforms and transformations to get our health service on a sustainable footing. We need to make reforms that take out layers of bureaucracy in our system and ensure that we have a configuration of services, in health and in social care, that meets the needs of our population and puts to the forefront the need to ensure the highest standard of care and safety for our patients. It will be that relentless focus on reform that I will continue to pursue, and I hope that whoever is in my post after the election will continue to do that.

Mr I McCrea: What scope does the Minister see for efficiency savings in his Department? What level of savings has he been able to achieve up to this point?

Mr Hamilton: I very much welcome the additional resources that were granted to my Department by me when I was in the Department of Finance and Personnel. Whilst many at the time argued that that was not enough, including the Health Minister of the time — I understood and appreciated that it was not enough to meet all the demand that the Department and health service faced — it was in the context of a very difficult Budget and was a significant boost, vote of confidence and reflection of the support across the political spectrum and wider society for health.

That £123 million of additional resources would not have been enough in itself to tackle the rising demand as best we could. That is why the Department continued with its pursuit of efficiency savings in this financial year. That is something that we have been doing vigorously over this Assembly term. Between 2011 and the end of this financial year, we are set to release £825 million, nearly £1 billion, in efficiency savings from the system. That compares very favourably to what was achieved between 2007 and 2011, which Members will recall was a very different time for our public finances. Only £426 million in efficiency savings was released between 2007 and 2011. Since the beginning of this Assembly term in 2011, nearly double the amount has been released in efficiency savings by my party, the Member's party and our colleagues who have been in office. That money has been able to go into the front line to help relieve some of the pressures that our hospitals and social care sector face.

Mr McKinney: At his annual conference, the Minister pledged an extra £1 billion in Health spending over the next five years. Could the Minister detail where this money will come from? Has he had discussions on that with his Executive colleagues?

Mr Hamilton: What I pledged, and was very pleased to be able to pledge, was that my party would seek to increase expenditure on Health and Social Care by £1 billion over the next Assembly term. It is my view that that is a financial boost that is required not only to meet the well-publicised pressures that the Department and the system face in the short term but, in the longer term, to get our Health and Social Care service onto a sustainable footing by investing considerable amounts in reform, transformation and innovation within that system. That is something that I am pledged to do. It is something that I have discussed with the party, particularly the Finance Minister, who supports it, understanding the challenge that it presents.

It was as much a challenge to other parties, including the Member's party, to support that needed boost in expenditure for Health and Social Care over the next five years to transform the system and relieve the pressures that it faces. It will be up to others to support that. It is obviously a matter for the Finance Minister given the constraints that she faces in crafting a Budget for next year. I will certainly do my best. I will fight hard for the much-needed, substantial uplift in expenditure on Health and Social Care, because I believe that it is needed, but I understand and fully appreciate the constraints that the Finance Minister faces. Some of those constraints will, of course, be the views of other parties and whether or not they support it. I have heard different comments and responses from various parties, including some in the Chamber who have opposed it outright. I have not heard the Member say whether he supports a £1 billion uplift in Health spending or not. If he does not, I would ask him to explain why he does not and to set out why, given all the complaining that he and his party do about Health, he does not believe that it needs that substantial increase in funding.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I point out to Members that question 3 has been withdrawn.

Mr Hamilton: The Mater Hospital has a proud and enduring heritage of providing high-quality services to the people of north Belfast and beyond. I pay tribute to the hospital's staff for their dedication and service to the local community. I fully understand that any change to hospital services causes concern to the local community and their representatives. I reassure Members that the action taken by the Belfast Trust in respect of emergency department services at the Mater was a temporary change made as a precautionary measure in response to concerns expressed by senior medical staff about staffing levels in the hospital's emergency department.

The Belfast Trust took the decision on 13 November to temporarily suspend ambulance arrivals from 6.00 pm to 8.00 am and to redirect children arriving at the emergency department to the nearby Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children, which has a dedicated paediatric emergency department. The emergency department has remained open on a 24/7 basis throughout, and the ambulance divert was lifted on Thursday 26 November. However, the temporary redirection of paediatric patients under 14 years of age to the children's hospital is continuing. The Belfast Trust is monitoring that temporary arrangement.

Mr Humphrey: I thank the Minister for his answer. I also thank the Minister for the meeting that he facilitated last week between party colleagues and me and trustees from the Mater Hospital.

As a supplementary question, can I ask the Minister how many people have attended the accident and emergency unit in the Mater over the last number of years?

Mr Hamilton: I thank the Member for his comments. Very quickly after the issue arose in the Mater Hospital, Member of Parliament Nigel Dodds contacted my office to facilitate a meeting and discussion that, I am glad to say, the Member and colleagues from the North Belfast constituency, as well as people from the Mater Hospital, were able to attend. I was glad that we were able to do that, because it allowed me to offer, I hope, some reassurance about the future of the Mater Hospital, which I am sure the Member and colleagues will communicate to the community in north Belfast.

The question that he asks about attendances at the emergency department in the Mater highlights how important it is in the overall Belfast Trust picture, particularly for emergency services. In 2010-11, there were 41,405 attendances, and in the last full year, 2014-15, the number rose to 45,623. In every year in between it rose, so it has been growing and growing over that period. It is clearly a key part. Notwithstanding the issues around the temporary nature of the divert and around paediatrics, it has an important role to play in the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust in providing emergency department services. My understanding, having spoken to officials, is that, even with the investment in the Royal Victoria Hospital and the new emergency department there, that hospital could not cope logistically with the numbers coming into it. Notwithstanding those issues — we always have to put patient safety to the fore — the Mater and its emergency department have an important role to play in the Belfast Trust area.

Mr Rogers: Thanks to the Minister for his answers thus far. Minister, you talked about patients being redirected from the Mater to the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children. However, last week we heard that the latter is experiencing pressures that have resulted in cancelled operations. What assurances can you give to the people whose operations were cancelled that they will receive their treatment in a timely manner?

Mr Hamilton: I am aware of the issue that the Member raises about operations for sick children in the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children. My understanding is that that has been due to a spike in seasonal bronchiolitis — I am learning a new language in this job — and that all children's wards in Northern Ireland have experienced an increased number in admissions for that condition. I understand too that that is not something that is particular to Northern Ireland; there is a national increase in the number of young children presenting with bronchiolitis. Obviously, in situations where beds in hospitals are full or close to being full, whether it is for paediatrics or any other area of specialism, it is important that we ensure that there is safety for patients and that the quality of care remains high.

In those exceptional circumstances, it is only right that the clinicians and trusts take the judgement to cancel non-emergency surgery. It is clearly not something that we want to see, and it is not something that we want to see happening frequently, but, in the circumstances, we understand the pressure that was put on the hospital. It is only right that they did what they did. Clearly, we want to see those surgeries slotted back in as quickly as possible so that people are not inconvenienced any further.

Mrs Dobson: Does the Minister accept that the four-hour waiting target has been set only after sound medical advice and that for some people the longer they are forced to wait, the more harm they come to? Is the Minister satisfied that patients' safety is not being compromised as a result of the pressures not only in the Mater but in all our hospitals?

Mr Hamilton: On the first point, I accept that the target has been set on the basis of clinical advice. Equally, I think we should be open with not only that target but with any targets. If the evidence coming from our clinicians is that the targets are not serving a useful purpose, we should be open to changing them. In conversations that I have had with various royal colleges, some clinicians have questioned the efficacy of some of the targets that we work towards and measurements that we take. So, on the best advice that is there and the figures that we have, I am very open to looking at targets from time to time.

I think that we all understand the pressures that emergency departments are under, in particular. We have talked about them in respect of a range of hospitals over the last number of Question Times when I have been in the House. We know the issues with recruitment, particularly of consultants for emergency departments. Clearly, as we enter into the period of the year — winter — when pressures become even more acute in emergency departments, we understand the difficulties that can arise at this time of year. That is why I met the chief executives of all the trusts yesterday afternoon to discuss their preparedness for the winter, which I suppose we are already at the start of, and I had detailed discussions with them about what they were doing in their areas to address any pressures that are arising or may arise. We talked about the additional £4 million that the November monitoring round has allowed to be released to deal with emergency department pressures or winter pressures. I also informed them that we would give them greater flexibility to spend that money. In the spirit of the reforms that I announced some weeks ago, I do not want to see trusts having to come to the Department to seek permission to do things that will benefit patient safety and quality of care in the short term.

Mr Hamilton: On 4 November, I outlined wide-ranging, ambitious and radical plans for transforming the health and social care system. The proposed changes seek to reduce bureaucracy. As well as the Department taking firmer strategic control of our health and social care system, I want to make our trusts responsible for the planning of care in their areas and to give them the operational independence to deliver it. I therefore propose that we close down the Health and Social Care Board. Departmental officials are drafting a consultation document that seeks views on those changes. I aim to bring forward that consultation as soon as I can to gather views. I have been encouraged by the positive response to my proposals from other politicians, health and care professionals and from members of the public.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his answers. I think that we all welcome his decision to progress towards dissolving the Health and Social Care Board and the projected savings that will flow from that. Can he see potential for change before the legislation is put in place?

Mr Hamilton: The Member welcomes the changes that I have proposed. He and I have spoken about this in the past, and I think that we agree that there has been a clear need for reform in the health and social care system with regard to administration, bureaucracy and taking out bureaucracy that is not required. That is why there has been the broad support that I have spoken about from other political parties and, importantly, from clinicians and others in the public. In coming to my decision and the announcement that I made on 4 November, I listened to what others were saying, and I think that that is why there has been the consensus that there has been.

There has been a conflation of two issues in the speech that I made on 4 November: one is the panel that will look at the best configuration of services and how long it might take to implement, and the other is dismantling the Health and Social Care Board and taking out that bureaucracy and that barrier to innovation. I made some comments at the Committee about taking probably 18 months to do that with regard to the board. That is a reflection of what I believe to be the realistic timetable that it will take to get the legislation in place, bearing it in mind that there is an election coming up that will stunt things for a while. Officials have been working assiduously on producing a consultation document. I hope to approve that shortly and launch it quickly thereafter to start the important process of consultation that will inform the drafting of legislation that, I hope, will be in place for early introduction in this place in the new mandate.

There is work that can be done in the intervening period. We are doing some scoping work to see whether there are changes that could be made that do not require legislation to give effect to the changes that I have proposed. I have met the chairperson and the chief executive of the Health and Social Care Board, and I am glad that they are working with my Department and me to make that a reality.

Ms McCorley: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí. I thank the Minister for his answers. Can he outline how roles in the Health and Social Care Board will be divided up?

Mr Hamilton: Since making my speech on 4 November, I have been at pains to stress that this is not about the staff but about the system in which they work. There are a lot of good staff right across the system, including in the board, who are doing very important and critical work to make our health and social care system work. Clearly, we are not going to do away with the functions and roles that those staff perform. I envisage staff going in various different directions. Some will come into the Department. Some will go to the trusts, particularly those who are involved in planning for need in particular areas. Some may move to the Public Health Agency, which, as I have said, I want to see working much closer alongside the Department and renewing its focus on the important work that it does.

Part of the scoping exercise that we are doing will identify the best place in which to put staff in order to do various things. There are some obvious ones, such as planning for need, whose staff we can see moving to trusts, but there are others who will be best placed back in the Department. The important point to stress is that this is about reforming and transforming the system in which our excellent staff work so that we can get the best out of their talents. The additional layer of bureaucracy in the current system, which is causing so many difficulties in getting innovation on to the ground, needs to be taken away so that we can give our staff, who work incredibly hard, the best system possible in which to operate. We will all be the better for that, because that will produce better results and better outcomes for us all.

Mr McCarthy: The Minister will know that up to 600 people or thereabouts are employed in the board at present. Following on from the earlier question, those are people who have been there for a number of years doing a good job. Will he assure the House that there will be no redundancies, and will he advise us on what sorts of savings are expected to come about as a result of the abolition of the board?

Mr Hamilton: I do not envisage there being any compulsory redundancies. That is not to say that there will not be a need to get rid of some posts, but that will not be as a result of a compulsory redundancy process. It is worth emphasising the point again, given that he has raised it, that this is about getting an appropriate system in place for our staff to work in so that we can get the best from them. I do not believe that the current system is getting the best out of our staff, and the talents, skills and abilities that are there are not being optimised in a system that has far too many layers for a very small region such as ours.

What was the second question?

Mr McCarthy: It was about savings.

Mr Hamilton: This is not being done with savings in mind. That is not one of the criteria that I want to see as a result of the reform. It is about reforming and transforming the system and giving our staff the best system possible in which to do their work. I envisage that some savings will be made. The budget for the board is currently around £30 million, so even a 10% saving will release £3 million. Whether it is £3 million, £2 million or £1 million of savings, I can assure the Member and the House that those will be redeployed into the front line to ensure better care for our citizens.

Mr Beggs: The public could not understand why so many high-powered and highly paid individuals were employed in the Department and the Health and Social Care Board, so I welcome the review that is happening. Does the Minister have a target for savings that will come out of the review, as well as other organisational advantages, and does he accept that the board employs far too many people and that it grew far too large over the past number of years?

Mr Hamilton: It is wrong to start off with Health and Social Care reforms of this nature on the basis of saving money. If we can save money — I expect that we will — that is an advantage and something additional that we should welcome. However, to reiterate the points that I made to the two Members who asked questions previously, the whole purpose of this is to create a system that gets the best out of the staff who operate in Health and Social Care across Northern Ireland. As a result of the reforms that were taken forward by the Member's colleague Mr McGimpsey when he was Minister, I do not think those staff have been given a system that maximises their talents, skills and abilities.

I accept the point that he made about the size of the board growing. Since its inception in 2010, it has increased by around 160 members of staff. Interestingly, when Mr McGimpsey gave an interview recently to the 'Belfast Telegraph', he said that he wanted the board to be a lean organisation. Mr McGimpsey said:

Actually, he did not allow it to go to 350. In 2010, which was during Mr McGimpsey's tenure, it started off at 436 members of staff, considerably north of 350 and a lot higher than the 250 that he envisaged. I presume that the people whom he was talking about, crying and wailing, were civil servants, who he told me at the Committee could not run the health service. It is pretty clear that they could wrap him around their little finger and get him to do whatever they wanted, because he nearly doubled what he wanted to start off with in the board. It is interesting to point out that, over the same period, the number of staff in the Department decreased from 670 to 446, so down 224. That is considerably more than the number of staff by which the board has increased.

Mr Hamilton: I recently made a statement indicating that I have no desire to impose a contract on junior doctors in training but that my preferred way forward is through negotiation. I welcome the outcome from the ACAS discussions between the Department of Health and the BMA and that all parties are willing to explore how best to deliver together on a new junior doctors' contract. I see this as a great opportunity, and I am optimistic that these discussions will lead to an agreed way forward. I therefore think that it would be pertinent to await the outcome of these exploratory talks before making a considered decision for Northern Ireland.

Ms Hanna: I thank the Minister for his answer. I think that you will understand the frustrations of ordinary junior doctors, particularly given the swifter resolution of this issue in Scotland and Wales. You will be aware that, as well as their safety concerns, junior doctors are worried about the impact that this issue will have on recruitment. In light of George Osborne's autumn statement and the announcement on nursing bursaries and the potential loss of that subvention for student nurses, can you outline what plans your Department has to address that issue and prevent it from exacerbating an already acute nursing shortage?

Mr Hamilton: There are two issues, which I will try to deal with in the time available to me. On the issue of junior doctors' contracts, as I said, I welcome the fact that both sides — the Department of Health/NHS employers and the junior doctors' side — are now engaged in discussions within a short, limited time period. That is what I wanted to see from the start and I think that that is the most likely way to reach the conclusion that I want to see, which is an agreed contract for the whole of the United Kingdom. The Member said that there had been a "swifter resolution" in Scotland and Wales. I do not accept the terminology that it was a swifter resolution. Scotland and Wales took a particular decision not to impose a contract. I did not take that decision because I wanted to encourage both sides to go back into negotiations. It may form a resolution from some people's perspective, but I do not consider it to be a satisfactory resolution of a situation that would ensure that a contract that has been agreed by all sides previously as being not fit for purpose remains in place. That is why I want to see a negotiated settlement around this issue, and I encourage all sides to negotiate.

I am aware of the announcement that was made in the Chancellor's autumn statement on nursing bursaries. The Member will be aware that that does not impact on Northern Ireland because of devolution. When I entered the Department back in May, some work had been done by officials in looking at the issue of nursing bursaries and also at nursing fees, which, in most circumstances, I think, are paid for by the Department. That is not a route that I wanted to go down, and I stopped that from heading down that direction. Hopefully, that gives some assurance to nurses. However, I do think that there are issues particularly around the retention of nurses after they qualify, and I am keen to look at that. There are changes that perhaps we can make that I am sure everyone can agree with. If we are investing in fees, in bursaries, in nurses and in nursing students, I think that we want to see the benefit of that investment in the health service here in Northern Ireland. That is something that I am keen to look at.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I am afraid that that ends the period for listed questions. We now move to topical questions.

Mr Hamilton: I thank the Member for raising the issue. I did not know Mr Withers, whom he mentioned, but I am sure that the Member will pass on my sympathies and condolences to his family. The Member may be aware that, today, I announced my conclusions, views and recommendations in respect of the consultation on the individual funding request. I have agreed to proceed with three of the recommendations. I have agreed to remove 95% exceptionality, which, I think, everybody in the consultation agreed was far too restrictive. I have also agreed to establish a regional scrutiny committee, which will have a much fairer, more consistent and more clinically led approach to the issue of access to specialist drugs. I am going to start work on revising guidance on individual funding requests. Whilst that will not help in the case that the Member raised or, indeed, some others, I hope that the Member, the House and those outside will recognise that this is positive progress in improving access to specialist drugs in Northern Ireland.

I have not agreed to move forward on the creation of a specialist drugs fund or the introduction of prescription charges because of a lack of political agreement around that issue. However, the lifting of the 95% exceptionality and the creation of the regional scrutiny committee will, I believe, substantially increase access to specialist drugs for cancer patients and others.

Mr McKinney: Clearly, people are dying while they wait. Can the Minister assure the House that, given the many millions of pounds that have become available under the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme (PPRS), appropriate moneys will accompany any new system?

Mr Hamilton: The Member and I have discussed the PPRS before. While I do acknowledge that we get money back in as a result of it, much of that is used annually to cover the increasing cost of drugs elsewhere in the system. So, we are not quids in or sitting with a lot of additional cash as a result of that; it is merely covering some of the costs that are there. The Member is mouthing the figure of 40 million quid — £40 million, rather; I should not use unparliamentary language such as "quid" — but it is not over and above the increasing cost of drugs right across the system.

I hope that the Member recognises, as I am sure most people will, that what I have announced today will substantially increase access to specialist drugs for people, who will have clinically-led decisions. One of the reasons why I did not go down the route of a specialist fund was that I did not want to put a particular figure on it. I wanted to have clinically led decisions, made through the regional scrutiny committees, as to what was appropriate need.

I am disappointed that we have not been able to reach agreement on the reintroduction of modest prescription charges, and, therefore, this additional cost will have to be covered from elsewhere in the Health and Social Care budget, and that all, of course, puts some pressure on a budget that is already considerably challenged. However, for the reasons that the Member has outlined, which I appreciate, and I am sure others do too, I think that it is the right thing to do.

Mr Hamilton: I have become aware of the trial only recently. We all realise and acknowledge that innovation will solve many of the problems in our health and social care system that we have been talking about. It comes, sometimes, at considerable cost. That is why we are not always able to bring innovations and changes through the system as quickly as we would like. Sometimes bureaucracy gets in the way of that too. I am aware of the trial that the Member is talking about. I have to say that I am not fully apprised of it and, therefore, do not want to say too much about it at this stage. In fact, I was discussing it with colleagues in recent days, and I am keen to look into it a bit more. I will certainly do that, and I will update the Member with our views on how it is going and the impact it might have.

I know that the Member has a particular interest in this issue, and he is absolutely right to continue to push for improvements in the service for young children who have heart defects and problems and to ensure that it improves on an ongoing basis. That is something that I am committed to. I met the Children's Heartbeat Trust recently, and we discussed some of the issues that children and service users are facing. I am certainly committed to doing my best to take the service forward to ensure that the excellent service in Belfast continues and that we put the all-island network in place as quickly as possible.

Mr Swann: I thank the Minister for that answer. In reply to a question for written answer from me, your predecessors said that they were going to wait for the results of the UK trial, which are not due until next September. Can I ask this: what changed the Minister's mindset? The big concern was the number of false positives that come from that. Has the Minister put in mechanisms for parents, children and clinicians not just in Daisy Hill but in the Clark clinic to support them given the number of false positives that may come forward?

Mr Hamilton: I am aware that the National Screening Committee (NSC), from which our Administration and, indeed, others across the UK take guidance on issues like this, has been running its own pilot. It is due to report next year, and I will look at that evidence as well. The reason why I said that I will come back to the Member is that I am aware of what is happening at Daisy Hill through the Southern Trust. That is a different trial to the one that the National Screening Committee is doing. I do not think that we should dismiss it because it is not the same, but I am certainly keen to examine it a lot more closely to see how it relates to what the National Screening Committee is doing and to ensure that we learn all possible lessons from it, including those issues that the Member talked about, so that we can iron out any problems and wrinkles there might be.

Mr Hamilton: I am aware of the issues that the Member raises, not least because party colleagues as much as anybody have raised them with me. I think the Member will understand the pressures that the Western Trust is facing with its budget and in the redesign of services that people are facing. Sometimes some changes can be seen entirely through the prism of making budgetary savings in difficult circumstances. Very often, what gets forgotten is that some services will change to provide better outcomes for people. In that sense, we all need to look at these with an open mind sometimes. That does not mean that we should be supporting them willy-nilly or just because the trusts are coming forward with them.

Certainly, I am aware of the concerns that are there. Obviously, decisions of this nature will have to be made by the trust and then be approved by the board before they come before me. At this stage, they have not arrived on my desk.

Mr Flanagan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. He is right. These are being presented as budgetary savings, but once you factor in the knock-on increases in transportation costs across Fermanagh, and, indeed, parts of Tyrone, you find that it does not actually make financial sense. Would the Minister be willing to accept a delegation from the local community to discuss these proposed changes once the information arrives on his desk so that we can discuss this with all the information at hand?

Mr Hamilton: I will consider any and all of these sorts of decisions where there are changes to services. I fully understand, as the Member articulated, the concerns they can raise within local communities, particularly when the possible benefit of a change has not been articulated as clearly as we would like. This is why I think it is incredibly important that trusts, when making changes to services, present local representatives or the local community with the benefit that a change will make. Clearly, in circumstances where that is not obvious, you would meet the sort of opposition that the Member is talking about. I will approach any and all of these sorts of decisions that arrive on my desk by carefully considering all the evidence presented to me, and I will seek other evidence as appropriate. If that requires me to meet people from the area to discuss their concerns, I would be content to do that.

Mr Hamilton: I think the Member's analysis is close to being spot on. There have been some who have, no doubt for political reasons, sought to blame the Department of Health for not giving sufficient money to the Four Seasons business to keep it going, through the tariff or whatever, as the reason for its failure — or, indeed, issues about the recruitment of nurses. The fact is that we have a substantial business that still provides a lot of much needed care in Northern Ireland, but its extensive, well-publicised debts, requiring over 10% of its money in interest payments, have put considerable pressure on the business. The announcement on Friday past that two of the homes are to be sold to other private-sector operators in the Northern Ireland market somewhat undermines the argument put forward by some that this was entirely about a failure on my or my Department's part to give enough money to those operators. I am not for one second suggesting that there are not challenges facing that sector with the national living wage or the recruitment of appropriate staff, but the fact that other operators have been prepared so quickly to step in to take over those businesses — I appreciate that they are still going through their various processes — suggests that there is a profit to be made, contrary to what has been argued by some others.

Mr G Kelly: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his answer. Following on from some of the information that he gave us, does he have a view or is there any notion that, outside the Four Seasons group, there might be others at risk? Are there any checks that can be done on that? He will be aware that there is nervousness about the homes.

Mr Hamilton: I appreciate the concerns that remain about the operator that has been mentioned. I have no intelligence to suggest that there are others in a similar position. Of course, that is not to say that there are not pressures being faced by other operators; I understand that. When I listen to representatives of the independent sector, they articulate the pressures that they face and express concerns about future viability. Because of that and because of the uncertainty, I did a couple of things in the immediate aftermath of the Four Seasons announcement. I halted and called for a review of the closure of statutory residential care homes because of the volatility in the marketplace. To get a better picture of what is going on in the independent sector, I commissioned work to look at the market, what capacity there is in it and the pressures that it faces, to give us a better independent view of what is happening in adult social care and nursing homes so that we are better informed in the decisions that we make, rather than jumping to what somebody says we should do over here or over there. We will take evidence-based decisions with a full and complete understanding of what is happening in the social-care market.

Mr Hamilton: The very first event that I attended when I became Minister was at the Ulster Hospital around nurses, and one of the first formal events that I attended thereafter was the Nurse of the Year awards. At both, I pointed out that I view nurses not just as one of the cornerstones of the health and social care system but as pivotal to implementing the reform that I think we all know we need across health and social care.

One of the things that I recall clearly from the Nurse of the Year awards was that all the nominees and all the recipients of awards were receiving those awards and the acknowledgement of their peers because of changes and reforms that they had initiated across the system. Sometimes, I think that we do not view nurses as being innovators in that sense, but the ability, the skill and the capacity that they have to implement change and to bring forward new ideas are truly impressive. I see them as critical to implementing the reforms that we need across our system.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I am afraid that there is no time for a supplementary question. Time is up, and we must move on.

Mr Ford (The Minister of Justice): The failure of the latest political agreement to come to a position on legacy mechanisms and to provide significant additional resources makes progress on legacy inquests more difficult. I very much appreciate the disappointment that that will cause victims.

My objective is to deliver as much as I can for families. Consequently, I have agreed to the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service launching a recruitment scheme with a view to appointing investigative support for the Coroners Service. The scheme was launched yesterday, and I expect appointments to be made by spring of next year. The cost of appointing such investigators will result in a further unfunded legacy pressure on my Department.

Mr Ó hOisín: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree with me that the current inquest process is not providing access to a sufficiently effective investigation with an acceptable timeline?

Mr Ford: Mr Ó hOisín's point has a number of factors to it. There are certainly problems at the moment with resourcing the Coroners Service. Another issue is that a number of legacy inquests involve matters that require clarification from the police or the Ministry of Defence, particularly where national security issues are engaged. I am determined to put the maximum possible resources into the Coroners Service. Good work has been done in that area by strengthening the complement of coroners, by assigning judges from higher court tiers to deal with coroners' cases. Until we resolve the fundamental issue of the necessary resourcing, however, we will not have all being done as fast as we would wish.

Mr Kennedy: In view of the fact that the Kingsmills families and the sole survivor, Mr Alan Black, have waited almost 40 years for the reopening of the coroner's inquest into the cruel murder of their loved ones, can the Minister assure the House that the timeline now being indicated by the Coroners Service will be adhered to? Will he join me in expressing hope that the matter can and will be addressed after such a very long period?

Mr Ford: I thank Mr Kennedy for his question. I can certainly join him in hoping that the matter will be resolved speedily. I am aware that, in the case of the Kingsmills inquest, a preliminary hearing has recently been held and a further one is due to be held before Christmas time. If matters can be arranged at that preliminary hearing, the intention is to proceed to a full hearing during the first half of 2016. It is interesting that it is one of the cases now being looked after by Judge Sherrard, one of the higher court tier judges who has been moved across to assist the Coroners Service. That is an example of the resources being put in by DOJ that are currently unfunded but that, I hope, will produce results for the families concerned.

Mr McGlone: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí. Can the Minister inform the House whether there is a realistic chance of the 56 outstanding legacy inquests being completed within a reasonable period or at all?

Mr Ford: Like Mr Ó hOisín, Mr McGlone has put a number of questions in one point. I suspect that a number of Members will be aware that the Lord Chief Justice, having assumed the presidency of the Coroners' Courts, in line with an Assembly decision when the Bill became an Act late last year, has instructed one of the senior judges to review all 56 outstanding cases. That is likely to lead to a hearing on each of them by Lord Justice Weir in January. That will then establish the position for all those cases with regard to which ones are in a position to move forward speedily and which may take longer or create difficulties. There are difficulties around disclosure matters, as Members will know, and those are causing delays in a number of cases. I hope that it will be possible to see a number progress. I am determined that we will put the resources in, if resources can be made available. At this stage, however, I do not have all the funding that is required to do all that I wish.

Mr Dickson: I congratulate the Minister on moving the process forward on the appointment of Coroners Service investigators.

Are those appointments at the expense of other aspects of the justice system or will you be able to avail yourself of additional funds to follow through on those appointments and to support the cost of those appointments into the future?

Mr Ford: At the moment, those posts are being funded from within the DOJ budget, though they are clearly related to legacy issues. Members will recall that, a year ago, there was a promise from the Prime Minister of funding to deal with legacy matters. At this stage, we have not seen the additional funding that we need. Therefore, it is a risk to the Department of Justice. Nonetheless, I am determined to see that we will make progress in the inquest system and, therefore, funding from the Department's current limited budget is being put into dealing with the past.

Mr Ford: The £160 million additional funding provided by the Treasury for the next five years is to support the PSNI in addressing the continuing "severe" national security threat as well as to provide greater capability to tackle continued paramilitary activity and criminality. That amount is based on an assessment by the PSNI of its requirements over the next five years; that is, from 2016-17 to 2020-2021. During the four-year Budget period 2011-15, additional security funding of £199·5 million was made available to the PSNI by the UK Government. That was fully used by the PSNI, except for £5 million in 2012-13, when easements of that amount in other areas were redirected to security funding. In the current year, a total of £31 million of additional security funding has been made available to the PSNI by the UK Government. That will be fully utilised by 31 March 2016.

Mrs Dobson: I thank the Minister for his answer. What steps does the Minister plan to take in allocating resources to ensure that the situation in Maghaberry prison is addressed and that staffing levels are increased to ensure that prison officers regain control?

Mr Ford: I am used to inventive supplementary questions but I am not quite sure what the relevance of that supplementary is to the question that was asked in the first place. However, I have to respond to the last point that Mrs Dobson made. There is not an issue with prison officers regaining control of Maghaberry prison. It is controlled by the governor and the staff, and not by anybody else.

Ms Fearon: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I hope that the Minister is happy with my supplementary. Will the Minister consider allocating some of the £160 million to reinstate the rural crime units so that we can more effectively tackle crimes against farmers in rural areas?

Mr Ford: I certainly accept that that is a reasonable question in the current context. The only issue is that that money is allocated directly to the PSNI to deal with major security issues. Whilst concerns have been expressed, including during yesterday's debate, about rural crime, I doubt whether any of the rural crime issues come within that security area. However, it is for the Chief Constable to decide the allocation of that resource.

Mr Allister: So, the situation is that, in the four years, 2011-15, £199 million of extra national security money came. This year, something of the order of £31 million has come, and, for the next five years, £32 million a year is to come. Is it not quite clear, therefore, that bundling that together to claim £160 million as a result of 'A Fresh Start' was a piece of window dressing and pretence because that money was coming our way in any event?

Mr Ford: Mr Allister is aware that I am as critical as many Members of the House of the so-called 'A Fresh Start' document. It is a matter of fact that I have reported on. He correctly highlights the amount of additional security funding being provided in this year and the amount that is being provided for the coming five years. My understanding is that, when the PSNI made its request to the Government, it came to a total of £161 million over five years, and £160 million is being provided. Of course, there are significant issues that are yet to be resolved in the Budget process. I do not believe that my Department has yet received information from DFP as to what the police can expect for security matters and for other matters, as well for other aspects of the justice system.

Mr Ford: There have been ongoing staffing pressures brought about by departures from the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) and high sickness levels. The service has kept staffing levels under review and worked to maximise existing resources through the use of staff redeployment and continued robust management of, and support for, absentees. A re-profiling exercise looking comprehensively at operational staffing levels across the service has been completed, and representatives of the Prison Officers' Association (POA) were consulted prior to the introduction of those new profiles. The profiles were agreed and introduced on a phased basis in all three establishments in October and early November.

Over the last four years, many staff have left the service, but NIPS has also recruited officers. Those new officers now have two to three years of prison experience and are valued staff working in all three establishments. The Prison Service launched a further recruitment campaign for custody prison officers and night custody officers on 26 October, and over 1,700 applications were received.

Mr Easton: I thank the Minister for his answer. Could he go into more specifics about what his Department is doing to tackle, in a sensitive manner, the sickness record that is adding to staff pressures?

Mr Ford: The management of sickness absence is a matter for line management in every part of my Department. Members will be aware of very high sickness levels in Maghaberry. Phil Wragg, the current governor, has taken a very close interest in that issue. He and unit managers have been robustly examining the issues, with the result, as I reported recently to the Assembly, that the number of staff sick on any day recently has been under half of those who were running sick in spring this year. That has a major impact, to the benefit of the regime, in ensuring that prisoners are better looked after and have their needs met for things like phone calls at times when their families are expecting them. It is contributing to significant improvement in the atmosphere in the prison.

Ms McCorley: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his answers thus far. Does he agree that staff levels in the separated regime are outdated, disproportionate and unnecessary and that the over-staffing in Roe and Bush houses leads to under-staffing in the rest of Maghaberry and undermines the attempt to have a regime with purposeful activity at its core?

Mr Ford: Ms McCorley is right to say that staffing ratios are higher among the separated prisoners in Roe and Bush than in other parts of the prison. It is an issue of managing the risk and ensuring appropriate supervision levels depending on the category of prisoners in different parts of the prison estate.

I certainly am not going to agree with her that there are excessive numbers there, but it is an ongoing issue to ensure that numbers are right and ratios managed well. That ties in with the implementation of the August 2010 agreement and ensuring that the threats to prison officers, made inside Roe House and on social media, are removed in order that we can manage the prison better for the good of all.

Mr Cree: What steps is the Minister taking to engage with the Prison Officers' Association to address poor staff morale, in particular with regards to pay arrangements for custody officers?

Mr Ford: I engage with the Prison Officers' Association when requested. Senior members of prison management engage with it, as appropriate, at unit and headquarters level. To the best of my knowledge, I have not received a request for engagement from the POA for a considerable time. I certainly responded to the last request I received. Managing staff, dealing with staff morale and looking at pay and allowances are issues for management and do not require ministerial engagement all the time. However, I am happy to engage if requested.

Mr Ford: With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take questions 4, 7, 9 and 15 together.

I am extremely disappointed that legacy issues were excluded from the recent political agreement. Whilst there is progress in certain areas, the failure to address or make a commitment to the legacy institutions set out in the Stormont House Agreement leaves a major hole in how we address the issues of our past.

There are immediate implications, as well as potential long-term implications, for the justice system and the families of victims of Troubles-related deaths. Without the establishment of the Historical Investigations Unit (HIU), the responsibility for carrying out legacy investigations remains with the existing bodies involved in this important work.

A key ingredient of the Stormont House Agreement's approach to dealing with the past was the £150 million promised over a five-year period to fund new legacy structures and arrangements. I met the Secretary of State last Monday on legacy matters. At the meeting, I raised a number of issues of concern, including the UK Government's obligations under the ECHR; the implications of non-agreement for victims; the financial implications of managing legacy issues without the new institutions; and funding for existing legacy institutions. The failure to agree to the establishment of the HIU means that significant burdens fall to my Department. Those legacy issues are much wider than the remit of my Department, and responsibility for dealing with them lies with the Executive and the Government. There is no "do nothing" solution. In the absence of political agreement on dealing with the past, it is crucial that existing structures are adequately funded to fill the gap. Without the necessary additional resources to address outstanding Troubles-related deaths, we will fail the families of victims and fail to meet our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. We will be potentially throwing away the best opportunity for a generation to resolve issues of dealing with our troubled past.

Mr A Maginness: I thank the Minister for a detailed reply, and I agree with much of what he said. The failure in the recent talks to agree on the HIU leaves a terrible gap in dealing with the past. Is the Minister telling the House that there is no additional funding coming to the PSNI to deal with legacy issues either from the Department or through it from the British Government? Is that the position, or can some of the moneys that were, at least, notionally committed by the British Government during the talks come forward to assist the PSNI, at least in the interim period?

Mr Ford: I thank Mr Maginness for that supplementary; he puts his finger on a significant issue. There is, at this point, no additional funding for the PSNI. There is, at this point, no additional funding for the Police Ombudsman. There is, at this point, no additional funding for legacy inquests. I have made the point strenuously to the Secretary of State, although it is not a matter solely for her, because it is an issue that also engages the Executive. Given that the Government were promising £150 million for legacy institutions, there are major questions about the responsibility that the Government have to deal with those issues in the absence of the legacy institutions. Certainly, there were to be no new institutions for inquests, and the police and the ombudsman have to carry out functions, including those that, at times, are court-ordered or are ordered by the DPP, in the absence of funding. It is simply not sustainable to expect them to deal with the past on the budget for the present. There will need to be an arrangement to find that funding if we are to meet the needs of the victims of the past.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Mr Lyttle, your question has been answered: do you wish to ask a supplementary question?

Mr Lyttle: Yes, please, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his stark warning about the implications of failing to adequately deal with the past and, indeed, to fund the institutions that are required to do so. Can he provide any insight into where the blockage to the delivery of a comprehensive mechanism for legacy issues lies? Does he believe that the UK Government will honour their responsibility to adequately fund existing structures to ensure that victims and survivors get access to the information, justice and services that they deserve?

Mr Ford: I thank my colleague for that expansion of Mr Maginness's point. It is not easy to define where blockages currently sit. In fairness to the Secretary of State, I know that she has said that the money that was committed by the Treasury is still committed if legacy institutions are established. The challenge is that the work has to be done whether or not legacy institutions are established, and issues such as those that would be dealt with by inquests would be done without new institutions. I believe, therefore, that the commitment that was made by the Treasury on the back of the engagement with the Prime Minister a year ago shows that there was a recognition that the work had to be done. At the end of the day, the obligations under ECHR are obligations for the state party, even though they are carried out by devolved institutions, and it will be the UK Government who will answer in Strasbourg and in other international fora if they fail to provide the necessary resources.

Mr G Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer. I agree that doing nothing is not an option as far as victims and survivors are concerned. Does the Minister agree with me that the lack of disclosure, which I think he mentioned earlier, by various agencies of the British Government, including the PSNI, to families and, indeed, to inquests and other courts is a huge issue and that justice delayed, in some cases for a number of decades, is justice denied?

Mr Ford: I thank Mr Kelly for the question. I am not sure that he and I would necessarily have an identical view on issues of national security, but there are difficult issues that need to be worked through in that area. There is no doubt that there are a number of legacy inquests where there are not concerns about national security and it should be possible to make progress. I welcome the work being done by the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justice Weir to carry through the examination of the state of each potential inquest. The provision of additional resources at judicial level, including the provision of a High Court judge to take on the role of coroner in one complex inquest, the work, which I have already highlighted, being done by Judge Sherrard in another one and the examination of the whole package as one by a single judge in January will be very beneficial. However, there will be issues, and I will continue to engage on the issues of disclosure and how they are carried through in order to best meet the needs of families.

Mr Ford: With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 5, 8 and 13 together.

The Bar Council and the Law Society have challenged the remuneration for Crown Court cases introduced in May by way of judicial review. In addition, the Criminal Bar Association and a number of solicitors' firms have decided not to represent their clients for work that will be paid under the new fees. The High Court judgement ruled against my Department on two specific areas, namely the absence of a trial preparation fee for solicitors and the way in which my Department undertook its regulatory impact assessments. The judge did not strike down the rules, as the applicants had sought.

My officials continue to meet members of both sides of the profession to discuss a range of legal aid issues, including Crown Court fees. Further meetings have taken place since the judgement. I also met representatives of the Bar Council and the Law Society last week, when both advised that they were considering an appeal. I have made it clear to the professional bodies that I am prepared to listen to any reasonable proposition and to consider adjustments when real issues are identified.

In the meantime, my officials are developing specific proposals to address the judicial review finding in respect of guilty plea fees for solicitors. They will be subject to consultation with the profession and will be brought before the Justice Committee in the new year. Proposals are already at an advanced stage to introduce provisions to remunerate cases that fall outside the standard fee regime, and my officials will present those to the Justice Committee this week. We will also ensure that these changes and any future reforms are subject to a more rigorous regulatory assessment.

The actions taken by members of the legal profession are inevitably impacting on the operation of the Crown Courts, and that is regrettable. It will take some time for cases being affected by the action to progress through the courts, and many areas of the justice system will need to work together to ensure that these cases are progressed without further undue delay.

I encourage all members of the legal profession to re-engage in defending their clients to ensure that they receive the appropriate access to justice to which they are entitled. That will also ensure that victims and witnesses are not subjected to any further unnecessary delays in seeing their cases progressed.

Mr Girvan: I thank the Minister for his very detailed answer. I would like to ask about the fees that were proposed and are being put forward. What is the comparison with what happens in other regions of the United Kingdom in relation to the tariff that is to be paid to legal firms, barristers and solicitors?

Mr Ford: The key issue seems to be as it relates to barristers at the present time, where there are very simple comparisons. As part of the legislative requirement, the original proposals were compared on a value-for-money basis against the fees paid for similar work in England and Wales, which is the most comparable jurisdiction. The original proposals established that the fees paid were roughly 40% higher than those in England and Wales. After various discussions and ameliorations, the proposal is to reduce the fees to barristers by 22%, which still leaves a significant margin over the fees that are paid in England and Wales.

Mr Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. This is a difficulty that is creating somewhat of a mess and undermining confidence in the system being able to deliver effective and efficient justice. Can the Minister see any plans that can be put in place to step up dialogue with the Bar Council and the rest of the legal profession to try to ensure that the impasse is brought to an end and a proper solution found?

Mr Ford: I agree with Mr Murphy that we need the impasse to end. That is why I met the Law Society and the Bar Council last week. I have made it clear that the judgement that related to one issue of solicitor's trial preparation fees was being addressed urgently, and, as I said, it will be with the Committee this week. I am also in the process of making a specific offer to deal with a couple of areas of difficulty for barristers.

Except for one minor issue of fees for solicitors and the issue of regulatory impact assessments, the High Court decision upheld entirely the Department's proposals, which were backed by the Assembly as being entirely valid. I understand that a challenge is now being made, as there is an appeal against the judicial review decision. In that context, it is difficult to engage on the substance of the matter, although I am keen to see any of those minor anomalies being addressed as fast as possible.

Mr McKinney: Is it not the real issue that justice is not being served because of the considerable tensions as a result of the dispute? Has it not gone beyond the point of urging barristers to continue to represent their clients? Is it not the situation that the Department should be taking the initiative and attempting to resolve the matter so that justice can be served?

Mr Ford: It is certainly at the point at which the Department should be taking the initiative. If you look at the record of the work that has been done by the Department, you will see that it has taken the initiative all the way through, including seeking the recent meetings.

The reality is that the High Court upheld, in all but one minor respect, the rules that were put in place by the Assembly. In that context, and on the basis of value for money and the availability of finance, that is the position as it stands. If the Court of Appeal were to overturn the decision of the High Court, that would put us in a different place, but, at this stage, I am operating on the basis of Assembly policy as validated by the High Court.

Mr Allister: Will the Minister confirm whether it is the case that the current level of logjam in criminal cases is something of the order of 1,000 cases that have been piled up and unattended to in our Crown Courts? If he is saying that there will be no meaningful engagement until the outcome of the appeal is known, will that situation not spiral even further out of control?

Mr Ford: The figures that I had were of somewhat less than 1,000 cases. The most recent figures that I saw showed that there were somewhere in the region of 600 and 700 cases waiting. I accept that the past week might have seen a slight increase, but I doubt whether it is either at 1,000 or spiralling out of control.

The appropriate decisions were taken by the Department of Justice after lengthy discussions with solicitors and barristers. That approach was supported by the Assembly. There was no attempt to pray against the rules in the Assembly, and they were upheld by the High Court except in one marginal area and in one procedural area.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): We have time for one very brief question from Mrs Pam Cameron.

Mr Ford: I welcome the 16 Days of Action campaign and the public focus that it puts on the important issue of domestic violence and abuse. I have instructed officials to consider and introduce a number of initiatives, including domestic violence protection orders, domestic homicide reviews, special listing arrangements, the potential for a domestic violence disclosure scheme and a possible offence that captures patterns of coercive and controlling behaviour in intimate and familial relationships.

Such initiatives will require resources, and details will become more apparent during their development. I remain focused on taking forward those and current priorities associated with domestic violence and abuse. However, we need to be realistic that the current funding constraints will impact on what new work can be developed and delivered.

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

Mr Ford: I should, first, repeat to Mr Flanagan and to the House my apology that I gave him a written answer to a question, which was accurate at the time, that there had been no transgender prisoners admitted to custody in Northern Ireland, and, before the date of that answer, one was admitted. The simple answer is that the individual self-identified and was living as female and was therefore admitted to Ash House at Hydebank Wood because that was a reasonable and pragmatic approach by the Prison Service to meet the needs of that individual. The precise details of exactly how she is being cared for in Ash House, I believe, should not be gone into.

Mr Flanagan: Go raibh agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer and I accept the apology that he has given, but I do not really see the need for it. It was an administrative error, and I fully accept that.
I am not asking the Minister to go into the specifics of an individual case, but what we have seen, particularly in places like Britain, is transgender prisoners being put into solitary confinement as a solution. Does the Minister accept that such an approach is not the way to deal with the particular needs of transgender prisoners and that the approach that he says the Prison Service has taken is much more beneficial?

Mr Ford: I thank Mr Flanagan for that supplementary question. I believe that the approach that has been taken by the Northern Ireland Prison Service is significantly better than that which was taken by the National Offender Management Service in England, where, as Members will be aware, there have been two recent suicides of transgender prisoners. I believe that the Prison Service's approach was pragmatic and reasonable, and I do not think that there is any question of somebody being put into solitary confinement for anything other than the most extreme of reasons. There is no question of that happening simply because somebody is a transgender prisoner. I believe that the supervision ratios in Ash House are adequate to ensure that the needs of every prisoner are met and to ensure that there can be no question of any kind of risk to individuals.

Mr Ford: I am afraid that I cannot at this stage. It is an administrative issue within the Prison Service. I have been known in the past to report immediately after Christmas on the numbers who were given Christmas leave and, indeed, whether any of them returned late — sometimes, some of them returned early — but I am afraid that the figures are not available to me at this stage as to the numbers who have applied or the numbers who will be granted.

Mrs Overend: I thank the Minister. I am sure that we will question him again in the new year on that. Will the Minister add his weight to the process and ensure that all paperwork is in order and all checks and balances are in place for releases and, importantly, returns? An important issue that I have raised with the Minister before is the need to ensure that victims and relevant families are informed about each prisoner who is being released.

Mr Ford: Amid the joking about Christmas, there is a very serious point from Mrs Overend, which I entirely accept. There have been difficulties in the past about information not being provided to victims who have asked to be informed about what is happening to those who committed offences against them or a loved one. It is a key issue that needs to be dealt with by the Prison Service adequately, and I will do my best to ensure that that is the case, not just for Christmas but for the future.

Mr Ford: I am slightly shocked by such a positive question. I also think that my colleague the Minister for Employment and Learning should be here at the moment.

Very significant progress has been made since the decision to redesignate Hydebank Wood as a college earlier this year. The outsourcing of the education responsibility to Belfast Metropolitan College, in the case of Hydebank and Maghaberry, and to the North West Regional College, in the case of Magilligan — I should not allow only Hydebank to be mentioned — has gone extremely well, considering the difficulties there sometimes are with putting different organisations together. There has been a significant contribution by the providers, and we have seen very positive results from that.

There is no doubt that well over 90% of the young men are now daily engaged in some constructive activity that will generally lead to a qualification. That is a huge and significant statement. I do not know whether I have said this in the Chamber — I have certainly said it elsewhere — but one of the nicest compliments was from one of the chaplains, who said to me, "It used to be that if you wanted to see one of the boys, you went and looked for him on his landing. Now, you don't know where he is because he's out doing something useful". That is a major statement of massive change.

As someone who had a very enjoyable, albeit larger than I usually have, Christmas lunch in the Cabin Cafe last week, I saw some very good work being done. If Members have not yet bought all their Christmas presents, they could try the Barn at Hydebank this weekend, where there is a variety of crafts for sale that have been made by prisoners, both male and female, in Hydebank. That is all an example of good, positive engagement, in which the outsourcing of learning of skills has been very significant.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Mr Rogers for a positive supplementary.

Mr Rogers: I will continue the positivity. I thank you for that, Minister. When the young people leave Hydebank, integrating into the community is obviously very important. What assurances can you give us that the education programmes that they participate in at Hydebank are continued when they go back into the community?

Mr Ford: Again, that is a significant part of the rehabilitation. One of the key benefits of the outsourcing of employment and learning to the colleges is that it enables courses to be run in line with what is what is being done in outside institutions. That makes it easier for somebody leaving the prison to find a place on a relevant college course at more or less the same stage. We cannot guarantee that that always works easily, but it is much better than the situation when the courses were being run entirely independently by Prison Service and did not carry through easily into the community. It is very significant.

We should also be reminded that the number of young men in Hydebank Wood has been reducing significantly. That has, to some extent, made it easier to provide better courses and better options for them. That is just the same as, incidentally, the Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre, where the number of children and young people is also going down. Part of the wider reform programme of the justice system is to stop people coming in. However, in education and training, we are doing much better for young men when they leave.

Mr Ford: I accept that there are issues related to the way in which the visitor centre service was provided at the three prisons, including the very significant service that was provided for many years — four decades, I think — by Quaker Service at Maghaberry. Given that a solicitor's letter has been received on the awarding of the new contract, I do not feel I can go any further than that, but I am happy to praise the good work that they have done over the years.

Mr Ó hOisín: I thank the Minister for that. Does he agree that the cutting of costs has undervalued the work of the Quakers?

Mr Ford: I am sorry, but I really think that that is an area that I cannot go into, given that there is the potential for legal action. However, I certainly value the work that was done.

Mr Ford: This is one of those questions that I need to be slightly careful with. Ms McCorley has correctly identified that there is a significant issue, and it is one for the DOJ in the context of the wider efforts that we are making to speed up justice. I need to be careful about getting directly involved in the specific recommendations for the PSNI and the PPS.

What I am aware of is the fact that, as is so often the case, CJINI reports are published after a period of time when work to address some of the issues that have been highlighted is already under way. I think that improvements are being made, but there is clearly a significant issue that, I think, is largely founded on the reforms that followed the Good Friday Agreement, which emphasised the ability to provide confidence in the justice system by showing the independence of different organisations. I believe we are now at the point where we need to emphasise much more the interdependence and working together, because that is the way that we will show real confidence. As long as we have the operational independence fully categorised, which we have, we could emphasise more the way that people need to work together to improve the experience of victims and, indeed, defendants.

Ms McCorley: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for that answer. Has the Minister had any engagements with the director of the PPS on the issue?

Mr Ford: I have not spoken to the director specifically on the issue. I meet the director regularly, and these are the issues that come up in general discussion but not in the sense of me telling the director what to do. It is purely in the sense of the work that is done when, for example, the director attends meetings with other leaders across the justice system to see how we can improve our working practices. It is about that difficult balance between independence and interdependence.

Mr Ford: I thank my colleague for that question. There is no doubt that a while ago there were significant concerns about delays in Access NI check processing, especially for issues that need to be referred to the police, whether that is the PSNI or another body, for examination. I believe that the turnaround times for the checks that are dealt with purely by Access NI have been by and large quite good, although it has not been unknown for people to complain about slow processing when employers had not forwarded the paperwork anyway. The fact that we now have issues being dealt with online by individuals is making a significant improvement in that.

The statistics that I had on the specific issue of police checks showed that, in June, 789 checks had been waiting with the police for over 60 days and that, at the end of November, that had reduced to 54. That is a reduction of over 90%, which is clearly a significant improvement that is much to be welcomed. That sits alongside the fact that Access NI now significantly exceeds all its targets on the timescale for issuing checks.

Mr Dickson: I obviously welcome that information on the reduction in the time taken. Minister, can we be assured that Access NI not only has clear targets but will meet or exceed those targets into the future to allow people to get employment or to continue in voluntary work?

Mr Ford: I certainly hope that that will be the case. We have seen significant progress. There were issues with staffing in the Police Service, and there were changes of staff. We are now seeing the good work being done by the new police staff in enhancing significantly the service that they provide.

The most recent statistics that I have, which are for October, merit repeating. Access NI returned 99·6% of basic checks within 14 days against a target of 95%. It returned 99·7% of standard checks within 14 days against a target of 95%. It returned 98·8% of enhanced checks within 28 days against a target of 90%. All those figures show the extremely good work being done by Access NI and the PSNI.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): That concludes Question Time. I invite Members to take their ease while we change the top Table.

Mr Easton: I rise to support the Second Stage of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The Bill contains three Parts, with 16 clauses and two schedules. The Bill's amendments are required to correct certain terminology used in the 2008 Act so that the Department can achieve its legislative intentions with regard to the introduction of new dental contracts, the application for the provision of ophthalmic and pharmaceutical services and the exemption from charges for services provided to persons not ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland. The Executive have also agreed to the addition of provisions relating to the underage sale of nicotine-containing products.

A consultation was held by the Department to which there were 26 responses, most of which related to the provision of nicotine products. All those who responded were supportive of the proposal to restrict the age of sale of such products to persons under the age of 18. A number of responses called for the Bill to include a provision to prevent the sale of e-cigarettes from vending machines, which was added in an additional clause, and an increase in fines from level 4 to level 5.

Part 1 will concentrate on regulations prohibiting the sale of nicotine products, including e-cigarettes, to persons under 18 and will allow for regulations banning the sale of e-cigarettes from self-service vending machines. Part 2 will look at dental and pharmaceutical services provision. Those amendments are technical in nature, and the original policy is unaffected by them. That will allow the Department the necessary legal powers to introduce a new dental contract provision, including the introduction of performance lists for dentists. Part 2 also sets out the charges for service provision to persons not ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland. Part 3 supports the main provisions of Part 1 and Part 2.

Mr McKinney: As SDLP health spokesperson and a member of the Health Committee, I welcome the opportunity to speak at the Second Stage of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The SDLP welcomes the provisions in the Bill that deal with nicotine-containing products. I agree with the Minister that it is sensible to prohibit the sale of cigarettes to under-18s. I will return to the under-18 issue later, in the context of passive smoking.

E-cigarettes can help smokers who are trying to quit smoking, but they should not be available to children, especially when there are serious questions about their long-term health effects and genuine concerns have been expressed that e-cigs might act as gateway products that could lead some young people to take up tobacco smoking. I also welcome the provisions on proxy purchasing that will prevent adults from buying e-cigarettes on behalf of children. It is already illegal to buy cigarettes on behalf of underage children, so it does not make sense that the same offence does not apply to e-cigarette products. I am also pleased to support clause 2, which prohibits the sale of e-cigarettes in vending machines. That is a logical and reasonable provision, as unregulated vending machines could provide an easy point of access for children to e-cigs. The provision makes sense, and I do not have any issue with it.

Part 2, as has been articulated, deals with changes to dental, general ophthalmic and pharmaceutical services. At this stage, those changes seem uncontroversial, and I look forward to scrutinising them more thoroughly at Committee Stage.

The rationale that underpins the majority of the Bill is protecting people's health, especially the health and well-being of children, from the dangers of nicotine and tobacco products. In that context, I welcome the fact that the Minister is considering an amendment to ban smoking in cars carrying children, although I regret that it was not in the original Bill. It is important to remind ourselves that smoking remains the greatest cause of preventable illness and premature death here. Each year, approximately 2,300 people die from smoking-related illnesses. The Assembly has made great advances in changing societal attitudes to smoking. The hugely successful smoking ban in public places and public vehicles, for example, was introduced in 2007. In 2008, we raised the age at which tobacco could be purchased to 18. Last year, we passed the Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014, which aims to restrict the availability of cigarettes to children and targets the adults who buy them for children. Next year, Westminster regulations on plain cigarette packaging will come into force that, I hope, will act as a further disincentive to young people taking up smoking. All that is something of a progression that must be welcomed and one that is ever more welcome and important given the prevalence of smoking here.

What we have not done so far is to legislate on smoking in cars carrying children. The Department's statistics show that 15% of adults smoke when their children are in their car. That has serious health implications. Passive smoke poses a serious health hazard, and studies have shown that there is no safe level of exposure, not least in an enclosed vehicle. Every time someone smokes a cigarette, they breathe in a lethal concoction of toxins and other harmful chemicals. Every time that a person breathes in passive smoke, the danger increases, as it contains over 4,000 chemicals. Studies have shown that passive smoke is detrimental to children's health, causing a variety of adverse health effects, including increased susceptibility to respiratory tract infections such as pneumonia and bronchitis. We also know that children are more vulnerable to passive smoke exposure in vehicles as their immune systems are not yet properly developed. They breathe more rapidly and inhale more pollutants than adults. Scientific evidence also shows that ventilation does not eliminate the risks to health of passive smoking in enclosed spaces.

It is against that backdrop that, as with many health issues, early intervention and prevention are key. That is why the anti-smoking narrative from 2007 to today has been so valuable. We must continue that narrative. The only way to provide effective protection for children from passive smoking in cars is to prevent them breathing it in in the first place. That is what has happened in other jurisdictions: Scotland, Wales and the Republic are all legislating on the issue, and England has already introduced a ban that came into force in October. As I said, what the Minister is doing is welcome, but there is a great risk that, without a ban, children here will be left behind to suffer the detrimental effects.

I must commend the actions of the many organisations that have called for the introduction of the ban. It has overwhelming support from the royal colleges, health experts and leading authorities on public health from across the UK. The Chest, Heart and Stroke Association has been an avid campaigner for bringing in such a ban. In fact, it conducted a public opinion poll that revealed that a staggering 82% of people here agree with a ban, which reinforces the need to include it in the Bill. I welcome the remarks of the Chair of the Health Committee, who was speaking as a Sinn Féin member, in backing the concept of a ban. I welcome the Minister's announcement that he would do so too.

There have been worries that doing such a thing would bolster the concept of the nanny state. The loss of jobs in some constituencies has also been a concern. I respect those concerns. However, I have to say to Members that a ban would not say that you could not smoke in your home or that you could not smoke when alone or when adults are in your car. A ban would say that you could not smoke in your car with children, who are unable to make decisions for themselves.

I welcome what the Minister has said, although I have to note that, last October, when the opportunity came in Parliament at Westminster for just such a ban to be introduced on a UK-wide basis — a ban that would have extended to here — his colleagues voted against.

In that context, it is the SDLP's intention to table such an amendment to ban smoking in cars with children. In light of today's debate, I urge every Member on both sides of the House to support that amendment. I look forward to considering the Bill's other provisions when it reaches Committee Stage.

Mrs Dobson: On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, and as my party's health spokeperson, I am glad to support the Bill. In Northern Ireland, approximately one in four people smoke — that is, 340,000 men, women and children — and one in two smokers will ultimately die early because of it. The habit kills well over 2,000 local people every year, which is more than obesity, alcohol, illegal drugs and road accidents put together. It is our leading cause of preventable death. Despite this, research and surveys consistently reveal that many people would like to stop. For far too long, the number of people smoking was either increasing or remaining stagnant. Only now, after a raft of anti-tobacco measures that my colleague Michael McGimpsey put through the Assembly, are we beginning to see a cultural shift, with tobacco becoming less and less attractive.

Another major change in recent years has been the explosion in popularity of e-cigarettes. They seem to be everywhere, and you cannot help but notice the sheer number of people using them. Whilst I appreciate that they are still relatively new, we should at least be pleased that fewer people are pumping the toxic tobacco alternative into their system. It should be remembered that e-cigarettes are not a toy and are certainly not something that I would encourage non-smokers to take up. Nicotine remains a highly addictive drug, and it is recognised that, in any form, it has adverse health effects. It is important, therefore, that people do not become addicted whilst unaware of the risks involved.

We must ensure that our young people are not taking up a habit that may unwittingly act as a stepping stone to the real thing. I do not think that this message can or should be underestimated. I very much welcome the Bill's proposal to ban the sale of e-cigarettes to under-18s. With the popularity of e-cigarettes, one of the unfortunate spin-offs is the fact that the vapour liquid that they contain comes in a seemingly endless range of flavours, so it was inevitable that they may be seen as more attractive to young people than a traditional cigarette. Whilst it is likely that e-cigarettes are less damaging to health than smoking cigarettes, with their damaging levels of tar and other chemicals, as yet there is insufficient research into the effect of their long-term use. Indeed, because e-cigarettes are not regulated, their contents can often vary significantly, with some even found to contain highly toxic chemicals.

The other issue that is likely to dominate the discussions on the Bill is the ban on smoking in cars carrying children. As I said, tobacco is toxic, and young people in particular are vulnerable to exposure to second-hand smoke. This is down to the fact that, as was outlined, their bodies are still developing, and vital organs such as their lungs are more susceptible to the toxins that are emitted by cigarette smoke. Some parents smoke in cars under the well-intentioned assumption that winding down the car window will let the smoke out. In reality, however, that only pushes it to the back of the car. In those types of conditions, it has been proven that smoke can reach up to 10 times the recognised unhealthy level and often lingers for hours. I believe, therefore, that there is a very sound medical reason to introduce a ban.

I welcome the news from the Minister today that his Department will table an amendment at Consideration Stage to ban smoking in cars carrying children, as, previously, the issue was effectively left to a Back-Bench MLA to take forward. That is interesting from my point of view. I simply cannot understand why a Department, with the advantage of time and resources, could not ensure that it got the necessary clearances to include a ban before the Bill was introduced. It is fair to say that the Minister's Department has been a bit of a back-seat driver, if you will excuse the pun, on the issue. Maybe he can explain to the House why there has been a change of mind, albeit a welcome one. It is certainly a U-turn from the back seat, especially given his predecessor's views on the issue. Overall, however, I welcome the Bill.

Mr McCarthy: The Bill started out as a very simple and routine technical Bill, but its expansion into the regulation of tobacco and nicotine-related products makes it potentially a very significant piece of legislation. I am delighted that the Assembly has already taken some important steps in this mandate, and, indeed, before, to regulate the sale and use of tobacco better, particularly given the public risks so clearly associated with it and the dangers of children and young adults becoming addicted to it. However, we need to keep developing policy, practice and law in this area. In that regard, I very much welcome the intention to regulate e-cigarettes for minors. E-cigarettes may well have come along as a perceived more benign alternative to smoking tobacco and a means therefore to wean people off cigarettes. As has already been said, however, they contain nicotine, which is addictive and also has potential implications for brain development.

I am disappointed that agreement at Executive level could not be found at this time for further provisions banning smoking in cars containing children. There seems to be a strong consensus that that reform should take place, and I very much welcome the Minister's statement earlier that he will table an amendment at Consideration Stage to include provision for no smoking in cars where children are on board. Unlike adults, children do not really have any choice over whether they are in an enclosed space with someone who is smoking. We have already banned smoking in enclosed public places and workplaces, and that is very welcome. Smoking has also been prohibited in vehicles if they are work-related. The extension to the law to protect our young people seems logical, and it is consistent with what we have done before. I had hoped that the Committee would seek to amend the legislation in that regard. That will now be unnecessary, as the Minister has said that he will do that himself at Consideration Stage. I have to say that, at a recent Health Committee meeting at which Mr Hamilton, our Health Minister, was present, I asked him about the omission of that very important aspect from the Bill. Although it is not contained in the Bill at present, the Minister was sympathetic to the proposition and said that he would consider an amendment. I am delighted that he is as good as his word, as he has informed us today that he will do just that. I was given encouragement at that meeting. I therefore hope that the Minister will submit such an amendment.

It seems to me that the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill is the perfect means by which to include the banning of smoking in vehicles in which children are being carried. As I understand it, the other regions of the UK are fully supportive of banning smoking in vehicles in which there are young children, and the same goes for the Republic. As has already been said, Northern Ireland Chest, Heart and Stroke commissioned a poll on the issue last year, and its findings showed that 82% of the Northern Irish people are in support of it. The health of our children is paramount, and I look forward to the amendment that will eventually be included in the Bill. On behalf of the Alliance Party, I am happy to support the Bill at its Second Stage.

Mr Speaker: I call Tom Buchanan. Sorry, Tom, but it is Pam Cameron. I beg your pardon.

Mr Buchanan: OK.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thanks, Tom, for sitting down.

As a member of the Health Committee, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Second Stage of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. As we have heard, the Bill seeks to amend the current Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008. Part 1 looks at the provisions relating to nicotine-containing products, or NCPs, such as e-cigarettes, with Part 2 specifically looking at dental, pharmaceutical and ophthalmic services.

In considering Part 1, I was pleased to see that the Bill will provide for the regulation of the e-cigarette market. Whilst it is reported that e-cigarettes are 95% less harmful than tobacco cigarettes, the current lack of regulation means that the quality, safety, origin and contents of those products cannot be substantiated. From May 2016, any manufacturer of products containing more than 20 mg of nicotine must be licensed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. As this is an ever-increasing market, with over two million users in the UK, these measures to protect consumers are timely and a welcome step. This Part of the Bill will also impose age restrictions on the sale of these products. We are all well aware of the addictive nature of nicotine and the effects that it can have on adolescent brain development. It is therefore to be welcomed that under-18s will be prohibited from purchasing e-cigarettes and that proxy purchasing for minors will be made an offence.

Finally and most importantly in this Part, I am delighted to see that the Minister intends to table an amendment that will make it an offence to smoke in cars carrying children. The adverse effects of passive smoking have been well documented for many years, and its effects on children are even greater. Children cannot make their own decisions in respect of passive smoking in the confined space of a car, so, by introducing a ban, we will protect children from those effects and the associated health problems. The ban may perhaps even prevent them from taking up smoking in later life, and that is also to be welcomed. As a similar ban has been introduced in England, Wales, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland, the time is right to introduce this in Northern Ireland, and I believe that there is a strong desire on the part of the general public to see this brought in. I would like to commend the Minister for taking the opportunity to announce that he will table the amendment, which, I am sure, will safeguard the long-term health of children in this and future generations.

Part 2 is largely technical in nature and seeks to remove some minor irregularities in the existing Act. Currently, dentists, pharmacists and ophthalmic services providers are listed by the Health and Social Care Board as businesses but are not necessarily professionals. The Bill seeks to amend this and introduce contractual arrangements with providers.

As I have already mentioned, the Bill is principally a technical exercise. That said, what today's debate will be remembered for is the steps that we take or do not take to ensure that children are protected from the effects of passive smoking in cars. I am confident that this will be met with support from the public and trust that it will assist in improving long-term health outcomes.

Mr McKay: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I support the principles of the Bill. It is important legislation that will help to improve public health and deter people from taking up nicotine-related products. For me, the jury is still very much out on e-cigarettes, though many see them as a lesser evil to cigarettes. I still feel uneasy when I see advertisements in newspapers and magazines for those products. It reminds me very much of the time, 20 or 30 years ago, when cigarettes were advertised in the same way. Regardless of what the effects of e-cigs are or are not, there does need to be some regulation. The prohibitions to be brought in regarding these products are much to be welcomed, given that there are no restrictions on selling these products to children at present.

I also welcome the news that the Minister, in conjunction with the Chair of the Committee, will table an amendment to ban smoking in cars carrying children. For me, that is a common-sense amendment; it should have been done long, long ago. I do not think that there should be any opposition to that.

Sinn Féin will table an amendment relating to the introduction of a levy on sugar-sweetened beverages or fizzy drinks. We believe that moneys raised from such a levy should be ring-fenced and put towards health needs. Of course, this issue has been debated to an extent among the public and in the media, but it needs to be considered more fully by the Assembly, the Department and, indeed, the Executive. Given the growing pressures that there clearly are on public health and on the Department in terms of a growing cost to the budget and given the frightening increase in the levels of diabetes and obesity, it is clear that the issue needs to be given serious consideration by Members. Will it be popular? It probably will not be popular, to a large degree. It may not be popular with certain companies either, but the question we need to ask ourselves is whether it is in the best interests of public health and the people we represent. There needs to be a full debate on that issue.

There has been research carried out. The most recent, in the British Medical Journal, states:

It also says that the greatest effect is on our young people. It is very clear that, any time you go into a filling station or a shop, you see queues of young people in uniform buying their Cokes, Diet Cokes and Sprites. There is a high rate of consumption of fizzy drinks among young people, and that is not good for their health.

Mr McCallister: Will the Member give way?

Mr McKay: Yes.

Mr McCallister: I am broadly sympathetic to what the Member and his colleagues propose around a levy on sugary drinks. Would he want to see any money raised like that being kept and ring-fenced within Health?

Mr McKay: Yes. I think that moneys raised from that should remain within the Department of Health. Of course, it is a very large Department. I think that, when you raise revenue from something like this, you need to target it back on the effects of those drinks. You should look at obesity and diabetes and at those general areas. At this point, we are not saying that there should be anything specific, but we need to have a debate about what the revenue should go to. I do not believe that revenues raised should go to the Department of Finance, as I do not think that that would assist in getting public buy-in.

The public want to see us take brave steps, put our heads above the parapet and make unpopular decisions at times as well. We have seen that there was great resistance to the smoking ban in bars, and, when the plastic bag levy came in in the South for the first time, there was resistance to that. Today, there is no issue with any of those.

Mr Speaker: Daithí, I ask you to speak into your mike and not rest on it.

Mr McKay: Gabh mo leithscéal, a Cheann Comhairle. We should ensure that those funds are directed back at some of the adverse impacts of those products. There will be an argument about the nanny state — of that there is no doubt — but we cannot continue to do nothing. As the Minister and medical experts have said on many occasions, the pressures on health and the projections on obesity and diabetes are frightening and will have huge financial ramifications if we do not make targeted interventions such as this.

Devolution gives us the opportunity to lead. Of course, we have had the debate in Committee on the Human Transplantation Bill about waiting to see what happens in Wales. The beauty of devolution is that we can lead for ourselves, and we should not leave it to others to lead in areas that are of greatest importance to the people we represent.

I look forward to the Committee consideration of the Bill and to the amendments that will come forward, as I believe that it is a vehicle to help improve the health of the general public. There are a lot of public health aspects to the Bill, and that is why we will table our amendment regarding the levy.

Mr Speaker: I am very pleased to call Tom Buchanan.

Mr Buchanan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have just a few brief comments on this today.

This is good legislation that is being brought before the House. The fact that it gives the Department power to prohibit the sale of nicotine to those under the age of 18 and from an automatic vending machine, as well as having a regulation-making power to create an offence in relation to proxy purchasing, is a welcome development.

I know much has been said around the Chamber today about e-cigarettes, and I agree with it. When we consider the damage caused to the health of our people by nicotine, we see that anything we can do through the legislative process to help to change attitudes and improve people's lives can only be a positive move forward. I welcome the Minister's intention to bring forward an amendment to prohibit smoking in cars. That is something that I have been heavily lobbied about as chair of the all-party group on cancer, and I look forward to that being included in the Bill.

All in all, with the three Parts that make up the Bill, I believe that it will be welcomed by many within the public and private sectors. I add my support to it this afternoon.

Mr Middleton: I, too, support the Second Stage of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I will focus my brief comments on clauses 1 to 4, which deal with e-cigarettes. Clauses 5 to 12 are, of course, mostly of a technical nature.

With over 450 brands of e-cigs available and over 7,500 unique flavours, e-cigarettes are currently largely unregulated, which means that they have not been determined safe to use. Whilst we are all aware of the dangers of smoking and the significant regulations that come with tobacco products, the same cannot be said about e-cigarettes. In fact, the sale of e-cigarettes is banned in a number of countries, including Australia, Canada, Brazil and Mexico. I very much welcome the Minister speaking about the new EU tobacco products directive, which is to come into force in May 2016. It is also welcome that that will include the obligatory reporting of ingredients, as well as health warnings on packaging.

Of course, as with many products, many people are opting to buy them online. Several sources estimate that between 30% and 50% of all e-cigarette sales are made on the Internet. That, in itself, causes problems with regulation and increases the risk of an individual using a product that is unsafe. Clauses 2 and 4 provide that the Department may make regulations to prohibit the sale of nicotine products from an automatic vending machine and increase the penalty for those who do so. That is welcome, although like the Minister, I am not aware of anywhere where e-cigs can be accessed in that way. Tobacco products have traditionally been accessed via vending machines, making it easier for under-18s to access them.

Age restrictions are addressed in clause 3. I welcome that the Bill makes provisions enabling the Department to make regulations prohibiting the sale of nicotine products to under-18s, including proxy purchasing, with adults buying for minors. It is clear that there is wide use of e-cigs in Northern Ireland, and we should be doing all we can to ensure that the market is regulated and that young people cannot access them as easily.

In closing, I welcome the Minister's intention to bring forward at Consideration Stage an amendment to address smoking in cars with children on board. There is strong evidence that the level of toxic chemicals is very high when a person is smoking in a car, even with window ventilation.

As clauses 5 to 12 are technical, I have no issues with them being included in the Bill. I look forward to seeing the Bill progress to the next stage.

Mr McCallister: In welcoming the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, I will talk at the outset about the approach that the Minister took in his opening remarks to dealing with e-cigarettes. They are something that we probably do not know enough about. We have not had enough experience of the health implications. I think it is right and proper that we have legislation in place, as well as the ability to move, change and adapt as the evidence perhaps unfolds about how we deal with them and about what is the best approach to take to e-cigarettes. They have certainly become very popular over the last few years, and not to have any clear legislative framework or regulation to deal with them would, I think, be a huge gap in our legislation. The Minister is absolutely right to be looking at that.

Also, as the Minister has long known, I have had some contact with him, his special adviser and departmental officials about banning smoking in cars and his intention to amend the Bill on that. I tabled a debate on that in November 2011, and, in January of this year, I wrote to the Department to outline a way that we could look at it. I would be grateful if the Minister, when responding, could say whether he intends to follow that approach and suggested method or whether he will take a different approach to amending the Health Act that is more or less the same as the method used in England, whereby the Children and Families Act 2014 was used to amend the Health Act 2006.

I would like to thank, as colleagues have done, Neil Johnson, from Chest, Heart and Stroke, Nessie Blair, from the British Lung Foundation, Jayne Murray, from the British Heart Foundation, and all the cancer charities, because they have worked tirelessly with all the political parties to bring us to a point where we are going to seriously debate with the Department bringing forward an amendment to ban smoking in cars.

All the arguments as to why we should do that are well rehearsed and include the health implications for children; the lack of choice for them; and the fact that their immune systems and bodies are not fully developed. The harm is exponentially worse for a young child than for one of us sitting in a car, for example. The fact that it takes at least an hour for cigarette smoke to clear from a car and for levels to get back down to what they were is also a huge reason to act. As much as anything, it sends out a message to the public that the Executive and the Assembly are determined to drive home a public health message, over and above people's concerns about the nanny state having gone mad. The nanny state, or any state, has a duty to protect its children. If that means banning smoking in cars, that is what we need to do; if it means making children wear seat belts or get into child seats, as we did years ago, that is what we need to do because it helps to save lives. The Minister has to drive home the important message about the dangers and risks of smoking and second-hand smoke.

We did it before when we banned smoking in pubs and clubs, which others said could not be enforced and would be ignored. However, few pieces of legislation have ever gone through here that have been more widely adhered to. That is why we should quite rightly use the Bill as the vehicle to do it. That in itself will be a huge win for children and young people and for public health in Northern Ireland. I welcome the debate, and although I am not a member of the Health Committee, I will follow with great interest how those ideas develop and the debate on the amendments to be put forward by the Minister. I want to leave the House and the Minister in no doubt of my continuing support for that campaign. I look forward to following the progress.

As for other amendments, Sinn Féin put forward the idea of a levy. There is a huge debate to be had about tackling sugary drinks, fast food and obesity; you might well say that it is a battle that I myself am losing. The Health Minister will know more than most the cost of all those issues and the strain that they put on the health service. That is the reason why the Public Health Agency was set up a number of years ago: to change the nature of the debate about people engaging with their own health. Anything that we can do on that front should be examined seriously and looked at as a way of encouraging the drive in that direction.

I welcome the Bill and the Minister's commitment to tackling smoking in cars. I will watch the progress of the legislation through the Committee with great interest and see what comes back to us at Consideration Stage.

Mr Hamilton (The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety): I begin by thanking all Members who have contributed to the debate. As I said at the start, the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill is a Bill of two Parts. Part 1 deals with provisions for the sale of e-cigarettes. It is clear from those who commented on that subject today that, while e-cigarettes may have a place — I believe that they do — in helping smokers to give up tobacco, they are not products that we wish non-smokers, particularly children and young people, to use. Therefore, I look forward to the progression of the Bill through the Assembly to enable my Department to introduce regulations at the earliest opportunity to prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes to under-18s.

I do not think that anybody talked about Part 2 at all. I expected the debate probably to centre on things that are not in the Bill, particularly smoking in cars carrying children. Virtually every Member who contributed to the debate raised that issue, and I welcome the support that many expressed for my proposal to table an amendment at Consideration Stage to address that. This is one of those areas where I do not think that an amendment or a change of law should be necessary. My view is that anybody who smokes in a confined space, such as a car carrying children, is an idiot, given the multiplicity of evidence on the damage that smoking does to the individuals themselves and the well-established knowledge and information about the damage that second-hand smoke can do to others and particularly the impact that it can have on young children because, as others have said, their lungs are still developing, just as they are developing and growing. Why anybody cannot see the stupidity of smoking in such a confined space is beyond me. In that sense, we should not have to legislate for this, but I accept the argument that there is a need to do so.

A couple of Members, including the last to speak, mentioned the concern about this being seen as a nanny state intervention. I am always very conscious, on philosophical grounds as much as anything, of that accusation. It is not my preference always to intervene with the heavy hand of the state or government and legislate to solve a problem. People need to take greater responsibility for their behaviour and their life, and I will go into that in greater depth on another issue in a moment. The difference between this and some other nanny state proposals is that I do not envisage our police service enforcing a law on this in the same way as it enforces the law on speeding. It is hard to lie in wait and catch people who smoke in cars carrying children, but the police may catch people as a result of stopping vehicles for other misdeeds on our roads. In my view — I have been persuaded of this —this is about changing the culture. It is about making smokers even more aware, if they are not aware already, of their responsibilities to others and of the damage that their actions can do to others. It is not about a big, heavy-handed nanny state intervention, with the police lying in wait and trying to catch people specifically for this; it is about trying to get the message out that we need to do things differently and change that culture.

Look at other interventions, in cars or elsewhere, and the implementation of legislation that was, at the time, probably similarly defined as nanny state-ish: that has produced positive outcomes. Seat belts were mentioned, and I remember, as a young man, the campaign in the early 1980s. It seems ridiculous now. I am sure that my children would look back at the television campaigns of the 1980s and think it ludicrous that people did not wear their seat belt as a matter of normal practice.

Points were made about smoking in public places. At the time, I was not entirely convinced about a ban on smoking in public places until I went to the United States in 2004 and saw it in operation in Massachusetts, and I was immediately convinced that it worked. It completely changed the environment in pubs and restaurants and breathed new life into them. I have been persuaded on that issue.

Mr McCallister asked how we will deal with this: I will discuss in detail with officials how we can best do it. I want to table a pretty clear amendment that is not convoluted and gets the job done. Over the last number of years, the issue has been well aired and well discussed in the Chamber. To be fair, it was not included in the original Bill, and that has sparked some debate over the last number of months. The issue has been well discussed. There should be — I sense that there is — general and broad support for an amendment, so I do not expect any problems. I will try to furnish Members, through the Committee, with a draft of the amendment as quickly as possible, so that the Committee can debate, discuss and have its view. If the Committee has suggestions, we can seek to accommodate them. I thank the Chair for her support for an amendment on the subject.

The issue that dominated the debate was not what was in the Bill but what was not there, but it was not the issue that I did not foresee not being in the Bill. That is a sort of Rumsfeldian riddle, but what I mean is a sugar tax or a levy on sugary products. You will not get any disagreement from me about the impact that our diet or poor dietary choices as a society have on public health and, by extension, the impact on the health service.

Almost from the day and hour that I have been in office, I have cited the need to reform our system. I talked about that in the context of a range of challenges that we face, such as the growth of our ageing population and technological advances. I have always talked about how the unhealthy lifestyles that we lead and our bad dietary choices present problems now. We see that particularly in the rise in type 2 diabetes but also in the long-term problems that are presenting for public health, which will make the problems that we experience now seem timid by comparison. Fundamentally, I think that people need to take better responsibility for their lifestyles and diets. Like Mr McCallister, I am fully aware that I am preaching that but not necessarily always practising it. Although I do my best, I fail miserably virtually every day.

I urge caution for several reasons, however. I genuinely raise these issues in the spirit of good debate, which I am sure is what the Chair and her party want to engender. The first point is that there is no clear consensus. Some have expressed support for the introduction of a so-called sugar tax; some have been lukewarm; and others have been downright opposed. I cut out a story from 'The Times' a number of weeks ago when the debate was raging across the water, with the Prime Minister saying that he was opposed to bringing in a sugar tax after a Public Health England report said that it should be considered. 'The Times' report contained comments from a lady called Catherine Collins from the British Dietetic Association. On reading the report, I initially thought that, if any organisation was going to be in favour of a sugar tax, it was probably the British Dietetic Association, but her comments were also cautionary. She warned against becoming "fixated" on a tax, saying that it was wrong to single out sugar when a bit of everything and not too much of anything remained the best advice. She went on to ask whether it would make people lose weight. No, it would not. She said that there was no evidence that reducing sugary, sweetened beverages in adults reduced body weight. If we are not buying full-fat Coke — apologies for the product placement — what are we buying instead? A packet of crisps.

That goes to the heart of many problems. I understand that having a sugar tax seems to be in vogue, with many bandying it about as a solution to the problem. However, there is no consensus that it is a solution to the problem. There is also no substantive analysis of its impact, particularly in Northern Ireland. I hope that I have been consistent in saying, from the day and hour that I came into post, that, if we are to make policy changes or take policy in a different direction, particularly in an area such as health and social care, we should always seek to be guided by the evidence that is available to us, particularly when that evidence comes from clinicians.

Ms Maeve McLaughlin: I thank the Minister for taking my intervention. I appreciate his analysis that this is only part of a wider series of initiatives that will be required when we look at health inequalities generally. I suggest to him that, as this debate and the legislation progress, we should consider committing to a public consultation on the need for policy and on what a policy remit would look like. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Hamilton: I am happy to consider that and take it away. I will do that in the spirit that it is offered. We should not rush to implement something such as this. There are many reasons why we should not rush to pass something that significant. I will certainly consider and reflect on it, and I will come back to the Chair on perhaps commissioning a piece of evidence in Northern Ireland, building on the work that Public Health England has already done on the issue. That should consider these issues: the evidence; the view among clinicians; and the view of other allied health professionals who are expert in the area. It should also consider the cost-of-living impact. We have to be very mindful of that. Who would be hit hardest by a sugar tax? There is some suggestion that those who would be hardest hit are those who can least afford it; that is, those in lower-income families. Although it might appear to be a good thing, would it substantively work? There is a complexity to the issue of obesity. It is not driven entirely by our consumption of sugary products at all. It is as much about a lack of exercise. There might therefore be an argument that we should tax a lack of exercise or a sedentary lifestyle. We should maybe tax ourselves, as being an MLA is one of the most unhealthy jobs that you can do. A tax on MLAs might actually be quite popular out there. It might also deal with the age-old mint problem. Mints might become too expensive to have at the top Table.

Mr Speaker: I thought that you were going to refer to me as age-old. [Laughter.]

Mr Hamilton: Sorry, Mr Speaker. My apologies if that remark was partly in your direction.

Moreover, if we are going to levy a tax on sugary products, what about fatty products? What about fast food? It opens up a swathe of other issues. There may be a glint in the eye of the Chair at the mention of other opportunities to levy tax on other things out there. However, we have to be mindful of the fact that, if we are going after obesity, we have to be clear that going after it in this way would work and have a substantial impact.

A lot of the focus in the debate on the Bill has been around smoking. Although we have implemented a lot of measures, and those have changed attitudes around smoking, there is still too high a number of people smoking in Northern Ireland, even given the amount of tax that there is on a packet of cigarettes. We would have to iron out issues of legality. I suspect that, if we were to plough ahead with this, it would be open to challenge. No doubt there would be some legal challenge to it. We would have to consider what the cost impact would be on small businesses, particularly, say, on the hospitality trade. We would have to consider at what level we should introduce something like this for it to be effective in dissuading people from consuming sugary products. If it were a few pence, would that really dissuade people? I suspect that it would not. If it were very low, comparatively speaking, what would be the health, or indeed, taxation benefits from that? You might not raise a terrible lot to justify doing it, given the other impacts it would have. If the tax were high, what would be the impact on low-income families and small businesses in Northern Ireland?

We therefore need to consider the matter carefully. I take on board the point that the Chair made.

I am open to debate. I hope that I have always shown a willingness to be open to debate and discussion, but I do not think that we should be rushing or doing anything other than considering and deciding this on the basis of evidence.

I was very interested in the point that Mr McKay made on hypothecating the tax for health. That is interesting, but even though it is an obvious attempt to persuade the Health Minister to back something like this, I am not persuaded by that alone to support, at this stage anyway, the introduction of a levy on sugary products or a sugar tax. I do, however, take on board what the Chair said, and I will reflect on that as promised.

There may have been other points raised. If I missed anything substantial, I will come back to Members in writing, but I am sure that a lot of the issues that have been raised will be ironed out in the course of the Committee's consultation and scrutiny. Once again, I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to the debate on what will be, I think, a very important piece of legislation. While I am aware that we have only a short time to progress the Bill through the Assembly in the current mandate, I believe that, by working cooperatively on the issues that are in the Bill and, indeed, those that we want to introduce into the Bill, the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill can pass into law before the end of this mandate. Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to move the Second Stage of the Bill, and, again, I thank Members for their support, which I hope will be ongoing throughout the passage of the Bill.

Mr Hamilton (The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety): I beg to move

I am pleased to move the Final Stage of the Food Hygiene Rating Bill, which seeks to make it mandatory for food businesses to display information to consumers about hygiene standards based on inspections by district council food safety officers, with the overarching aim of reducing the incidence of food-borne illness. Not only will the Bill allow consumers to make an informed choice regarding where they choose to eat or shop for food but it will provide an impetus for businesses to achieve and maintain compliance with food hygiene law. It will, therefore, be a key mechanism for driving up the food hygiene standards of food businesses across Northern Ireland.

It is worthwhile to remind ourselves that, every year in Northern Ireland, there are over 48,000 cases of food-borne illness, resulting in 450 hospitalisations and, unfortunately, 24 deaths. That comes with an equivalent total cost of £83 million to the Northern Ireland economy. I believe that this Bill will be an important tool in helping to reduce this financial burden.

I want to highlight a couple of very important aspects of this legislation. First, the public will now be able to see the hygiene ratings of establishments that they frequent and from which they buy food. They will no longer have to make a special effort to discover the ratings because they will now be readily available in front of them at the establishment itself. Secondly, the legislation recognises and rewards businesses that have been doing the right thing by their customers, because a good rating is good for business.

Food establishment owners with good ratings are very proud of their rating, and I can understand that they might feel somewhat aggrieved that other establishments that have not scored well may be concealing that fact from their customers. It is not surprising to learn that, in the current scheme, display rates are much lower among establishments with a rating of zero to two. I am aware that the Food Standards Agency and district councils are encouraging all businesses to display their rating, but the reality is that a scheme that operates on a voluntary basis is likely to have little impact on those businesses with a low rating. To achieve the top rating of five only requires compliance with food hygiene law. In my view, if some owners are doing it right, there is no reason why all owners should not be doing it right. The Food Hygiene Rating Bill will make it mandatory for food businesses to display their food hygiene rating sticker and, in so doing, will ensure that customers have access to the information directly at the point of choice.

I am aware that officials have had positive engagement with the Health Committee during its scrutiny of the Bill and I am grateful for the amendments proposed by the Committee, which I believe have improved the original legislation that was introduced back in November 2014. I believe that this is a timely and important Bill that is good for customers, as it will allow them to make informed choices about where they purchase food. I want to see food hygiene standards improved and maintained throughout Northern Ireland. I am convinced that the introduction of the Food Hygiene Rating Bill will make a positive difference to the health of people throughout Northern Ireland. I encourage all Members to support the Bill.

Ms Maeve McLaughlin (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for opening the debate on the Final Stage of the Food Hygiene Rating Bill.

I welcome the fact that we have got to the Final Stage of this legislation. It is very timely and welcome. Having looked closely at the Bill and what it had to offer, the Committee was content that it will take us another step forwards in reducing the incidences of food-borne illness, which, as the Minister said, are caused by poor hygiene standards. The Bill will provide for a mandatory food hygiene scheme, which will give consumers information about food hygiene standards in places where they eat out or shop for food. It will enable consumers to make informed choices, which, in turn, will provide a strong incentive for businesses to comply with existing food hygiene law.

The Bill has been significantly improved and strengthened because of amendments that the Health Committee persuaded the Department to make. The Committee's detailed scrutiny led to it recommending to the Department that it make amendments to a significant number of the 20 clauses in the Bill. Again, I thank the Minister for his cooperative approach and for taking on board the Committee's recommendations.

There are a number of amendments that have been made that I believe deserve particular mention because of their importance to the Bill. A key set of amendments related to concerns around the notification and publication of a food hygiene rating. Originally, clause 2 did not contain a timescale within which councils must inform the Food Standards Agency of a rating. Food businesses were concerned about that omission because they had found from experience that it could take up to two and a half months between an inspection and the rating being published on the Food Standards Agency website. That means that, for that period, the Food Standards Agency website could be displaying an out-of-date rating, which is either detrimental to a business that has improved its rating or, on the other hand, gives a false impression to consumers where a rating has fallen. Food businesses also pointed out that the Bill did not contain a timescale within which the Food Standards Agency must publish a rating on its website. Again, that could lead to delay in an up-to-date rating being displayed on the website.

The Department recognised that those were valid issues and made an amendment to require councils to inform the Food Standards Agency of a rating within 34 days, as well as an amendment to require it to publish a rating online within seven days after the end of the appeal period. The Committee believes that those amendments strengthen the Bill and provide more assurance to businesses and consumers.

Another important amendment related to clause 7, which deals with the duty to display the food hygiene rating. It is fair to say that that issue exercised the Committee the most, and we engaged in lengthy debates with the Food Standards Agency on it. The Bill sets out the duty for food business operators to display a valid rating sticker in a location and manner that will be specified by the Department in regulations. The Food Standards Agency advised the Committee that its intention was that businesses would only be required to display a sticker made of plastic at the physical location of their premises. The Committee was concerned that the Food Standards Agency did not intend ratings to be displayed on businesses' websites in certain circumstances. We were of the view that, given that customers can place orders for food through websites, those websites should display the business's rating. We drew a distinction between websites that simply advertise a business's existence and those that allow for the direct ordering of food online, either for collection or delivery.

For transactions where customers do not visit the physical location of the premises or talk to someone over the telephone before placing an order, the Committee believed that they should be able to have sight of the business rating on the website through which the transaction is made or be provided with a link to the Food Standards Agency website, which contains ratings for all food business establishments in the North.

In relation to websites that allow online ordering from a range of businesses, the Committee believed that the website should provide a link to the Food Standards Agency website. To be clear, the amendment was not about a blanket requirement for all websites linked in some way to food businesses to display a rating; the Committee’s proposal was much more limited, in that we believed that only websites that allow for the direct ordering of food online, either for collection or delivery, should be required to display a rating or to provide access to the ratings on the Food Standards Agency website.

The Department has made an amendment to the Bill to provide for regulation-making powers to require food businesses supplying food by means of an online facility to ensure that the establishment’s rating is provided online. The manner of display will be specified in the regulations and could include providing a link to the FSA website. The Committee believes that that amendment significantly strengthens the Bill, as it reflects how people today make choices about ordering food and the role of technology and the Internet.

I conclude by saying that the Committee is pleased to see the Bill come to Final Stage. The prevention of illness through proper food hygiene practices is a significant public health issue, and the Assembly can congratulate itself on getting the Bill onto the statute book.

Mr Easton: I support the Final Stage of the Food Hygiene Rating Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to provide for the operation of food hygiene schemes across Northern Ireland. The scheme will give consumers information about food hygiene standards in restaurants and shops where food is bought. The objective is to enable customers to make informed choices, which, in turn, will provide a stronger incentive for businesses to comply with existing food hygiene law. The aim is to reduce the incidence of food-borne illnesses caused by poor hygiene standards.

The evidence from stakeholders was overwhelmingly in favour of the Bill, and, in general, the Committee was very supportive throughout its stages. The first key issue was the display of hygiene ratings on websites through which consumers make food orders. The Bill requires businesses to display a valid rating sticker in a location and manner to be specified by the Department. In regulations, that needs to be on only one page of a food business site. The Department advised that its intention was that the stickers would be required to be displayed only at the physical location of a business. The Committee believed that, for transactions that are made online, where customers do not visit the premises or talk to someone over the telephone before placing an order, customers should be able to have sight of the business ratings on the website or be provided with a link to the Food Standards Agency website, which contains ratings for all food businesses established in Northern Ireland. Again, that needs to be specified on only one location on the site.

Given that one of the key stated aims of the Bill is to allow customers to make an informed choice regarding where they choose to shop for food, the Committee strongly believed that the lack of information about orders made through websites was a significant omission. The Department accepted the Committee's rationale and drafted an amendment to provide for regulation-making powers to require businesses supplying food by means of an online facility to ensure that establishments' food hygiene ratings were provided online.

The second issue concerned timescales for the notification and publication of hygiene ratings. The Bill did not contain timescales within which councils must inform the Food Standards Agency of a rating and the Food Standards Agency must publish the ratings online. The Committee was concerned that, without specific timescales, the ratings published on the Food Standards Agency website could become more significantly out of date. That would be detrimental to businesses that improved on previous ratings and could mislead customers where ratings had improved or fallen. The Department accepted the Committee's point and drafted amendments to create timescales for notification and publication. There should be at least a year's lead-in time for businesses to do that.

The third issue related to the provision for a review of the operation of the legislation within three years of its commencement. The Bill, as drafted, permitted the Department to amend the Act by secondary legislation to implement recommendations produced by the Food Standards Agency as part of its review of the scheme. The Committee was of the view that that power was too wide-ranging, given that it ultimately provided for any aspect of the scheme to be altered by secondary legislation. As an alternative, the Committee suggested that the Bill be amended to provide for order-making powers to allow the Department to alter time limits in the legislation only following the review of the Act. The Department accepted those points and drafted the appropriate amendments.

The Bill was not contentious, and it has all our party's support.

Mr McKinney: As SDLP health spokesperson, I welcome the Final Stage of the Food Hygiene Rating Bill, which, as described, is designed to build on the voluntary food hygiene scheme and prescribe in law a mandatory obligation on restaurants and other eateries to display food hygiene rating stickers. We have already heard how it will give customers valuable information to make informed decisions and provide a strong incentive for businesses to comply with existing hygiene law.

This is about protecting public health. It is shocking that a bill in the region of £83 million annually is attached to cases of food poisoning, with hundreds of hospitalisations and, sadly, over 20 deaths. That underpins the need for the legislation, particularly when you hear that only 10% of food poisoning cases are reported. Today's Bill can only be welcomed in that context, as the health budget continues to face significant pressures.

It is also important to remember that we are not going into this area of law blind; we have come to learn the value of the food hygiene rating scheme in promoting public confidence in many establishments. As Members highlighted, that scheme was a voluntary one, and it has played a valuable role as a pilot by establishing an overall authority. Without doubt, the voluntary food scheme has been very successful, and I underscore, like other Members, the fact that it operates on a completely voluntary basis. When the Committee heard that only 56% of establishments here were adhering to it, it underscored the need for action and further reinforced the need to bring forward today's Bill.

The experience with the Welsh hygiene rating legislation, which was heralded as a great success only last week, gives us a great deal of confidence that today's Bill will be a success too. The latest figures released by the Welsh Government show that 60% of food businesses in Wales have been awarded a five-star rating. That is up from 45% before the legislation came into force. Almost 100% — 94·4% — of businesses have achieved a rating of three or above. A rating of three is awarded where an establishment is rated as being generally satisfactory. Importantly, those figures also reveal that the percentage of businesses in Wales getting a rating of zero is 0·2%. If we can achieve such statistics, we will have done very well.

The Food Hygiene Rating Bill can only be welcomed as a step in the right direction. It builds, as I said, on the voluntary scheme and removes the weakness associated with the scheme, whereby a number of businesses that were getting a lower rating failed to display their rating stickers.

Issues about the nature of the website and linking were highlighted, which involved plenty of debate among Members. The Committee, as has been said, largely backed all the issues. Moreover, it has to be underscored that stakeholders from the private sector were healthily involved in the debate and provoked good outcomes. As described, the Bill has undergone extensive amendment that has further strengthened its provisions, with 36 amendments tabled at Consideration Stage.

Finally, I commend all those involved in bringing forward today's Bill, including the Minister and the Department. I particularly thank the Food Standards Agency for its diligent work and advice to the Committee as well as our local councils and the many stakeholders who engaged with and gave evidence to the Committee. The SDLP supports the Bill, and we look forward to the first review, which I hope will prove that it has been hugely successful.

Mrs Dobson: As the Ulster Unionist Party health spokesperson, I welcome the opportunity to speak at Final Stage. It is a Bill that my party and I have been happy to support from the outset. Its primary objective, to make the display of hygiene ratings mandatory, always made sense to us. In fact, I suspect that many people were not even aware that these stickers were not mandatory already. The Bill has, therefore, addressed what some would consider an omission in the existing policy.

We will all be aware of examples that show that, overall, the voluntary scheme has worked well. Inevitably, however, the people who had something to hide were those least likely to get involved, as the numbers proved. Such premises simply will not have the option to opt out under the new system, which will be a really positive outcome of the Bill's commencement. Consumers will have available to them greater information on all establishments, and businesses will no longer be able to hide behind a voluntary scheme.

The Committee played a valuable role in its scrutiny of the Bill. By no means was it poorly drafted, but the Committee rightly identified a number of issues. These included points such as the necessity to ensure that there were no unwarranted delays in councils notifying the Food Standards Agency of a rating. I give credit to the officials who regularly met Committee members and ultimately ensured that the Department and the Minister stepped up and agreed to sensible amendments to improve the Bill.

The Food Standards Agency also listened to our concerns. However, I believe that it took too much persuasion and too much time to take what should have been a logical decision. I am, of course, talking about buying food online, as outlined earlier. People order food very differently now from even a few years ago. Online ordering is increasingly convenient, even more so with the arrival of apps. Initially, the Bill simply required the display of stickers on physical premises, showing no cognisance of the fact that more and more people are ordering food on the Internet. I was firmly of the view that, given that the Bill is as important for takeaway customers as restaurant customers, it needed to be sufficiently robust for both. Unfortunately, however, for a long time, the Food Standards Agency did not necessarily agree. It was reluctant to broaden the scope to include online sales, saying that it would not be resource neutral because staff time would be required to check compliance. That argument is all fine and well apart from one critical point: in the time that an officer makes one physical inspection of a premises, they could have seen many dozens simply by sitting in front of a computer. I am glad that the FSA eventually shifted ground.

In conclusion, I welcome the passage of the Bill. Its primary objective is sound, and I hope that businesses and consumers alike will be able to learn from the new scheme and develop under it.

Mr McCarthy: I will offer a very brief comment on this very important Final Stage. Time is going on and Christmas is coming, and we still have a bit of work to get through this evening. I am delighted that the Bill has reached Final Stage, and I thank the Minister for bringing it to the Assembly this evening. It has taken considerable time to complete all the stages of what is relatively simple and straightforward legislation. However, that is work that had to be done, and it is good that we are now set to conclude. I want to put on record my thanks to all those involved, from the Minister and his officials to the Committee staff and all those who made submissions or gave evidence to the Committee. I offer special thanks to Michael Jackson — I see that he is sitting in the Chamber with us — and his staff from the Food Standards Agency, who gave us sterling advice as we went along.

The legislation should be good for businesses and consumers. It is mutually reinforcing. Previously, I referred to the reality that people generally tend to eat out more or purchase more takeaways. That, in itself, can throw up public health issues, but that is probably a debate for another day. It is important that people have confidence in the food that is being prepared for or sold to them and the ability to make informed choices between different establishments. Most businesses are already run very responsibly, with a high standard of hygiene, but moving from a voluntary scheme to a compulsory scheme should allow for greater transparency and an opportunity to create incentives for businesses to aspire to an even higher quality.

Looking ahead, we already know how important our food and hospitality sector is to the economy of Northern Ireland and to our international image. That sector is set to take on an even more important role as we seek to develop our tourism product. In that regard, the legislation can help to ensure that we have a reputation for the highest standards and that we continue to promote that reputation.

As I said recently, our Committee, when we were discussing the Food Hygiene Rating Bill, had the pleasure of visiting premises that prepare food and offer food to the public. I was very impressed with the work that goes on in producing the best-quality food for the public to enjoy. I was extremely impressed by the efforts made by the management and staff in our very own Blue Flax restaurant. They must be congratulated on the work that they do. I also commend the environmental health officers who are employed by our local councils for their work in helping to deliver to the public only the best-quality food premises. It is unfortunate that there are occasions when food providers fall foul of what is required. Our environmental health officers do an excellent job in putting things right on those occasions.

On behalf of the Alliance Party, I welcome and support the Final Stage of the Bill.

Mrs Cameron: As a member of the Health Committee, I support the Final Stage of the Food Hygiene Rating Bill. Through extensive scrutiny in Committee, the support of the Department and the hard work of the Food Standards Agency, I am satisfied that we have reached this stage. The Bill that we have arrived at is comprehensive and thorough, but, above all, it is user-friendly for the establishments that serve food and the environmental health officers who will oversee its day-to-day outworkings. Whilst the existing system of a voluntary rating display worked well in instances in which establishments had achieved a good rating, I believe that it led to consumers being less well informed when choosing establishments whose rating had not been so good. It is my perception that most members of the public assume that the scheme is mandatory. It is, therefore, to be welcomed that the Bill will remove that grey area and allow the public to make clear and informed choices when eating food outside of their home.

Around 48,500 cases of food-borne illnesses are reported each year, resulting in 450 hospitalisations and 20 deaths. I believe that those figures are likely to be much higher due to many minor cases not being reported. The Bill's primary function is to reduce those instances of food-borne illnesses in Northern Ireland and to provide a structure to enable food establishments to improve standards across the industry. The health of the public is of the utmost importance and was at the forefront of the Committee's deliberations on the Bill. The existing voluntary scheme saw 56% of businesses display their rating, but that falls dramatically to only 13% in businesses that have been given ratings between zero and two. The new mandatory scheme will provide a more consistent approach to food hygiene ratings and increase consumer confidence in the hospitality industry.

During the Committee's scrutiny of the Bill, we agreed a number of amendments that will help businesses in administering the scheme. Amendments looked at timescales for councils to inform the FSA of ratings and, amongst other things, how they inform on ratings appeals. I am very pleased that the Committee has also agreed to an amendment to clause 7, which will require businesses that supply food via an online facility to display their rating online also. I raised that issue at every opportunity during Consideration Stage and Committee Stage.

Since the last time that the matter was debated in the House, I have met with a number of retailers and retail bodies who expressed their concerns about how they will be affected by the addition to the Bill. I have sought to allay those concerns. I ask for the Minister's assurance that the online element will not be unduly onerous for online businesses. It is my understanding that websites that sell food will display a link to the FSA website, whereby a user can click on the link to find out the food rating of an establishment or retailer.

I also seek the Minister's assurance that online retailers will be permitted a lead-in time — for example, 12 months — as that would allow them the necessary time to make the required technological and programming changes to their website.

I was pleased at the recent comment by the Welsh Deputy Minister for Health, who declared the introduction of a similar scheme to be a "big success story". In the two years since Wales introduced its legislation, businesses reaching the top five-star rating have increased from 45% to 61%, while outlets obtaining a zero rating have halved from 134 to 61. That is a clear indication of how the scheme will work in Northern Ireland and of the difference that we can expect the legislation to make. I firmly believe that the Bill will provide consumers with a clear and simple way to identify the hygiene standards of food outlets and allow them to make choices based on that information. That will undoubtedly improve standards across the hospitality industry and ensure that our food-based businesses go from strength to strength.

Mr Hamilton: I thank Members who contributed to the debate for what have been largely positive and encouraging comments. What has been clear from the debate and, indeed, previous debates on the Bill is that there has been broad all-party support for the legislation as it has progressed through its stages in the House. Members did not raise a lot of issues for me to address, with perhaps the exception of Mrs Cameron's contribution at the end.
I thank the Committee in general for the amendments that it tabled, which have enhanced and improved the Bill. I highlight in particular the amendment on technology, websites and the selling of food online and the amendment on the necessity to display or, as Mrs Cameron said, link to the FSA's website. In particular, I praise her tenacity in ensuring that that amendment is now in the Bill and will hopefully pass into law very soon. I praise her for her efforts in that respect. I agree with her: I do not see why doing that needs to be a particularly onerous or complicated thing for online food businesses. The suggestion that she made is perfectly appropriate. I will certainly come back to the Member about what might be done about a lead-in time. Again, it is not something that we would want to do in a complicated way to make life difficult for food businesses.

I am confident that the Food Hygiene Rating Bill will provide a simple but effective public health measure that will make it easy for everyone to identify the businesses that are committed to complying with food hygiene requirements. I am certain that the Bill will provide a strong incentive for businesses to achieve and maintain compliance with existing food hygiene law, especially because it is mandatory. Indeed, it will almost create a sense of competition between businesses. The food hygiene rating scheme presents a real opportunity for local businesses to demonstrate how seriously they take food hygiene by displaying their ratings for all to see. The consistency and transparency of the scheme make it easy for consumers to use, and it should bring increased business to the food outlets that take pride in their hygiene.

I believe that the Bill will have an overwhelmingly positive impact on the health of the people of Northern Ireland. I am delighted that we are seeking to move to a mandatory scheme. I thank Members for their support so far. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Speaker: I suggest that the House take its ease while we change the top Table and see where the Minister of Education is.

There he is now. How is that for timing?

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Education): I beg to move

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Iarraim oraibh tabhairt faoin dara Chéim den Bhille le hAghaidh a Thabhairt ar an Tromaíocht i Scoileanna a aontu. Bullying is a complex and multifaceted problem that can be found, to varying degrees, in almost every school in the world. However, the complexity of the problem does not mean that bullying should ever be considered an inevitable or acceptable part of school life for any pupil. We know that bullying can result in long-term physical and emotional damage to young people, both those who experience it and those who engage in acts of bullying. Bullying in school can also have an impact on pupils’ general well-being, their attendance and their educational achievement, robbing them of what should be a happy and positive time in their young life and preventing them from reaching their full potential, possibly extending the impact of the bullying far into adulthood. No child should have to live with that.

Bullying behaviour, in any form, is always unacceptable and must be challenged wherever it is encountered. Our schools, governors, principals, teachers and support staff already understand that, and I begin today by acknowledging the excellent work on discipline and pastoral care that can be seen in so many of our schools. However, it is clear that more can be done and needs to be done to tackle bullying in our schools. That is why, in 2013, I asked the NI Anti-Bullying Forum to review all aspects of our anti-bullying legislation, practices and support services. The review concluded that, while all schools were aware of their responsibilities to tackle bullying, there was still a wide variation in the quality of schools' anti-bullying policies and procedures. It found that policies were not always applied consistently, that sometimes schools were too slow to react to bullying incidents and that some schools’ policies were rarely updated, allowing them to become dated and ineffective. The forum recommended legislation as the best way to ensure that all schools brought renewed focus and effort to the problem. I agreed with that argument, and that is why, in June 2014, I announced my intention to bring forward new legislation on the issue within this Assembly mandate.

It is worth clarifying at the outset that the Bill is not intended to impose a straitjacket on schools. Greater consistency rather than a one-size-fits-all approach lies at the heart of the Bill. The Bill is short, with just three objectives: to provide an inclusive definition of bullying; to introduce a duty on schools to keep a record of incidents of bullying; and to introduce a duty on boards of governors to play a much more direct role in how bullying is dealt with in their school. Collectively, those three steps will help to establish a framework of good practice in a way that schools can adapt to their individual needs.

A common definition of bullying is fundamental. It ensures that schools, parents and young people have a clear yardstick to determine whether an incident really is bullying or a more general disciplinary matter. It will also ensure that all schools, faced with a similar incident, will recognise it correctly and respond appropriately. To mislabel bullying as "harmless banter" or "kids just being kids" does not do a school or the pupils concerned any favours. A definition will go a long way towards providing consistency. In line with that aim, the definition proposed in the Bill is a simple one. An incident is bullying if it involves repeated actions or omissions between two or more pupils and there is an intent to cause physical or emotional harm. I appreciate that there are many other definitions of bullying. Academic definitions, for example, frequently mention the need for an imbalance of power between the bully and the person being bullied.

However, we are seeking to achieve a definition that is easy for schools, young people and parents to understand and apply, and I believe that the Bill provides that.

A requirement to record all incidents of bullying builds on the consistency of the definition. It is often said in business that, if you cannot measure something, you cannot understand it, and, if you cannot understand it, you cannot improve it. I believe the same thing is true in education. Schools already keep their own records of disciplinary incidents. Through the Bill, I seek to ensure that, going forward, schools systematically identify bullying and systematically record details of those involved, its motivations and the actions that the school has taken to deal with it. This will give schools the basic data to assess their performance in tackling bullying and, ultimately, allow them to deliver better outcomes for their pupils. While the local value of this information to school principals and governors is huge, drawn together it will also give the Department an insight into the true scale and nature of the problem that we have never had before.

Lastly, I believe that the duties that the Bill proposes to place on each school's board of governors will provide increased focus on this issue and provide a mechanism for building up knowledge of anti-bullying best practice in each school. Previously, the detailed measures to be taken at a school to prevent bullying have largely been left to the school principal. The Bill will make governors accountable for the detailed anti-bullying measures in the school and for ensuring that they are properly implemented, their effectiveness is monitored and they are kept under periodic review. I want to see the importance of bullying recognised and elevated. I want to see schools' responses to bullying incidents become a regular matter for discussion at board meetings, and I want to empower governors to provide a strong appeals mechanism for any parent unhappy with how the school has dealt with an incident involving their child. I believe that this new duty is, therefore, an equally essential part of the Bill.

In conclusion, I highlight to Members the fact that the public consultation on our proposals attracted 4,860 responses over an eight-week period. This shows the level of concern that the public have on the issue. I was particularly pleased, however, that 4,221 of those responses came from pupils and young people. Their response is a powerful statement in its own right, and the consensus of their views was very clear. Bullying remains an all-too-common experience in their lives, and more must be done to tackle it. The Bill provides the Assembly with an opportunity to say, "We hear you" and that we as legislators are ready to play our part. I commend the Bill to Members and will carefully consider today's debate in moving it forward.

Mr Weir (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): Bearing in mind what Mr McCarthy said earlier about the imminence of Christmas, I will try to keep my remarks relatively brief and to stick to my position as Chair of the Committee. My colleague Mr Craig will outline the party position. As the Bill will potentially have an impact on boards of governors, I declare an interest as a member of the board of governors at Ballyholme Primary School, Bloomfield Primary School and Kilcooley Primary School.

I am conscious that, sometimes, when I speak as Chair of the Education Committee, I am listened to by a rather restricted audience. Perhaps sometimes it is the other members of the Committee who are listening, or perhaps it is only the Minister or you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the officials who are paying attention. Maybe I should say that, sometimes, I would settle for at least getting those rather than even being just restricted to that. From time to time, in offices or at home, representatives of various organisations are also listening closely to our words, watching the highlights on the BBC or even poring over the Hansard report of our deliberations. Today, things might be a little different because, in addition to Members, the Minister, officials and organisations, we may actually have children and young people watching us as we speak or reading our words at a later time. For their benefit, let me make it absolutely clear from the Education Committee that we take bullying in schools very seriously. We understand that school bullying can have a substantial impact on its victims, sometimes, though not always, beyond even the expectations of the bully. Sometimes, as we have sadly seen, it can even be to the point of being life-threatening. We want to listen to the concerns of children about bullying, and we are determined, I think in conjunction with the Minister and through the Assembly, to do something about it.

Bullying is something that, if we think back far enough, many of us may have directly experienced at school. It is one of those things that we all think we know something about. However, I can tell the House that, through the preliminary scrutiny of these matters, the Committee has already learned some things about bullying that it did not expect. Findings from the DE-sponsored surveys in 2002, 2007 and 2011 show that figures for bullying have hardly changed over all that time, indicating that around 30% to 40% of year 6 and year 9 pupils reported being bullied in the previous two months. About 20% of year 6 and year 9 pupils reported bullying other pupils in the previous two months, and, in a more recent survey, 16%, which is a smaller proportion but is still very concerning, reported being the victim of cyberbullying. Now, one may always question just how accurate a handle we can get on the issue from the figures, but what is undoubtedly the case is that the sheer scale of bullying exists and tends to persist. Cyberbullying has hit the headlines and has perhaps led to tragic outcomes and caused parents, teachers and us as legislators to re-evaluate our understanding of the changing learning environment in our schools.

The Department very helpfully briefed the Committee on the findings of its recent consultation and on the contents of the Bill before us today. To be clear and as the Minister indicated, the Bill cannot deal with all the aspects of bullying that we may know about. From that point of view, we need to make it clear that we are doing as much as we can without raising belief and expectations that there is some magic solution and that we will cure all bullying. However, it might begin to reaffirm the position of our schools as a safe place for learning and growth — a place where bullying simply will not be tolerated.

To begin to tackle something, you first have to know what it is. The Bill proposes a definition of bullying. As the Minister indicated, there are other potential definitions, and I think that is something that, as a Committee, we will need to look at. For example, it might identify groups of potential victims, provide more details of the unacceptable behaviour or more widely demarcate the circumstances in which it occurs. I appreciate that, during the Committee Stage, we will, I suspect, get various suggestions from stakeholders, and that will challenge the Department accordingly. It may also be that members will want to explore the workability of the limits to a school's responsibility as set out in the Bill.

The successful realisation of meaningful change through public policy is generally strongly correlated to listening. Perhaps more correctly, failure to achieve change is sometimes a consequence of not listening. In the case of this Bill, the Department’s consultation appears to have been well done, with a strong set of responses from children and young people. With a view to securing robust and insightful feedback from the same group, the Committee, in conjunction with the Assembly's Education Service and Research and Information Service, has commenced a series of focus groups based on children and young people in schools from all sectors in Northern Ireland. I believe that feedback will be critical to our decisions; indeed, it is difficult to think of a Bill that has a more direct and crucial impact on the individuals concerned.

In that spirit of active listening, I think that the Committee will recognise and welcome the obligations in the Bill for boards of governors to consult on the development of their anti-bullying policies. Members would, I think, particularly welcome the inclusion of children and their parents in developing the anti-bullying policies. It strikes me — I believe my colleague will develop this point — that we need to make sure that the right balance is struck between the role of governors and the role of principals. Again, we will look at the most effective means of doing that.

I mentioned a moment ago the importance of defining a problem and listening to those affected. The third element and the necessary underpinning for the first two is the accurate and consistent capture of information. I think the Committee accepts in principle that the Bill makes adequate provision for that. The recording of bullying incidents, the motivation of the perpetrator and the action to be taken to address the situation is a good beginning for the development of guidance for schools and teachers.

That having been said, Committee members indicated some concerns that the recording of information might lead to an administrative or cost burden for schools. Members were also worried that additional responsibilities for schools might lead to an increased risk of vexatious litigation. Finally, members wondered about the freedom of information consequences of the centralised database, and the danger that mischievous or unhelpful individuals might use the stored information to develop bullying league tables for schools, which is something that all of us want to avoid.

Clearly, none of the above is the policy intention of the Bill. However, Members would value any reassurance and clarification that can be given by the Minister on those points today.

I said that the Bill is a good beginning. I think that the Committee hopes that the Department will use the information that it gleans from the database, along with the pupil absence data, to develop useful guidance that will begin the process of getting bullying out of our schools. As I said, there is a general welcome from the Education Committee for the Bill. I suspect that — this where much of our deliberations will take place — the greatest anxiety, at times, will be about what is not in the Bill; for example, explicit measures in relation to cyberbullying. It is fair to say that it is difficult to see how such matters could be addressed effectively through legislation. I know that many Committee members have direct connections as school governors, some are former teachers and some are parents or grandparents. There is genuine concern for the protection of our children from what is perceived to be a considerable and growing threat. From that point of view, I ask the Minister if there is any assurance that he can give us today on cyberbullying. If it cannot be given today, could it be given during the anticipated Committee Stage?

I will allow my colleague to address matters from a party perspective. I commend the Bill to the House, as I think that it is a good step. As I said, as a Committee, we will want to scrutinise to make sure that the detail fits the good intentions of the Bill. At this, the Second Stage, I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Hazzard: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome this stage of the Bill. As other Members have outlined, it is a good news story for education in tackling what is a very prevalent problem in some instances. I also want to pay tribute to the Anti-Bullying Forum, which, alongside the Department, has done sterling work in the last few years in assessing and evidencing the issues involved. I hope that this legislation, which comes on the back of that good work, will go some way to giving schools, parents and, most importantly, young people the confidence that bullying is receiving the focus that it deserves. It is an ever changing issue, as no doubt we will discuss. I am also heartened to hear the Minister say that 87% of the responses came from the pupils themselves. The Department deserves some credit for that. I hope that this is a standard that we see maintained in future consultations.

Bullying, as other Members have said, is a highly complex issue. It does not just affect schools; it is also in workplaces. I would go as far as to suggest that even in here I have witnessed bullying in the last three years as an MLA. It is something that happens in sports clubs and in any environment in which people come together for a variety of reasons. Of course, the emerging problem that we are seeing is the development of cyberbullying and the extent to which that goes on. It has added a whole new dimension to bullying in the education process.

As we know, bullying happens for a variety of reasons and takes many forms. It is multi-causal but has a single consequence, which is very often that somebody is hurt. In recent times, we have become increasingly cognisant of the impact of bullying on the learning process, whether on attendance, educational attainment or general well-being. Teen suicide, self-harm and acts of violence towards others are on the rise. Young people are dealing with issues relating to anxiety, depression, loneliness and unhappiness in greater numbers than ever before. A growing number of young people and pupils have trouble sleeping, focusing and making decisions. In short, far too many of our young people are having their self-esteem smashed to pieces. It does not take a genius to work out that their education and educational outcomes have been severely affected by bullying. Indeed, their entire life is being affected.

Significantly, as a society, we have also acknowledged in recent years that the learning process is not simply one that takes place inside the school gates and that, if we are to tackle a variety of education problems, we need to so in partnership with parents and the community.

The legislation, with the involvement of boards of governors and the wider school community, along with the work that the Department has done with the Anti-Bullying Forum, takes note of that process and of the need for wider action.

The work done by the Anti-Bullying Forum in 2013 found a wide variation in how schools responded and the policies that were in place. Lately, when I was out with people from PIPS in a particular part of Belfast, they said that the single biggest reason for self-harm in schools that they had been in recently was homophobic bullying, yet some of these schools did not even have a policy to deal with such issues. Look at the need for relationships and sexual education (RSE) policies: we know from a recent survey by the Department that less than one fifth of schools that replied had a policy in place. All too often, schools have simply disregarded departmental policies, and I think that the legislation has to call a halt to that. There has to be zero tolerance because, at the end of the day, we are talking about the health and well-being of our young people. The Bill will end that semi-detached attitude.

I look forward to Committee Stage, when we can look at the different aspects of bullying, such as sectarianism, racism and, as I mentioned, homophobia, as well as how the legislation can be expanded to how we deal with cyberbullying. These are not just issues for the classroom; they go far wider than that, into society.

I welcome the fact that the Minister said that the Bill is not a straightjacket or a very rigid approach. We need a consistent approach across the board. If we are to deal with bullying through a partnership between communities, schools and parents, it has to be done in the same way across the board. One sector cannot do it differently.

I welcome the inclusive definition. It is a very practical and usable definition that will be central to the success of the Bill, and I think that it gives confidence to teachers. Going back to a RSE policy, I think that teachers were sometimes afraid to deal with certain types of bullying. Perhaps they thought that it would be better to leave it and let someone else deal with it, but that does not do pupils any favours.

The Minister touched on the notion of something being just traditional banter. As a member of a football club and someone who has coached young people in football clubs, I see this taking place and hear language that is " just traditional banter". Those days are gone, so we need to knock that on the head and set in place good policies. The Bill gives us an opportunity to do so.

You would think that the recording of incidents would, by now, be taken as read across the board, but, unfortunately, that is not the case. I also welcome that.

I know that some will look at the Bill as placing more responsibilities on governors. We have to look at building the capacity of boards of governors to address the issue. The Bill brings, if not a level of accountability to teaching staff etc, some help in being able to look at bullying as a whole. Most importantly, it gives a wider focus. Bullying should be on the agenda of all meetings of boards of governors. It is an issue that should be addressed across the board.

Finally, I welcome the Bill, and I think that the wider school community and the wider public will welcome it. It comes at a pertinent time, and I look forward to hearing the thoughts of others.

Mr Rogers: I welcome the opportunity to speak at Second Stage. I declare an interest as chair of the board of governors of Grange Primary School.

At the outset, it is important to thank Peter and the Committee team for their support. I also thank Caroline and the team in the Department. They have been helpful, and we look forward to more help as we go through Committee Stage.

The Bill illustrates something very important: education is about the education of the whole person. It is about ensuring that our children have the necessary opportunities to fulfil their potential in a secure learning environment. That is why I believe that pastoral care is so important, and that is where the Bill fits in.

At the outset, I must commend the great work that goes on in our schools to address the issue. Recently, the Northern Ireland Anti-Bullying Forum organised various events as part of a wider anti-bullying event. Last Friday, when I visited the school that I referred to earlier, I was met by three P5 and P6 children with their iPads, showing me very enthusiastically their prize-winning project — a little programme that they had devised in an after-school ICT club, and which they were going to demonstrate to the rest of the school.

Article 19 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 requires that all schools must have a good discipline and good behaviour policy that addresses how a school should respond to instances of bullying or complaints about bullying. A key principle in more recent departmental publications such as 'Every School a Good School' highlights the fact that all our efforts should be child-centred. Today's Bill seeks to refocus our attention on tackling bullying in our schools and to provide unified legislative action and duties to guide schools on the best possible practice when it comes to dealing with it. The Bill seeks to empower schools and the Assembly through specific legislative powers conferred under the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

From my experience many years ago, in the pre-cyberbullying era, bullying took many forms. It could have been name-calling, teasing, physical attack, isolation, exclusion, gossiping, belongings being stolen or hidden or being blackmailed into doing something that you knew was wrong. My experience tells me that emotional hurt can have even more long-term consequences than physical hurt. That list is by no means exhaustive, but bullying can be hard to detect in a school situation and is, therefore, hard to address.

In particular, the Bill gives a specific definition of bullying that schools can follow. The new definition incorporates verbal, written and electronic communication, and physical acts of abuse that aim to cause physical or emotional harm. I welcome that definition of bullying, and I further welcome the incorporation of the aggressive use of electronic communication. I welcome this because the instances and complexities of bullying have, along with everything, continued to grow and evolve as technology has. There was bullying back in 2003, but today, in a world of smartphones and social media, the ability to bully, antagonise and humiliate has never been greater. There is nowhere to hide from the cyberbully. Those who are bullied may be harassed in many more ways than ever before, and it is a truly sad and regrettable situation when it occurs. A definition of bullying that reflects this and places a duty to respond ensures that our schools and their staff are aware of the impact of online harassment and are empowered to intervene.

Bullying remains a massive issue for our schools, education system and society in general to deal with. Statistics on the extent of bullying can be elusive because of the very nature of bullying and the silence surrounding it. Official statistics may shed only a partial light on the extent of the problem. In the United Kingdom, there were 26,000 child counselling sessions on bullying, over 7,000 counselling sessions involving online bullying, and over 16,000 young people were absent from school due to bullying. Over 50% of LGBT pupils have faced an incident of homophobic bullying.

As well as providing a definition of bullying, the Bill further seeks to expand on the duties and responsibilities of boards of governors, allowing school administrators to manage and monitor bullying in schools more effectively. Clause 2 places a duty on schools to determine policies that protect pupils when on school premises, when travelling to and from school and when a pupil is under the responsibility of a member of staff. The clause further places a duty on a school to review its bullying policy actively through consultation with staff, pupils and parents. I strongly support the principle behind the clause, but I have a couple of concerns. I believe that the language, to:

should be stronger and more specific, placing a duty on a school actively to review its policies and practice annually. Schools review their policy and practice as part of the annual review of their school development plan, so I think that this should be incorporated in that. That makes sense when outlining a school's responsibility. I also feel that the clause ignores the nature of electronic bullying, which continues long after the school bell. Children in Northern Ireland may get bullied by peers whom they never see in the school day.

Again, speaking from experience, I also have concerns about how a school can be held responsible for alleged incidents outside the school gates on the way to and from school.

Clause 2(b)(ii) draws attention to that, stating:

Although schools will make every effort to get to the bottom of an issue, I know, again from experience, that it becomes very complex when you are dealing with different schools, and even more complex if the other person, be it the bully or the one being bullied, is not at school. Even bullying within the school fence is complex.

Clause 3 places a duty on schools to record incidents and alleged incidents of bullying so that there is a proper data system on the number of bullying incidents. Most schools should have a record of bullying. They probably have it in hard copy at the minute, but here we are talking about getting it on to the school information management system (SIMS). That would allow staff to have detailed progress of incidents while allowing them to determine behaviours and motivations. That would certainly be useful, not only in tackling bullying in general but in collating new, specific statistics on bullying. The motivation list is fairly robust and covers multiple causes. Its is important that the data entry on SIMS not be cumbersome and that access to the data be well controlled.

The SDLP supports the general principles of the Bill. It is an important step towards creating an anti-bullying culture in our schools, and in society in general. There are major implications for the training of our governors, for initial teacher education and for continuing professional development. Above all, schools must work with parents and children to ensure that they can address bullying, especially cyberbullying, in a rapidly changing technological age. Schools will be the drivers of that as they build their anti-bullying culture in the school community. We hope that, through the Bill, schools will be able to tackle all forms of bullying, recognise the methods of bullying and understand the motivations behind bullying, because, unless they are happy and feel safe in the school environment, children will not achieve their potential. We have to bear in mind that children spend only about 20% of their school years in school. I hope that the strengthening of legislation will ensure greater consistency, not only across schools but in the wider educational field; for example, in our youth clubs and other community organisations that young people are involved in.

Mrs Overend: On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I welcome the progression of the Bill to address bullying in grant-aided schools to its Second Stage. Saying that is not in any way to suggest that grant-aided schools do not already address bullying. However, it is surely right that we as legislators make sure that the law is clear and right up to date, particularly in the light of recent technological innovations and the omnipresence of the Internet in education. Cyberbullying requires particular focus. Advances in technology are so fast, and they need to be embraced rather than ignored.

I place on record my appreciation of the work of the Northern Ireland Anti-Bullying Forum over a number of years. As the Minister mentioned, it produced a review of anti-bullying policies in local schools in 2013. That review informed the Department of Education's public consultation exercise, which was carried out in January and February 2015. I recognise the good work of the Northern Ireland Anti-Bullying Forum in schools across Northern Ireland. Indeed, the PSNI is also keen to be proactive on the matter. In fact, I was speaking to the police today about a case in my constituency. I find that my local schools want to address bullying, and they will welcome updated legislation.

The Ulster Unionist Party made a written contribution to the public consultation process in spring of this year, and the Bill is the product of that process, which received almost 5,000 responses. It must be noted that 85% of the respondents were young people. That is commendable, but it also shows the high level of importance attached to tackling bullying and the strength of feeling among our young people that bullying must be eliminated.

I note that the Bill is a short Bill, with five clauses. It provides a definition of "bullying" that includes a reference to electronic communications. It defines the responsibilities of a school's board of governors, sets out the duty on a board of governors to keep a record of incidents and to ascribe motivations to incidents. All of that is to be recorded, and it is estimated that adapting and maintaining the IT system for that will cost in the region of £40,000, which is to be found out of existing budgets. I would like the Minister to expand on that. What exactly are those IT requirements? Will extra training be required for school staff? What exactly are the financial effects of the Bill when broken down? Is it not the case that the current C2k school information management system has a facility for teachers to record pupil behavioural issues? Seven years ago, there was a pilot scheme to assess the usefulness of a specially created module within that IT system to record bullying incidents. I hope that lessons learned in that pilot can be used and a common and consistent reporting method incorporated into the C2k system.

The definition of bullying in clause 1 deserves further consideration. As it stands, it appears that any example of aggressive behaviour by a child in school or any playground scuffle between two pupils will be recorded as a bullying incident. We require further examination of that.

The consultation document suggested that a particular governor would be designated as the responsible person for a school's anti-bullying policy. That could, conceivably, have fallen to a lay governor, which would have radically changed that role and raised capacity challenges. If it were the responsibility of the teacher representative on the board of governors, who may already be charged with child protection and safeguarding duties, questions would have been raised about the increasing administrative and non-teaching burdens falling on teacher-governors. However, I notice that the suggestion that one person on the board of governors should be responsible for a school's anti-bullying policy has not been carried forward into the Bill.

This legislation aims to apply to bullying by pupils only:

That does not appear to take cognisance of cyberbullying, which nowadays could be carried out on Internet-enabled devices provided by the school but used outside school hours. I understand that advice on cyberbullying is to be included in the legislative guidance that will accompany the new law. I would like to know more about that. Cyberbullying is a growing problem in our schools, aided by the fact that young people can now have virtually constant access to the Internet and bullies can target victims at any time of the day or night. Traditionally, bullying might have taken place in the playground or elsewhere on school premises, allowing schools to take action to tackle the problem once detected. With cyberbullying, the problem becomes more complex. I have been contacted by local schools and concerned parents seeking clarity on the responsibilities and powers that schools possess in relation to cyberbullying that occurs outside school premises and school hours.

I recently asked the Education Minister to provide clarity to parents and teachers with regard to the responsibilities in taking action on cyberbullying. He replied:

The Minister also told me:

Those answers have been replicated with a very minimalist approach to cyberbullying in the legislation. This issue requires closer scrutiny at Committee Stage. We also need to see the supporting guidance to the Bill. What form will the guidance take? Who will write it? When will it be finalised? Realistically, will it be available before the end of March 2016 when the Assembly will be dissolved?

I am glad to see this legislation making progress and I look forward to contributing to the Committee Stage. There were nearly 5,000 responses to the consultation, with 85% from pupils. I will leave the last word to one of those pupils, who wrote to the Department. Angus, a six-year-old, in responding to question 8 under "Any other comments" in the children's version of the consultation document, simply wrote, "Stop bullying. OK?" That is what we, as legislators, must see through.

Mr Lunn: I join others in welcoming the Bill. It is overdue, and I am glad to see that the Minister is, hopefully, going to fit it into the schedule before the imminent end of this mandate on 29 March.

Bullying, as others have said, takes many forms. It can be quite open and overt. It can be insidious and hidden. It can go unnoticed and, sadly, unacknowledged. That has sometimes been a problem. While our principals and staff in schools do their very best, I am sure, there are times when bullying goes under the radar because they do not accept that it has actually happened. I agree with the Minister when he says that, sometimes, it is passed off as just kids being kids or banter; it goes way beyond that, a lot of the time. Mr Hazzard was right when he pointed out that it leads to examples of self-harm. It leads to worse than that, tragically.

I am glad that we are starting to address the problem in a more considered way than it has been addressed in the past. I am sure that, as parents or grandparents or even those of us who have a memory of our childhood, we know that it has always happened. However, these days, the ways and means of going about bullying, if you are so disposed, are much more diverse. With all the electronic means available — cyberbullying has been mentioned — it is far more complex and complicated than it ever was in the past.

I have a few comments to make about the wording of the Bill. That is not to say that we are going to table amendments; I just want to flag up one or two things. In the definition, for instance, there is reference to:

An act of bullying does not have to be repeated. A single act of bullying can be just as serious as a repeated one, so I query that definition, just slightly. I share Mrs Overend's concern about the fact that it refers to the use of an electronic communication but does not really tie down the extent. If two pupils have iPads and one effectively bullies the other within school hours and continues to do it after hours, it really is the same thing, if they are at the same school. We may have to pay a little more attention to that.

In other definitions of bullying, I notice that the word "aggressive" creeps in. It is not in this definition — maybe it does not need to be — but that is worth looking at. I notice that in one definition — I must say that it comes from America, so I would not pay it too much attention — it says:

That is another way of looking at it. While I am on the subject of America, I will say that all 50 states in the United States have anti-bullying legislation, which, you might think, is quite forward-looking. Most American states also specifically outlaw homophobic bullying, except for the southern states, where they do not allow any discussion of LGBT matters at all. There is the difference: leaders of the free world.

In subsection (2) of the definition, it says:

I presume that that is meant to point to deliberate exclusion or isolation, as Mr Rogers mentioned, but I wonder why it has to be in there separately. Why not just say "act or omission" in subsection (1)? I am just pointing up what I notice at first reading.

On page 2, clause 2(3) states:

That seems to be the duty that is on a principal at the moment. Do we take it that that duty is being transferred to the board of governors? I do not understand; maybe the Minister can clarify, when he sums up, what the reason for that is.

Clause 3(3), further down the page, says:

Here we go again with "may" and "shall" or "must" and "should". I cannot help thinking that it should at least say "shall". I notice that the explanatory memorandum says "must". We will clarify that at some stage.

Moving on to the various categories, I notice that Mr Hazzard, I think it was, mentioned sectarianism, which is not specifically mentioned. "Political opinion" and "religion or belief" are, but we have a particular problem here with sectarianism, so maybe it needs to be in as a separate item.

I imagine that "sexual orientation" at clause 3(3)(j) could be construed as including homophobic bullying in all its forms. Some of us, however, have had quite a long journey trying to highlight that problem. Mr Rogers mentioned that 50% of LGBT pupils had had an experience of being bullied because of the way that they are. That is utterly disgraceful. That would come as a surprise, and it also points up the fact that there has never been a requirement, until now, to categorise and record those types of bullying separately. Frankly, I can never understand why, when it is such a problem. The scale of the problem is highlighted by the statistic that Mr Rogers gave. I wonder whether we need a more specific reference to homophobic bullying, but, again, we will talk that through at Consideration Stage. The British Psychological Society (BPS) would have something to say for the record about the effect of homophobic bullying on schoolchildren, just as it had something to say about the effect on adults. Maybe we will talk to it.

Having said all that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am very pleased to see the Bill coming forward. I hope that we can get it through by the end of the mandate, because it would be a tragedy if we did not.

Mr Weir mentioned the possibility of league tables and vexatious complaints and claims. I hope that we do not have to go there; that would be entirely counterproductive. The point here is to acknowledge the problem and to collate the extent of it, as that would help you to understand and to then deal with it in its many forms.

I look forward to the further progress of the Bill. I look forward to Committee Stage as we get into detailed discussion, and I hope that we can finalise it and that the Queen will sign it before the end of term.

Mr Craig: On behalf of my party, I welcome this Bill on anti-bullying. It is fascinating to hear how many people have fed into the consultation on the Bill. That in itself, as the Minister said, highlights how big an issue this is in schools. I will declare an interest: I am on the board of governors of both Killowen Primary School and Laurelhill Community College. I suppose the irony is that I have just received a text message about bullying issues in one of those schools.

What I wish to say concerns the definition itself. Some Members, whom I listened to carefully, are worried about how accurately you define electronic bullying. It was put to me that it is important not to be overly wordy in your definition of bullying. We need catch-all statements, and, looking at what is in the Bill, we see that the term "electronic communication" is a catch-all. That will be welcomed by a lot of schools, because, until now, technology has been well and truly ahead of what any legislation has stated anywhere. Schools, I know for a fact, have struggled with the issue. The difficulty with electronic communications is that they occur not only within schools, from pupil to pupil, but out of schools, into and around schools and, unfortunately, between pupils out of school.

That has always caused a huge conundrum, not only for governors but for teachers in schools. Many a time, it ends up being dealt with by the police.

I welcome the fact that there is a word definition of electronic bullying in the Bill, but I ask the Minister to check with his officials that it is a catch-all definition. If we try to define every electronic device or every piece of software, ultimately someone will get away with bullying because it was done through something that was not mentioned in the Bill. The catch-all definition is much better and is more effective.

I noticed something else interesting about the definition of bullying in the Bill, and I ask the Minister to think long and hard about it. I have no intention of tabling any amendments, but, thinking back to my experiences in schools, I have seen instances of pupils bullying teachers to a very serious extent. To my recollection, I am not at all certain that it was dealt with effectively. I note that, for some reason, all the definitions of bullying in clause 1 are between pupils; it is almost as if it is excluding any other form of bullying, should it be between pupil and teacher or even vice versa. I ask the Minister to think about that because it is an issue that needs to be dealt with. I would welcome some thought on that being included in the definition.

I have looked carefully at the responsibilities for boards of governors, and I welcome the fact that there is now legislation that will put an imperative on governors to take responsibility for anti-bullying policies. I would like the Minister to clarify that in his closing remarks because I take it that it is policy. I do not want governors having to take responsibility for the implementation of the policy in a school; we need to make that very clear. Governors are not in schools on a daily basis, and they are not there to see the minutiae of what goes on in schools. In primary schools, principals or vice principals are predominantly responsible for dealing with bullying issues on a daily basis. In secondary schools, there are usually heads of department or a head of pastoral care who will deal very effectively with the policies in the school.

Sadly, I have to admit that there are schools that do not have effective anti-bullying policies. In my elected role, I have, unfortunately, dealt with some that do not have an effective policy, and I hope and pray that they do now after the advice that I gave them. I am fortunate: I sit on the boards of governors of two schools that have very effective anti-bullying policies, and I praise them for it. I welcome the fact that there is an imperative on all schools to produce an anti-bullying policy and to follow it. I also welcome the fact that there is a duty under clause 3 to keep records of such incidents in the school. When I look at that, I think to myself, "That's just common sense. All schools should do that". However, if we look at our schools across the Province, we find that that is not universal practice, so that is to be welcomed. Those are the good things about the Bill, and I welcome them.

The other issue is one that teachers have raised with me: the fictitious or false accusations made not only against teachers but, unfortunately, against other pupils, usually to hide some wrong or indiscretion by another pupil in the school. This happens in the real world, and it happens a lot more frequently than any of us would like. I ask that, in the Bill, we find a balance that allows teachers and governors some form of mediation to enable them to make a judgement on what is correct and what is fictitious.

I welcome the Bill, the steps forward for all schools and the level of consistency that it will introduce across all of them. However, we need to be careful, because it will not resolve bullying in our schools. Bullying is an age-old problem, and it is one that will not go away because we have introduced legislation. Hopefully, the Bill will lead to a more effective and consistent approach to bullying across all of our schools, and I commend it to the House.

Mr Kennedy: I am pleased to speak at Second Stage of this important, if concise, legislation. I declare an interest as chairman of the board of governors of Bessbrook Primary School and as a member of the board of governors of Newry High School. Once again, I confirm to the House that, as it knows, my wife is a teacher. I think that nearly every schoolchild knows that.

I reiterate the comments of my colleague Sandra Overend. Of course, we are not starting from scratch, but this is an update to the law and one that is, I think, timely. The current law stipulates that every school must have an anti-bullying policy and a child protection policy. Indeed, at the most recent meeting of the Bessbrook board of governors, we agreed both, which is good practice. Under the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, all grant-aided schools have to include in their overall policies one that contains measures to prevent all forms of bullying among pupils. Obviously, however, the world has moved on since 2003, so we, as a party, support moves to update the law so that it better addresses bullying in schools.

Twelve years on from the last major legislative change, there are still wide variations in the quality of anti-bullying policies and practices among schools, and in the consistency with which the policies are being applied. The consistency of existing anti-bullying policies has been called into question by research by the Northern Ireland Anti-Bullying Forum, the National Children's Bureau Northern Ireland and Stranmillis College. That led to the conclusion that tighter legislation was required to protect young people from the impacts of bullying.

The NSPCC has collated some unofficial statistics on bullying from recent research studies, and they make interesting reading. The research revealed that, across the United Kingdom, almost 45,000 children talked to ChildLine about bullying in 2013; over 1,400 young people talked to ChildLine about racist bullying; over half of lesbian, gay and bisexual young people have experienced homophobic bullying at school; and more than 16,000 young people are absent from school due to bullying.

Those are worrying statistics.

Northern Ireland's anti-bullying legislation must be updated to take into consideration online bullying or cyberbullying, and more emphasis should be put on dealing with homophobic bullying. I do not believe that, as constituted at present, clauses 2 and 3 deal with this issue completely. We really need to see the guidance that is meant to accompany the legislation. The Committee obviously needs to carry out its scrutiny role in the short period that we have to get the Bill onto the statute book before the end of this Assembly mandate. There is no doubt that parents and teachers have a very important role to play in keeping children safe online. Various organisations have very welcome campaigns that have helped to inform and educate young people and their parents about online risks. However, in the continuing absence of an Internet safety strategy from OFMDFM, I ask the Minister to consider a more explicit reference to cyberbullying in the Bill. On the use of the school property, like tablet computers, in loco parentis and the primacy of parental responsibility outside school apply. However, as my colleague Sandra Overend pointed out, pupils nowadays have access to Internet-enabled electronic devices that are supplied by schools but used outside of traditional school hours.

Clause 3 introduces a duty on schools to keep a record of all bullying incidents and to state what the motivation behind each incident appears to be. We support this, but the data has to be reliable to show where the problems lie, otherwise, effective anti-bullying work will not be properly targeted. I ask the Minister, in his winding-up speech, to address whether he thinks that there will be any resistance from the school sector to the requirements enshrined in clause 3 to record and categorise the motivation behind bullying incidents. Some care needs to be taken that it does not lead to school bullying league tables being published to be pored over by the press more generally.

The current legislation stipulates that every school has to have an anti-bullying policy. It is the quality and rigour of those anti-bullying policies that has been called into question by research carried out by the Anti-Bullying Forum and backed up by anecdotal evidence. For those reasons, my party and I support moves towards bringing tighter legislation to the Assembly to protect young people from the impacts of bullying. Those moves are still a work in progress. The definition in clause 1 needs to be looked at more carefully. We would be very wise not to stray too far from internationally accepted definitions. The list of 10 motivating factors in clause 3 needs to be examined in more detail, as it is not clear where they came from and why other factors did not make the list. I look forward to Committee Stage in order to drill down into the issues, but the Ulster Unionist Party broadly welcomes the Bill.

Ms Lo: I declare an interest: I am a school governor of Cranmore Integrated Primary School in south Belfast.

When I first read the Bill, I wondered why the Department's guidelines on schools' current policies are not sufficient, so much so that we need to introduce legal obligations. The fact that we need legislation to address bullying is perhaps an indication that schools have not done enough. I note the comments from the Committee Chair and, to some extent, Mr McIlveen, that the legislation will not be a magic wand and that it probably will not eradicate bullying. As legislators, however, we need to do our best to protect our children from the harm of bullying.

I am particularly concerned by the high levels of racist bullying in our schools. Last year's annual human rights and racial equality benchmarking report revealed some very shocking results. The report stated that 75% of children from ethnic minority groups experienced derogatory, racist name-calling. It also said that 42% of minority ethnic 16-year-old students had been the victims of racist bullying or harassment in their school. That is unacceptable. I say that not only as an MLA for an extremely diverse constituency but as a mother of two half-Chinese sons who were subjected to racist bullying in their early schooling. Although, funnily enough, when I asked them over the weekend whether they recalled those incidents, they had no recollection, but I certainly remember the heartache and anger that they caused us as parents at the time.

I recently met Patrick Yu of the Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities (NICEM), who outlined to me the council's concerns with the Bill. I will highlight some key points. He said that the definition of "bullying" in the Bill may not be compatible with EU equality directives, which have a common definition of "harassment". NICEM recommends amending the definition of "bullying" to include acts or omissions against another pupil, with the purpose and effect of causing harm or adversely affecting the rights or needs of the child and that create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. NICEM has also raised the concern that the Bill is too limited, in that it does not extend to situations outside of school. Students know one another from school, so, if bullying takes place between classmates but is in a public place, in their neighbourhood or over the Internet, which I imagine is becoming increasingly common, the school should be involved. The proposed legislation should take into account outside situations in order to safeguard victims.

There is also a link between racist bullying and educational under-attainment that must be acknowledged. A NICEM report from 2011 looked at the impact of racist bullying on black and minority ethnic (BME) children, particularly Roma and Traveller children. It clearly showed that bullying played a role in low attendance rates and high levels of illiteracy. The Equality Commission's report, 'Every Child an Equal Child', states that 92% of Traveller children leave school without any qualifications. Racist bullying does not just discourage attendance or exacerbate poor grades but contributes to a sense of exclusion. In fact, the 2011 report states that 25% of BME pupils are subjected to exclusion from school activities and to verbal threats.

There are practical measures that can be taken. I would support the appointment of a designated teacher and school governor to be responsible for dealing with racist bullying. The Department and the Education Authority should not only bring in experts to conduct professional training but educate pupils on the unacceptable behaviour of bullying and the different forms that it takes.

Communication between the school and parents should be strengthened, ensuring that information on bullying policy is available. That should include translated materials.

NICEM believes that racist bullying is worsened by the fact that schools are not designated as public authorities in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which means that schools are not subject to the section's equality duties. The Education and Libraries Order 2003 requires grant-aided schools to have an anti-bullying discipline policy. However, the lack of centralised guidance certainly results in less awareness surrounding bullying, particularly racist bullying. I therefore welcome the legislation and will vote in favour of it.

I would like to make one final and very important point. The disturbing numbers of BME children who suffer racial bullying highlights the deficiencies and underlying gaps in the protection of ethnic minorities in Northern Ireland across all key policy areas. I do not need to remind the House that we are still waiting for the racial equality strategy. Policy deficiencies must be rectified to tackle the underlying inequalities and prejudices that cause hate crime in Northern Ireland.

Mr Allister: I declare, again, that I am chairman of the board of governors of Moorfields Primary School. Bullying is, of course, something that every reasonable effort must be made to stamp out in our schools. It is a pernicious and cruel thing that can leave lasting damage to many children. Therefore, we need to and should do all that we can.

I have a number of issues with the Bill that I would like to give voice to. First, I want to address the very idea of the Bill itself in the context of what the Education Order 1998, as amended, already provides. It already imposes on a board of governors a statutory duty to work up, have and live by a scheme of management within a school. Under article 3 of the 1998 Order, that scheme of management requires regard to be had to all guidance issued by the Department. The vehicle exists in the 1998 Order, as amended, for the Department to issue guidance on matters such as bullying. That scheme of management, the order states:

Here is a statutory duty being put on a principal. It then lists a number of things, one of which is:

The law as it stands requires a scheme of management that places a statutory duty on the principal, in particular, to prevent all forms of bullying. This Bill will create a sort of dichotomy where responsibility in respect of bullying shifts from the principal to the board of governors. Clause 2(3) abrogates and removes the statutory duty on the principal with regard to:

It creates a rather strange situation where the principal still has the surviving statutory duty to encourage good behaviour and respect for others on the part of pupils but no longer has the duty to prevent all forms of bullying among pupils. Of course, good practice suggests that a principal would still seek to do that, but the Bill seems to take the bullying dimension of that obligation and, effectively, superimpose it on the board of governors. It is they who, then, must determine the measures to be taken at the school, according to clause 2. It is they who must prepare a written statement of such measures, ensure that that is available to all parents etc and deal with the implementation of the anti-bullying policy.

As someone has observed in the debate, boards of governors by their very nature are not present on anything like a daily basis in the school; they have an oversight management role. The daily supervision and hands-on activity in the school rests with the principal and the teachers. I ask whether it is a step forward to remove the statutory duty on the principal to prevent all forms of bullying among pupils and to put that within the measures and framework that the governors must devise and oversee. I am sure that, within that framework, they can devolve functions to the principal, but it strikes me as a little odd that that course has been taken. Since the statutory framework existed in the 1998 Order, as amended in 2003, to compel adherence to guidance on bullying, among other things, why is that path not being trod rather than the path of the Bill? I am sure that the Minister will have an explanation for that.

There are other things in the Bill that I would like to comment on. Clause 3 sets out a requirement to keep records; I will come back to that in a moment. One of the things that must be recorded is the motivation that, from all the circumstances, appears to have lain behind the incident of bullying. Clause 3(3) says:

— that is the one that proposes the obligation to state the reason —

and then it lists 10 items. What surprises me there is the obvious omission of a catch-all clause. It seems that the person who makes the record is being directed to tick one of the boxes, but there are incidents of bullying outside of those boxes. One of the most distressing incidents of bullying that I have come across was where a young child was picked on by other children and bullied because he did not have the material things in life that the other kids had. He was picked on because he did not go on holiday or have this or that, and that child was demeaned and diminished and bullied on a have/have-not basis.

I must say that I found that it made me very angry that such a situation could arise. Which box would you tick on this tick-box exercise for that? I think there is a need, if we are going to stipulate motivations, to have a catch-all that obviously allows for a more expansive attributing of motives than what is in this Bill. Jealousy can often be a motivation for bullying or the type of example that I gave. I think that is a deficiency that needs to be addressed in the Bill.

On the question of keeping records, I understand that, yes, it is important to keep records, but I will ask this: how long are they to be kept for? Can the Department do anything if they are not kept? Can the Department do anything if they are destroyed? I ask those questions in the context of a case that the Minister will be familiar with, because I have been in correspondence with his Department about it. It is a case from Ballymoney, in my constituency, where bullying was part of the matrix of complaints by parents. A particular primary school there was asked by the parents for all the material relating to the complaint that they made. Under legislation dating back to 1923, there is an obligation to maintain public records, and the Department has issued a disposal of records schedule to schools detailing how they should handle, keep and destroy, when relevant, records. In this case, when the parent asked to see the records that were kept relating to this complaint, they got back a reply from the chair of the board of governors that said:

This was a special needs child, and the disposal requirements are that you keep the records for five years, but, in this case, they were destroyed after a few months. In fact, it is a criminal offence, it says, for schools to destroy or to conceal information for the purpose of preventing disclosure. The Minister's reply on that case was that it was really a matter for the Information Commissioner's office and that it would be inappropriate, therefore, for the Department of Education to investigate the issues that I wrote to it about. It would be inappropriate. The parent went to the Information Commissioner, who, having completed his investigation, found that there were breaches of the Data Protection Act regarding delay in responses and failure to supply disclosable information but advised that he had no power to act in relation to the acknowledged destruction of the records, contrary to the disposal of school records schedule. Not surprisingly, I wrote back to the Department and said, "The Information Commissioner says that he cannot do anything about the destruction of the records. What are you, the Department, going to do?" The Minister replied by letter and also put on record in an answer to AQW 47941:

My question to the Minister tonight is about clause 3, where he imposes an obligation, understandably, to keep records. Will it continue to be the position that, if those records are destroyed and not kept, he is powerless and that, as in the case that I cited, the Department will simply shrug and say, "We have no powers to do anything about it"? Will these records be subject to the same schedule that deals with the disposal of school records? If they are, it is pretty meaningless if records are destroyed, as in the case that I cited.

Maybe the Minister needs to look at putting into the Bill something to stiffen the law on implementing the disposal of records provisions. Maybe he will look at that as something that could and should be done on the back of this Bill, because there is not much point in talking about a duty to keep records of an incident of bullying if failure to keep them results in no action being possible by the Department. So I trust that that will be looked at in light of the experience in the incident that I cited. Otherwise, I see the sense, subject to seeking an explanation, as to why this has not been done by amending the 1998 Order, as already amended, or by guidance.

Certainly, I am very supportive of anything that can help to clamp down on the pernicious practice and the far-reaching consequences of bullying, which, sadly, does happen in the school environment.

Mr B McCrea: I listened to the start of the debate and heard the Minister outline his objectives, which were, as I understand it, to define bullying, to give duties to a board of governors, and to make sure that records are maintained. I then listened to Mr Peter Weir talk about how pleased he was that, at this time of night, maybe some people would be listening to what we had to say, because time does go on, and you wonder whether anybody is listening. The point that I think he made was that, although there may not be huge numbers in the Chamber now, a lot of people will be looking in from outside.

I want to bring it to the attention of the House that I recently attended a conference organised by Mr Weir's colleague the Chair of the Justice Committee, where they talked, at some length, about cybercrime. What was interesting about that conference was that the police and quite a few authorities were there to talk about the Dark Web, the millions being taken from our businesses and all the things that will happen to our society as a result of cybercrime. What was really interesting, however, was that the majority of those listening were teachers or pupils, and they were saying, "That is all very well; we are not interested in that. What we are interested in is bullying — online cyberbullying.". There was an interesting discussion about what we were really there to talk about.

None other than the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Declan Morgan, was there, and he does not speak lightly on these matters. He actually gave a prepared statement. He said a lot of important things, but one of the most important was his account of a conference — a Commonwealth conference, as it happens — that he had been at in Canada. He said that cyberbullying was a huge concern for young people and those who care for them. At that conference, Canada reported that 250,000 children were bullied in that way every year, some, I am afraid to say, with tragic and fatal results. The Lord Chief Justice said:

He said that this was ongoing and would require education and an understanding of what privacy means.

I have listened to people saying all sorts of things about trying to expand the legislation, not ignoring cybercrime and bringing it into our consideration, but nobody has mentioned the fact that the difference between cybercrime and old-fashioned bullying in the playground is that it is impossible to identify the perpetrators. People hide behind aliases, and, if you close down one name, another one springs up. I, therefore, give notice to the Minister of Education, in a gentle way, that it might be possible to include something specific in the Bill, and it is something that came out of that conference: if a board of governors, a school authority or other responsible individuals come together and request the identity of someone using an anonymous handle online, that request should be expedited.

I realise that there are privacy issues and human rights issues, but what came forward at the conference was that you could see a pattern of abuse or a pattern of threats. You can see online comments, but you do not know who is making them. You could seek a court order to tell you who the person is, but, when you look at the comments again, they might, in the cold light of a day in court, seem innocuous. They are not innocuous to the person to whom they are addressed; they are insidious and damaging. I think that we might take the opportunity to do something by amendment. If we are to give these responsibilities to boards of governors, as the Minister suggests, we need to give them some opportunity to deal with cybercrime. If they have properly considered matters and reported them to the police, they should have the right to uncover the names of those behind the bullying.

I will not read out all that the Lord Chief Justice said — it is on the record — but he went on to say something strange but very important about this crime:

He is talking about a culture change that we need to bring forward. Here is what he said:

The Lord Chief Justice is saying, on the record and in public, that the law is deficient in this regard. He says that there needs to be a legislative response, and we should deal with the matter.

Some people might suggest dealing with this at some other stage. I am sure that the Minister, in attempting to get the Bill through the House before the end of the mandate, has tried to keep it fairly constrained and to set down what is achievable. However, the danger in not tackling the wider issues is that we risk losing another three to five years. The Lord Chief Justice said:

We have the opportunity now to do something definitive and give boards of governors or principals — I will come back to the point that Mr Allister raised in a moment — the powers to do it.

I hope that my final quotation will be an incentive to us all. Ms Lo raised the matter of harassment, and I am aware of the issues. The Lord Chief Justice said:

It happens in schools, and it happens to people of a younger age. We have to encourage the authorities and other responsible people to go to the police and ensure that they act on those matters.

I said that I wanted to suggest an amendment to give them that power, and that is all that I want to add to the Bill. However, I want to deal with issues that others have raised, which we will not be able to avoid, one of which is record-keeping. How long do you keep records? Who is allowed to look at records? What are the records to be used for, and how does that impinge on people's human rights? There is one further issue that is not dealt with in the Bill, but I can tell you that we will have to address it: how do we deal with false allegations or counter-allegations? Those issues are insidious and must be dealt with. I know that the Minister will try to keep the Bill tight so that we can progress it, but I do not think that you will be able to pass the Bill without having a schedule on how to deal with these things.

Mr Allister made this point for me, so I will mention it just for reinforcement. Clause 3(3) cites the purposes or motivation of an attack, but I do not see the words "small boy", "weak" or "not strong enough". I remember people being bullied at school, and they were not bullied on the basis of their gender, sexual orientation, background or whatever: they were bullied because some people were bigger than them and they were the runts of the class. I do not know how you deal with that.

On the definition, I heard Mr Craig say that he wanted us to be very careful that there was a catch-all about electronic communication. I have an even better catch-all, which Mr Craig might accept. The Bill says:

You could put in the word "any", to cover any form of communication. Clause 1(d) refers to the "intention of causing ... harm". I do not think that you need the limitation of intention. How do you prove what the intention was? Do you say, "It was only a joke. I didn't intend to hurt"? The issue is the outcome. The problem with the modern world of cyberbullying is that it is 24/7. There is no safe haven. In my day, at least when you got on the bus or got home, you had a place of safety. You could sit there and recuperate or whatever. Nowadays, it is constant: 24 hours a day and seven days a week. It does not matter where you are because it is everywhere. Cyberbullying is the real issue that we have to tackle.

I am pleased that the Minister has brought forward these issues. I understand the constraints that he is under, and I am not in any way trying to deflect him from this worthwhile issue. However, the deficiencies and challenges are such that we will need to put a fair amount of effort into adding on the issues that were raised. I hope that we do not try to rush it through in the hope of getting it done before the end of the mandate.

When people look online for the name "Basil McCrea", what comes up is quite interesting. It is not altogether good. Do you know the most interesting thing that comes up? You put in a little search, and the first thing you see is, "Basil McCrea: is he gay?". That is number one.

Number two is this: "Is he married?" When you look at what people search for, that is what comes up. I will tell you the reason why —

Mr Kennedy: What is number three?

Mr B McCrea: Sorry?

Mr Kennedy: What is number three? [Laughter.]

Mr B McCrea: At the risk of —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Can the Member relate it to the Bill, please?

Mr B McCrea: At the risk of getting people interested, you will have to look up number three yourselves.

I conclude by saying that some people were surprised when I first took a stance on LGB and T issues in a speech that I made from the Bench on which Mr Kennedy sits just now. They said, "I didn't think he was gay. Why is he speaking up?" I can tell you that the issue that brought it to my attention, and Mr McCallister was the man who brought that to my attention, was bullying. Homophobic, racist or any other type of bullying, where bigger people think that they can take advantage of smaller people, is abhorrent in any democracy. Later on, perhaps like Mr Lunn, you get to understand that there are different issues and different things that you can look at that contribute to the wider problem. However, the single most destructive thing in our society, because it is with people for years and years, is being bullied at school, and there is no greater deterrent than people being exposed for that bullying. That is why I want to see in the legislation some form of amendment that states, "Where boards of governors, principals or a responsible authority think that it is necessary, the courts will move immediately to remove anonymity from trolls and people who take advantage of our young people".

Mr McCallister: I suppose that that is one example of why you should never google yourself.

I commend the Minister for bringing forward the legislation. I accept from the debate that there are issues that the Committee will need to look at, and changes will need to be made. In other areas, it has been shown, particularly with homophobic bullying and homophobic crime, that, when the police get an understanding of the issue and really start to focus on it, you can change the culture, you can encourage people to report it and you can make sure that something is done about it. I am not saying that we are there on homophobic bullying, racist crimes or homophobic crimes, because we are not there, and I suspect that we probably never will be fully there. However, the examples, the lessons and the encouragement that the Minister should take from that is that, when resources are focused on those issues, things can change. The culture can change, and people can change when they reflect on and realise the harm that they are causing.

The issue of cyberbullying has to be addressed, because it follows people everywhere. There has been a huge change in the past 15 or 20 years. There is no escape from it. There is no getting away from it, and that extends to many walks of life and even, dare I say, to Members here. We saw some very unsavoury comments on Twitter about Labour MPs, because people happened to disagree with the way in which they voted in the Syria debate. I have seen it even with colleagues in here over issues such as equal marriage and because of how they voted in such debates. There were some quite unsavoury comments made that did not add up to a proper debate, which is what we should be having on various issues.

It is good that we focus on bullying to see how we can improve the situation. I take Mr Allister's point about where to place the duty. Do you place it on boards of governors or should it stay with principals? If we move it to boards of governors, do they have enough operational oversight to make a real difference? That is something to bear in mind and to look at.

Mr Craig brought up the issue of how we handle a situation if a teacher is on the other end of bullying. That can be particularly difficult for new teachers who are starting out on a career. I am sure that many of us can think of examples of people who left the teaching profession because of bullying or not being able to cope with a class and the pressures that that put on them. We have always had to address issues right across our workforce, and it is about what behaviour is now acceptable, whether in schools or in a workplace, compared with what was acceptable 20, 30 or 40 years ago, if it ever was deemed acceptable. There is important work for the Committee to do. I expect that the Bill will be passed to the Committee. Important changes may need to be made to the Bill and it will possibly have to be improved, but that is always part of the scrutiny process.

I am glad that the Bill is being debated because, quite frankly, the issue is too important for the Assembly and Executive not to address and look at how to help address the various issues. Bullying can have an impact on young lives and, I dare say, on rates of mental ill health, and very extreme cases can lead to suicide and self-harm. We should want to do all that we can as a society. The Assembly, Executive, families and communities should want to make sure that we have an appropriate response so that schools can and do deal with bullying effectively and give support to people.

Colleagues have highlighted that record-keeping is important as well, including issues such as how long records will be kept, who will have access to them and whether they will reflect on people's future employment. We need some reassurance that they could not find their way into the public domain at some future point, because it is a fair comment that government sometimes does not have a great track record of keeping information in a sensitive way. We have had some dreadful experiences over the years. Other than those reservations, I look forward to the passage of the Bill tonight, and I hope that it makes a tangible difference to rates of bullying in our schools and in wider society.

Mr O'Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I have listened with interest to the debate and welcome the interest that Members have shown in their contributions on this important matter. I thank the Education Committee for its positive engagement and support to date and I trust that it will continue to expedite the Bill, if it passes this evening, as it goes through its Committee Stage. I will reflect on the points that Members have raised during the debate. Moving the Bill to the next stage will afford us the opportunity to consider many of the issues more fully. Indeed, we can debate them more closely during the Committee Stage. It was, at times, a very in-depth discussion around various clauses. We are discussing the principles of the Bill today, but the Committee Stage is an ideal opportunity for Members to interrogate each clause separately and, if they intend to, to bring forward amendments or perhaps oppose a clause altogether.

I welcome the fact that everyone spoke from a point of view of wanting to assist schools in tackling bullying and wanting to ensure that our schools are safe places for the young people who attend them and that school is the most enjoyable part of the young person's life. When we look back at our school experiences, we want to look back on them with fondness and not dread and fear.

I will respond to a number of Members' contributions. Many Members covered the same points, and I apologise if I do not cover the contributions of all Members, but at times we did get into great detail on the Bill.

The Chair raised a number of points. Many Members touched on the role of the Bill with regard to cyberbullying. Many Members reflected on the fact that the Bill will not stop bullying: that is correct. We should not go down the road of believing that the Bill will stop cyberbullying. It is no more an opportunity to stop cyberbullying than to stop bullying in terms of racism, sexuality, bullying small people or, indeed, tall people. We cannot define legislation that will stop any of those things, but we have to define areas where bullying can take place. Cyberbullying is one of those areas. It is mentioned in the Bill, and we will issue further guidance on how schools and boards of governors are expected to deal with this matter and, indeed, to draw the boundaries to the attention of parents and pupils. The bigger issue of cyberbullying, in my opinion, is a criminal justice matter; it is not a matter for education legislation.

The Executive have been working through how we assist our entire society in dealing with cyberbullying. The Department has endorsed proposals by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to commission the Safeguarding Board to develop an e-safety strategy. We expect that to include consideration of cyberbullying in all forms and settings, and we will want to ensure that our own work on the forum is informed and aligned with that of the Safeguarding Board.

I would be concerned — I want to hear the Committee's deliberations on this — if we were to move forward with, for instance, Mr McCrea's proposal that boards of governors be given the power to go to court to find out the names of those behind alleged cyberbullying. I would be concerned about that because I am not sure that boards of governors want that power or whether we would be able to attract people to boards of governors if they had that power. It would place a new and criminal/legalistic responsibility on boards of governors. I know that the suggestion was well intended, but we should move forward with great caution on any proposals of that fashion. This Bill is not criminal justice legislation; it is to assist schools and boards of governors to deal with bullying in schools.

Many Members pointed out that cyberbullying takes place outside school. Schools have responsibility for the activities of their pupils if they are coming to or going from school, if they are on school activities or if teachers are out with a school group. Schools cannot be the 24-hour guardian of pupils. They simply cannot be that. It would be a legal quagmire to insist that schools became the 24-hour guardian of pupils' activities online, offline or any other activity. I am not even sure how it would work legally. I can understand Members wanting to bring as many matters into the Bill as possible to protect our young people, but we could end up having a journey and a discussion at the end of which we would have no revised legislation, no protection for young people and no support and guidance for teachers and boards of governors and we are wishing about what could have been. I have no doubt that cyberbullying and its implications will be much debated at Committee Stage, but I caution Members not to try to give a role to boards of governors that in many ways belongs to the criminal justice system. Boards of governors and schools cannot be expected to be 24-hour guardians of the activities of their pupils. That is simply impossible, in my humble opinion.

On the recording of incidents by schools, the Chair, Sandra Overend and others wondered how that would be achieved. C2k was, quite rightly, raised. Mrs Overend referred to the fact that there was a pilot scheme a number of years ago. Yes, there was, and lessons have been learned from that. A small number of schools continue to use that system, and lessons can be learned from it. C2k can be programmed to automatically generate management reports to the principal and board of governors on the anti-bullying data that is put in, so it is an ideal platform. There is a cost base of approximately £40,000, as has been said. However, given the nature and extent of bullying in our society and our willingness to tackle it and to assist schools in doing so, £40,000 is a very small contribution to make to achieve a recording system for our schools that is uniform, accessible to schools and up to date. I think our schools would welcome it if we were able to provide them with C2k.

Of course, data collected will be protected by the Data Protection Act 1998. It may be that broader information is made available under freedom of information requests, but I do not believe that personal data would be released under a freedom of information request. However, each case would have to be looked at in its own circumstances.

There is potential for the use of league tables etc, but we have to weigh that against the objective of the Bill, which is to protect our young people as best we can from bullying and to make sure that measures are put in place for that. Perhaps sections of the media may wish to run league tables, but what I want to see from the proper use of the data is schools having the information at hand so that they can see the trends of bullying in their schools and can react to them. As the Department of Education, we will be able to obtain information on universal trends across schools, and we will be able to react to that information and put in place policies and support to assist our schools moving forward.

Members touched on various aspects of bullying, the alleged rationale for bullying or the differences that people have from the bully. Quite rightly, homophobic bullying was raised. An alarming rate of homophobic bullying is being reported among our young people, and we have to do everything in our power to assist members of the gay community and to stand up to homophobic bullying. Ms Lo referred to racist bullying, which, again, is totally unacceptable. She set out personal examples of that.

Some Members asked why we had a list of possible motivations for bullying in clause 3(3). The key words are:

Those are the key words: "may include". We are not restricting. Some Members say that we have to have a catch-all term. I am sure that the Committee will debate that at length, and I look forward to those deliberations, but the key words are "may include". We are not ruling anything out, and we are not directing, as was perhaps suggested, anyone to say, "This is the list of motivations. If it does not fall into this list, you cannot record it". That will not be the case.

Mr Lunn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: I will.

Mr Lunn: We always seem to be talking about the words "may" and "shall", Minister. Why does the Minister think that the use of the word "shall" will exclude any other motivations? I do not understand that.

Mr O'Dowd: It actually highlights the points that other Members made: if we include the word "shall", it would read, "For the purposes of this subsection, motivation shall include". Then you rule out other things, in this instance. That is only my humble opinion. I may be wrong; it would not be the first time. If the Bill passes this stage, the Committee will debate that at length. I am more than happy to listen to the views of the Committee on that matter.

Turning to how you define intention, Ms Overend asked this: if there is a fight in the playground, is that bullying? These things happen in our schools; there may be a fight, a disturbance or a falling-out between pupils. I think that the key term is "repeated" actions or omissions. A one-off incident, under the definition as outlined, would not be classed as bullying. It is the repeated actions or omissions that define bullying, and that, therefore, gives guidance to the school about whether it is dealing with a bullying incident or a one-off falling-out, a dispute or whatever it may be. Schools will be able to assess that on that basis.

We are in a tight time frame for the legislation. I would like, of course, and the indications from the House are that Members would also like, the final legislation to be passed through the Assembly in this mandate and to receive Royal Assent at some stage afterwards. It is not the intention for the Act to become operational then; a commencement order will be signed at a later date. Within that time frame, we can produce guidance. We can work with and support our schools and boards of governors to ensure that they are prepared for the legislation coming into place and that they have the necessary training and guidance to make it a reality.

I have covered a number of points that Members made. Mr Craig asked why it refers only to bullying between pupils and not bullying of pupils by teachers and vice versa, which, as I often say, has also been reported to me. A school's disciplinary policy would apply in circumstances where a teacher was bullying a pupil or vice versa. I do not intend to interfere in that policy at this time through the Bill. This Bill is designed solely to deal with bullying of pupils by other pupils in the classroom, the school, or in the other venues that I referred to earlier. That is the purpose of this measure, and it is not my intention to go beyond it at this stage; I do not think that there is a need to go beyond that at this stage.

The role of boards of governors is key. A number of Members asked whether we were simply reversing the role of the board of governors and the principal, particularly Mr Allister, who quoted legislation that is in place and asked, "Do we need new legislation or could we amend the old legislation?" I argue strongly that we are not replacing the role of the principal; the principal's role will still be to prevent bullying in school. The role of the board of governors is to draw up policies, to ensure that the policies are implemented and to monitor bullying in a school.

Why bring forward new legislation? Mr Allister is quite correct: we could have amended the previous legislation. However, I think that one of the important matters in bringing forward legislation is that we as an Assembly send out a very clear message that bullying is wrong in any context and that we will play our part in updating legislation and in supporting schools to prevent and to deal with bullying. That is as important an aspect of delivering the legislation as the legislation itself, although, clearly, we want to end up with legislation that is workable, achieves its goals and supports the objectives.

I move on to the keeping of records. Mr Allister raised a very valid point here. Perhaps this is the legislation to ensure that — I think that he used the term "investigate"; I am not sure if we want to go as far as "penalise" — we can investigate, certainly, the destruction of documentation, as he pointed out. If the Information Commissioner could not act in the case to which he referred, is there an opportunity to do something in the Bill? I have no doubt that the Committee will take that on board, and I can assure the Member that, during my further deliberations on the Bill, I will take the matter on board to see how we can strengthen the Bill to ensure that, if data is being collected, it is properly stored for the required period to be useful into the future.

I apologise to Members if I have not covered each of their points individually, as they referred to many areas of the legislation. If the House agrees to move to Committee Stage, we will have an ideal opportunity to build on the legislation to ensure that it meets the objectives, which I think all Members agree with, and that it helps our schools and our pupils to — as Mrs Overend said in her closing remarks, quoting from a six-year-old — "Stop bullying. OK?" I am not sure that I will be able to name the legislation that, but, if we can keep ourselves focused on that objective, we will end up with an Act that meets the needs of our young people and schools moving forward.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): That concludes the Second Stage of the Addressing Bullying in Schools Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Education.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I call the Minister for Regional Development, Miss Michelle McIlveen, to move the Consideration Stage of the Water and Sewerage Services Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list.

There is a single group of amendments, amendment Nos 1 to 7. The amendments deal with technical matters, consultation and reporting, and opposition to clause 3 stand part. I remind Members who intend to speak that, during the debate on the group of amendments, they should address all the amendments in the group. Once the debate is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. The Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): We now come to the single group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 to 7 and the opposition to clause 3 stand part. Members will note that amendment Nos 3 and 4 are consequential to amendment No 1.

I call the Minister for Regional Development, Miss Michelle McIlveen, to move amendment No 1 and address the other amendments in the group.

Miss M McIlveen (The Minister for Regional Development): I beg to move amendment No 1:

Miss M McIlveen: There are seven amendments in total, six of which I believe strengthen the Bill and reflect the detailed work carried out by the Committee, the Office of the Legislative Counsel, the Examiner of Statutory Rules and officials in my Department.

I put on record my thanks to all involved in the process for the efforts that they have made. I am grateful for the support shown for the Bill. In particular, I thank the Committee for Regional Development for its positive engagement and thorough scrutiny of the Bill. During Committee Stage, the Committee raised several issues, and, as a result, I proposed a number of amendments to address those. I am pleased to say that the Committee has therefore agreed to support the Water and Sewerage Services Bill, subject to my proposed amendments.

Amendment Nos 1 to 5 help clarify certain aspects of the Bill but do not result in a material change to the policies agreed by the Executive prior to its introduction. Amendment Nos 1 to 4, which are to clause 3, involve a technical change to the power to repeal and, subsequently, to re-enact the requirement to install water meters for domestic connections. The Examiner of Statutory Rules considered that the powers included in clause 3 might go too far for subordinate legislation. He suggested a change to the drafting of the clause to enable the legislation either to suspend and revive the requirement to install water meters or to repeal the requirement entirely.

I have agreed a way forward with the Examiner and tabled an amendment that is of a minor and technical nature and uses the terms "suspend" and "revive" instead of "repeal" and "re-enact". That amendment addresses the Examiner’s concerns.

Amendment No 5 to clause 3 is to include district councils as statutory consultees on any subordinate legislation made under the clause. Clause 3 relates to the power to remove or relax the duty to install water meters. If the Department decided to make regulations under that clause, the consultation process would ordinarily include district councils. Therefore, I am happy to include them as statutory consultees.

In relation to clause 3, current legislation requires NI Water to install meters at all properties, whether domestic or non-domestic, that are connecting to the public water supply system for the first time. Meters have been installed at new domestic dwellings since 2007. However, they are not being read and are not being used for charging purposes. This is a result of the Executive’s decision not to introduce household charges during the current Assembly mandate. It costs about £45 to install each meter. During the period December 2014 to June 2015, 2,300 meters were supplied and installed at newly connected domestic properties, with an approximate cost of £103,500 for that six-month period.

With the number of new houses built each year being in the region of 3,000 to 4,000, the additional cost imposed by the legislation is approximately £135,000 to £180,000 per year. My predecessor expressed concern at that situation, particularly given the pressures on public funding, and, in November 2014, asked for the requirement to install meters at domestic properties to be removed. At its meeting on 15 January 2015, the Executive agreed the final policy proposals in respect of a new water Bill, including the power to make subordinate legislation to cease the obligation to install water meters at all new domestic connections. The Executive have undertaken not to introduce household charges in the current Assembly mandate, so this practice is causing nugatory expense that, in the current climate, cannot be sustained. The subsequent subordinate legislation required to enact the power to cease the installation of water meters will be subject to draft affirmative resolution, and a full consultation will take place. Should a future Assembly change its view on water charging, the subordinate legislation required to reverse the requirement to install water meters can be made fairly quickly. Since 2007, almost £2 million has been spent on that nugatory work that could very well have been spent on the much-needed upgrading of our water and sewerage infrastructure. Clause 3 is important to the Bill, and the public will be further assured on the position in respect of water charging, should the installation of water meters cease.

Amendment No 6 to clause 5 will add a specific reference to soft sustainable drainage systems, commonly known as soft SuDS. These are the use of landscaping, green areas or other natural features that can be designed into a new development to provide drainage. They will be added to the Bill and provide a fuller explanation of what is meant by the term "sustainable drainage systems".

The issue of soft sustainable drainage systems has been the subject of considerable debate. The Committee heard evidence from a number of stakeholders during the Committee Stage and provided constructive and useful comments on the issue. I have, therefore, sought to amend the Bill to reinforce the use of soft sustainable drainage systems. The amendment introduces the terminology relating to soft SuDS into the Bill but does not alter the original policy intent of the clause. The inclusion of that terminology will encourage the use of soft SuDS as well as the more traditional hard engineered solutions. I am grateful to the Committee for working so constructively with me and my officials in reaching a common position on that amendment.

The promotion of soft SuDS is also included in 'Sustainable Water – A Long Term Water Strategy', which is currently with the Executive for their agreement to publish. My officials will consult widely on the most suitable arrangements for approval and management of soft SuDS in Northern Ireland. I assure Members that all due consideration will be given to the matter. In addition, as recommended by the Committee, my Department will consider, in conjunction with other relevant statutory bodies, publishing appropriate guidance on approaches to SuDS in the Northern Ireland context on the basis of authoritative industry standards. This will build on the existing SuDS guidance available from both the Northern Ireland Environment Agency and construction industry bodies and on Planning Policy Statement 15 and the Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland, which also cover the requirement to consider sustainable drainage.

I will now address amendment No 7. First, I have to say that I am somewhat surprised that a member of the Regional Development Committee is proposing an amendment on an issue that he did not choose to raise during the Committee's consideration of the Bill. Had the Committee had the opportunity to consider the need for this additional clause, the Member may have come to the same conclusion as I have: the proposed additional clause would introduce a duplication of the reporting regimes currently in place. That being the case, I do not consider that it is required.

Northern Ireland Water is a regulated utility and is subject to economic regulation by the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation. In addition, the status of Northern Ireland Water as a non-departmental public body for public expenditure purposes has brought further significant governance and monitoring over and above that required of other water companies in the United Kingdom. Aspects of Northern Ireland Water's operation and performance are also regulated and reported on by the Northern Ireland Environmental Agency, the Drinking Water Inspectorate and the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland.

The regulator is an established independent body that already has statutory duties and powers to regulate water and sewerage services. It has experience, knowledge and access to a range of required industry skills, as well as its own resources. The regulator's role is provided for in the Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2006. The authority's primary duties under the 2006 Order are to protect consumer interests, where appropriate, by the facilitation of effective competition and to ensure that NI Water operates properly in all areas of Northern Ireland and is able to finance those activities properly.

The principal method of control is through the price control (PC) process. This involves a detailed scrutiny of the company's costs and performance against the PC15 outputs. The process takes into account customer opinion and reviews government priorities and the requirements of other regulators on environmental issues, including compliance with the urban waste water directive and the industrial emissions directive and achieving the good water status requirement of the water framework directive. Compliance with those directives is a key driver for determining the prioritised investment programme.

Through the detailed price control process, which is subject to public consultation at various points, the regulator scrutinises a comprehensive draft business plan and independently determines the company's income requirements. The current price control determination period, known as PC15, covers the six-year period 2015-16 to 2020-21. This is the basis for Northern Ireland Water's current public expenditure requirement, and Northern Ireland Water is delivering against the efficiency targets contained in it.

One of the principal aims of the price control is to ensure that Northern Ireland Water invests efficiently and effectively and so delivers the desired environmental, public health and customer service improvements at value-for-money prices. To ensure that the outputs agreed during the PC process are delivered by Northern Ireland Water, the regulator requires the company to produce a detailed annual information return, which it scrutinises to publish its cost and performance report for the price control period.

The format is designed to facilitate the benchmarking of Northern Ireland Water against the water industry throughout the United Kingdom. That is an issue to which the Public Accounts Committee attached considerable importance in its report on Northern Ireland Water performance. In addition, the regulator requires Northern Ireland Water to produce capital investment monitoring reports on a quarterly basis to track the progress of the investment programme.

NIEA reports annually on water utility compliance, and those statistics are presented to the Environment Committee and published on the NIEA website. The Drinking Water Inspectorate also reports annually on Northern Ireland's performance in relation to drinking water quality, and those reports are published on the NIEA website. I contend that it would not be appropriate for my Department to give its assessment of Northern Ireland Water’s environmental performance. That is clearly within the remit of the Department of the Environment.

The reporting cycle proposed in the amendment would mean that reports would be due, biannually, by mid-March. That would not align with any of the time frames of the existing reports, which are based on either a financial year or a calendar year. Therefore, the proposed clause would require considerable additional resources in the Department and the regulator's office to conduct reviews and to produce reports, which would be over and above the existing framework and which would duplicate the work already funded and carried out by the governance and reporting regimes that are currently in place. In addition, the regulator has expressed concern about the proposed amendment and, indeed, considers that it may undermine her role as set out in statute. I fail to see how the additional reports and assessments called for in this amendment would add to the already comprehensive suite of reports available in the public domain.

I am fully committed to the principles of ?openness, transparency and accountability, and I am confident that the existing reporting framework provides for those. On that basis, I cannot support the proposed amendment.

That concludes my comments on the amendments. I look forward to hearing Members' contributions and to them supporting my amendments.

Mr Clarke (The Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development): I welcome the opportunity to respond to the Consideration Stage of the Water and Sewerage Services Bill in my capacity as Chair of the Committee for Regional Development. In preparation for the Committee Stage of the Bill, the Committee for Regional Development was afforded a very in-depth briefing at an early stage by the Department. That briefing prepared the Committee for the scrutiny of the Bill. I have already put on record the Committee’s thanks to the Minister of the time and his officials for the considerable briefing that was provided to the Committee then and since the new Minister has taken post. I also thank the organisations that took the time to provide the Committee with written and oral evidence on the Bill.

The Examiner of Statutory Rules provided advice to the Committee and raised concerns regarding the provisions at clause 3(4)(b) as drafted. The Department agreed to the amendments suggested by the Examiner of Statutory Rules, and the Examiner has confirmed that he is content with the amendments, as drafted.

Following oral evidence from the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA), the Committee sought a further amendment to clause 3 to include local government as a statutory consultee where the Department intends to make regulations amending the Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 in respect of the removal or relaxation of the duty to install water meters when making domestic connections. The Department agreed to the amendment to include "district councils" in the wording of clause 3. The Committee is content with the wording of the amendments to clause 3.

The amendment to clause 5 is to include:

That arose as a result of Committee concerns in relation to clause 4. The Committee was concerned that sustainable drainage systems focused too significantly on the hard, engineered SuDS and not enough on soft SuDS. That view was supported by the Construction Employers Federation. The Committee therefore sought to amend clause 4 to make reference to soft SuDS. Unfortunately, at that time, the Department did not support the Committee's amendment but has since brought forward an amendment to clause 5 on landscaping, natural features etc. Following consideration of legal advice, the Committee is content that the alternative amendment would achieve the Committee's objective of including soft SuDS within the provisions of the Bill. The Committee is therefore content with the wording of the amendment to clause 5.

However, in relation to clause 5, the Committee recognises that there is a role for property owners, the private sector and other public bodies to engage in the future management of SuDS, but concerns remain that the soft-SuDS option is not being adopted by the Department or Northern Ireland Water. For this reason, the Committee has recommended that the Department publishes guidance on the approaches to SuDS in the Northern Ireland context, which is based on authoritative industry standards. The Committee would welcome an assurance from the Minister that full and prompt consideration will be given to identify who should ultimately take responsibility for this.

Now, I will speak in my capacity as a member of the DUP and not as Chair. I want to put on record my thanks to the Committee staff for the work that they have done in preparation with the Committee and indeed to the departmental staff, who have given considerable time, in Committee sessions and at the additional outside sessions that we had to bring some of us up to speed on soft SuDS.

I have to say that I am astonished at the opposition to clause 3 and indeed at amendment No 7 in the names of Chris Lyttle and Stewart Dickson. To me, this probably fits in with their policy on the introduction of water charges because who else, in their right mind, would set aside something that had been debated at great length on the removal of water meters? We have heard from the Minister today that £2 million has ultimately been wasted because these meters are going into domestic properties and have not been used. One of the things that the Minister did not touch on —

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Clarke: I will in a moment. One thing should be put on the record about the £2 million that has been wasted. The Minister did not touch on this. The water meters have a 15-year lifespan, so many of those meters that have been installed have been wasted because they have not been used. Because I was concerned, I did seek assurance that, if water charges did come along in the future, we would not be in the position of retrospectively fitting water meters. That is not the case. All the infrastructure is still in place and it is a case only of installing the meter heads. All the other functions that are in the ground would still be there, but the lifespan of the meters is only 15 years.

I am happy to give way now.

Mr Dickson: I thank the Member for giving way. Surely the reality of the installation of meters gives testament to the failure of the party that is proposing these changes to follow through with the implementation of water charges. The Minister stated that the saving was some £45 per household, yet NI Water, on its website, indicates that it charges £255 per 30 household applications. That is £8·50 per household. The reality is this: why is there not full cost recovery in respect of the installation of meters? Why is the Department wasting our money in respect of this? Why is the Department not imposing full cost recovery per household? It would add the sum of £45 less £8·50 to each household when a house is purchased. That seems to me to be an inconsiderable sum of money in comparison with the cost of purchasing the house. It will future-proof the Assembly when it comes to the time when it will have to make the decision and can no longer bury its head in the sand over where additional funds come from to deliver the healthcare, education and, for many people, welfare in Northern Ireland without making a further contribution beyond rates here. I am somewhat confused about the fact that there is already a charge in place, but it seems to be that sufficient funds are not being charged.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I remind Members that interventions must be brief. This is legislation, so everyone will have an opportunity to speak for as long as they wish at some point during the debate.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Member for his statement. It is interesting to note that he is blaming the party whose Minister is bringing the Bill forward today. My last recollection of the Executive's position was that all the parties in the Executive bar his own supported the non-introduction of water charges. If this were only a DUP Bill to prevent the introduction of water charges, I would be happy. However, all the parties bar the Alliance Party have opposed the introduction of water charges.

Maybe I will address the Member's other point about the costs. Of course, he went on to make a statement rather than an intervention about how the money could have been spent and how it had been wasted.

The fact is that the money has been wasted. Two million pounds have been wasted on installing meters that are not going to be used.

Mr Dickson: You wasted it.

Mr Clarke: I can hear the Member speaking from a sedentary position. I did not waste anything. The waste has come about because of water meters that were installed but not used. I am not sure what part of that the Member does not understand. The water meters are not being used, and there is a cost of £2 million that cannot be recovered. The water meters have a 15-year lifespan. We have been installing them for years, and they have not been used. I am happy to give way.

Mr Lyttle: I thank the Member for giving way, although I am not sure who he was giving way to. He has made a totally inaccurate comment. The Alliance Party supported the Executive agreement to defer water charges, so hopefully he will be willing to correct his assertion that we did not support that.

Mr Clarke: I am happy to correct that. However, Mr Lyttle is one of those who, on many occasions, has pushed forward with the suggestion that we should look at the introduction of water charges. I know that Mr Lyttle is at pains to outline his party's policy and that he has raised the issue on numerous occasions. His drive is about introducing water charges. However, I will say again that, thankfully, the Executive made a conscious decision not to do that.

The DUP will support clause 3 as amended by the Minister and will oppose the amendments in the names of Chris Lyttle and Stewart Dickson.

Mr Lynch: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Consideration Stage of the Bill. I echo much of what the Chair has said, and I thank all those who have been involved in the Bill to date, particularly the officials.

The Chair finished on clause 3, and we agree with the amendments to it. I put it on record that my party across the island of Ireland is against domestic water meters. We have said that, if we are in government in the South after the next election, we will scrap the water charges that were introduced by the current Government.

I welcome the Minister's amendment to clause 5. It is a particularly good amendment, and it will provide positive solutions in future. The Committee supported the inclusion in the Bill of the sustainable drainage systems known as SuDs but was concerned that much of the focus was very much on hard SuDs initially. The evidence taken by the Committee from the storm water management group and stakeholders was very helpful, but it was the Committee's visit to Cardiff, in Wales, that convinced me of the benefits of soft SuDs. This is a relevant issue, particularly at this time, as we see footage of major flooding incidents throughout these islands. I was watching the news coverage last night of a city — I forget which one it was, because it was late when I got home — that had spent something like £38 million on flood barriers because of a previous flooding incident. Again, people there were under several metres of water. We can build bigger barriers and pipes, but, unless we adopt different methods of managing surface water, particularly during heavy downpours, the type of flooding and damage that we have witnessed over the past 48 hours will continue.

Phil Chatfield, from the energy, water and flood division of the Welsh Assembly Government, when speaking about the SuDs approach, said:

Mr Chatfield said that they had drawn up a set of principles for developers and that building trust with developers was key because, when they saw the benefits of SuDs, they bought in to the concept. I stood in a metre of water in a housing estate in Lisnaskea last Saturday afternoon, and SuDs came to mind when I was standing there. It was very helpful when the Chairperson and I met officials a number of times to talk through the issue there. They told me that, in 25 years, the estate had never flooded, but a householder pointed out to me that the problem had only begun with the recent building of two houses across the road. I am not an engineer and nor was the person I was talking to, but he made a good observation. Planners, as well as developers, have a major role to play in the future not only of hard SuDS but of soft SuDS. Fergus O'Brien, whom a number of us met in Wales, spoke of green and grey infrastructure, "green" meaning soft and "grey" meaning hard. He said that future solutions would be a combination of both. We must look at and implement new solutions, particularly in our efforts to adapt to climate change, that will take more water out of the system during heavy rain as a result of increasing temperatures. SuDS is critical to the future, particularly to future generations.

I want to finish by talking about the new clause. The Minister made some compelling points about this when she said that they would oppose the new clause, which she said may undermine the regulator's role. We are minded to support the new clause, which is about laying a report before the Assembly. It is a good idea to have review and monitoring periods. Sin é, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle.

Mr Dallat: I am happy enough to speak on this. I am sorry about the turbulence that went around the Chamber early on, because I thought that we had agreement on virtually everything. That is politics, and, after all, there is an election coming up.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Further Consideration Stage of the Water and Sewerage Services Bill, and I further welcome the progression of the Bill through the Assembly and the work that the Committee and the Minister have put into it. Today, we are asked to debate amendments to the Bill. Fortunately, through the positive efforts of the Minister and the Committee, the majority of the amendments have already been agreed. As they stand, the amendments seek to empower the Bill even further and restrict some of the most undesirable aspects of it. In the past, I have praised the Bill for being an excellent example of collaborative legislation being initially brought forward after consultation with stakeholders and engaging fully with the Regional Development Committee later. Here, it would be remiss of me not to thank the officers of the Committee for the sterling work that they did not only in guiding the Committee but in taking us to other parts of the world with the sustainable drainage systems that Seán spoke about just now.

The Bill seeks to extend the existing arrangements to allow the Department to pay subsidy to Northern Ireland Water in view of the Executive's commitment not to apply household charges to domestic customers during the current Assembly mandate. It gives the Department the power to make subordinate legislation to extend that period if necessary, and, indeed, the Bill has many other features that the Minister outlined in her speech. I just wish that she had sent her speech round yesterday, as we could have avoided all this duplication. We cannot ask for that, not even in the mouth of Christmas.

I have supported the broad principles of the Bill and have scrutinised its intricacies. In particular, I have welcomed the reduction of the administrative burdens on Northern Ireland Water and the creation of a single plan that sets out specific targets and goals in the five-year period. The Committee, I am sure, has agreed to clause 1 as it stood. Clause 1 involved the extension of the period for which grants to water and sewerage undertakers can be paid. The Committee agreed to clause 2 as it stood. Clause 3 deals with the power to remove or relax the duty to install water meters when making domestic connections, and the amendments to that clause largely seek to clean up the language found around the clause. Of particular note, amendment No 5 provides district councils with a role in determining new legislation. That will be of a lot of importance in the future. The Committee agreed to clause 4 as it stood. Clause 4 involves sustainable drainage systems, which I have just mentioned.

Amendment No 6 affects clause 5, which deals with the refusal of surface water connection. The amendment creates a new paragraph (5C), which allows for suitable alternatives under paragraph (5B). The clause now recognises:

The Committee agreed the clause, if amended.

It would be remiss of me not to expand a little on clauses 4 and 5, given the devastation across these islands in the past few days as a result of flooding. While it would be unreasonable to argue that sustainable drainage systems of a higher standard might have prevented those floods, it is entirely reasonable to argue that SuDS, soft or hard, as they are now known, could have helped to minimize the huge volume of rainwater that cascaded down whole neighbourhoods in a matter of a few hours.

If sustainable drainage systems are to be a feature of new developments and, indeed, part of the infrastructure of existing settlements in areas prone to flooding, a great deal of work has to be done to bring that about in a manner in which developers and local residents appreciate the value of soft and hard SuDS.

Recently, the Committee travelled to Wales to see examples of SuDS in high-risk areas, and we were impressed by the progress made in reducing the volumes of surface water that go into the sewerage system, which results in a massive reduction in the huge cost of pumping that water to treatment works and also ensures that the water finds its way naturally to rivers in a controlled manner. I am sure that the Minister will correct me, but I believe that we pay well over £30 million a year in electricity costs, much of which is for pumping surface water to pumping stations unnecessarily.

A great deal of work has now to be done to ensure that local councils and their members have a full appreciation of the need to support sustainable drainage systems. I understand that this does not need to be an additional cost on the building of new homes if handled in the proper way. That is very important because the main argument against sustainable drainage systems is the additional cost. It does not have to be that way.

Apart from the unprecedented rainfall that many areas experienced in the last few days as a result of climate change and our failure to do anything about it, there will be ongoing less severe incidents of flash flooding, which also bring havoc to areas such as east Belfast, Newry and others, if we do not systematically embrace the whole concept of sustainable drainage systems. We have no choice. As I have said, we have a lot of people to convince that this is not an option that we can take or leave; we have no choice.

The Committee agreed to clause 6 as it stands, which involves the adoption agreement regarding the connection of drains and private sewers to public sewers. Amendment No 7 is the only amendment outside of those proposed by the Minister for Regional Development, and, to be honest, we have no strong feelings one way or the other. On balance, we do not see any reason why we could not support it.

It seems to me that the Bill should pass through the Assembly without a Division because an enormous amount of time and effort was taken to ensure agreement.

I am extremely concerned about the power to refuse connection of sewers, because there are probably 70 or 80 settlements throughout Northern Ireland that are at full capacity and cannot have additional dwellings. Kilrea is one of them. Two new homes erected recently in Kilrea have septic tanks. I live in the country, and we have a septic tank, but I would love to see the end of them. I believe that considerable investment should be made to at least link up small sewerage systems to bigger ones. I just hope that infraction fines are not imposed on a future Assembly because of the failure to invest.

Amendment No 7 necessitates a report every two years. You do not have to be Euclid, and you do not have to be a genius, to know that there have been years and years of underinvestment and that it did not all happen under this Assembly. During direct rule, money that should have gone into water and sewerage was diverted to security and other things. Those historical facts have yet to be addressed in a way that means that we can play catch-up.

As a member of the Committee, I am happy with Bill as it is. As I say, if amendment No 7 is a wee election stunt, I do not mind, to be honest. We can live with it.

Mr Cochrane-Watson: I welcome the Consideration Stage of the Water and Sewerage Services Bill. I thank the Minister for her overview of the amendments, and my party will be initially supportive of amendment Nos 1 to 5. We believe that they strengthen the Bill and offer clarity but with no real material change. We will not be supporting the opposition to clause 3.

Of particular interest to me is amendment No 6. Again, we will be supportive of that. As outlined, some members of the Regional Development Committee attended a best practice visit to Cardiff, and I was fortunate to attend. On soft SuDs, I found the activities in and around Cardiff to be impressive, and they could well make a significant contribution throughout Northern Ireland. I welcome the Minister's overview on the further advice that her Department will be offering on the implementation of soft SuDs.

We will be voting against amendment No 7. We believe that there are already sufficient economic regulation and governance procedures. We do not wish to burden the Department further and commit considerable resources to biennial reporting. We believe that transparency and accountability are there already. We wish to reaffirm our manifesto commitment of 2011 not to implement water charging during this mandate. We believe that the Bill continues to make that a reality and should be welcomed. This is a very important Bill for households across Northern Ireland, offering reassurance to many who are already burdened with increasing financial hardship. I believe that all that has already been said on this tonight.

Mr Lyttle: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Consideration Stage of the Water and Sewerage Services Bill. I reassure the House that the proposed amendments were solely in relation to the Consideration Stage of the Bill. I am not sure that anyone is going to think that a technical amendment, as is the case with amendment No 7, is an election stunt. I cannot imagine that it will get a whole lot of coverage outside the Chamber, to be honest with you. I have no idea why anyone would think that it is anything other than a genuine, substantive proposed amendment to the Bill.

I am also a bit surprised that people are surprised that Members would seek to propose amendments to legislation — it is kind of our modus operandi and what we are paid to be here for. On those grounds, I will try to engage with the amendments and the substance of the Bill.

It is clear that good water and sewerage services are absolutely vital for population growth, the housebuilding industry, commercial business growth and flood prevention, as many Members mentioned this evening, as well as environmental protection. We believe that we need a more mature, open and honest debate on how we are going to govern and finance water and sewerage provision adequately in Northern Ireland. I think we need to nail down the myth that there are no costs or charges for water at this moment in time. The Executive allocate approximately £280 million of public money to Northern Ireland Water towards the cost of water. That is £280 million that is not being allocated to health, education, schools and community safety etc.

It is estimated that it will cost around £2·8 billion to address waste water infrastructure across Northern Ireland, and around £750 billion to address infrastructure in Belfast. Although the Alliance Party has been clear in relation to its support for the provision in the Bill that defers the introduction of itemised water pricing at this time, in line with the Executive agreement that we should support it, we think that there is a need for urgent consideration of how exactly we are going to deliver sustainable governance and finance for our water infrastructure in Northern Ireland. That is what is behind our intention to oppose clause 3, which removes the requirement on NI Water to install meters at domestic properties.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Lyttle: I am happy to.

Mr Dickson: I am just interested. Mr Lyttle referred to the installation of meters, and others have referred to the cost of that. I have already raised the issue of why we should not be making a full cost recovery in respect of the installation of meters, but Mr Lyttle, as a member of the Committee, might know this, or perhaps even the Minister might be able to comment. The official reason given for the installation of meters by the Department in 2007 was:

Has that changed?

Mr Lyttle: I thank the Member for his intervention. Perhaps the Minister will be able to speak to that, or indeed Conor Murphy of Sinn Féin, who I believe was the holder of the ministerial office at that time.

From our perspective, it seems counterintuitive to remove the current policy, given the potential need to future-proof our new homes in relation to this. In the interests of openness and transparency, which has been mentioned this evening, we know that article 9 of the EU water framework directive requires a clear display of recovery of water costs and water pricing policies that provide adequate incentives for users to use water resources efficiently. So, it does seem counterintuitive; that said, if our opposition to clause 3 is opposed, I will agree with my fellow members of the Regional Development Committee that the amendments put forward by the Minister in relation to that provision do tidy up what is being proposed in the Bill.

Our proposed amendment to create a new clause 7 is really to enhance the process and require the Department for Regional Development to provide the Assembly with the information needed to have ongoing, informed consideration of this important matter.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr Lyttle: I am happy to.

Mr Clarke: I appreciate the tone of what the Member is saying, but is he not concerned about the regulator, its independence and its concern that this is actually unnecessary?

Mr Lyttle: I thank the Member for his intervention. In fairness, the Minister has said this evening that the Utility Regulator has concerns about the proposals. Perhaps fuller consultation with the Utility Regulator in relation to this would be prudent, if I am being sensible about that. However, part of the Minister's rebuttal of the amendment was to set out a detailed list of reporting mechanisms in relation to the issues that the amendment seeks to have reported to the Assembly. I suppose my response to that is that, if there is such a detailed framework of reporting mechanisms in place, surely that will make fulfilling what is being set out in the new clause a straightforward exercise that really only adds greater transparency to exploring, for example, the PC report, which I am sure even a lot of Members might not be particularly aware of, never mind the public, and which goes into great detail as to what is needed to adequately finance our water infrastructure. Indeed, the most recent scrutiny of the PC report raised some concerning information on whether the Department for Regional Development was able to adequately finance our water infrastructure in Northern Ireland.

I think that we need a more public debate about our water and sewerage provision. We have PC15, which the Minister referred to. We also have, as long ago as 2007, the independent water review panel, which proposed that the Water Service should become a government-owned company and that households would be required to have domestic water pricing. The panel was made up of substantial experience and a wide range of interests, including consumers, social justice, economic research, sociology and social policy. It had, at the forefront of its considerations, a desire to avoid any increase in the pain that would be felt by poor and working families in our community.

It set out clearly:

I argue that, to date, consecutive Ministers and parties have been unwilling even to discuss or bring forward alternative proposals that we can debate or consider. The motivation behind the amendment is to ensure that we continue or begin to have an open and transparent debate about this extremely important issue.

In noting the panel's conclusion, the Minister at the time, Sinn Féin MLA Conor Murphy, stated:

He went on to say:

Unfortunately, as the chair of the panel acknowledged, reports were prepared, recommendations were made and the Minister agreed with the conclusions, but that has all sat on a shelf. Consecutive Regional Development Ministers have failed to bring this debate forward.

I am aware that concern exists in the community regarding any potential additional cost, which some people have estimated to be in the region of £400 per year, if all households were to pay the same amount. However, the chair of the panel has gone as far as to suggest that the failure to introduce fair domestic pricing policy for water and sewerages services, coupled with a failure to establish a municipal company, as recommended by the independent water review panel, means that DRD is paying a subsidy out of taxpayer contributions of around £270 million a year to Northern Ireland Water and, most likely, a capital depreciation charge of around £200 million, and, as a result of that model, Northern Ireland Water must borrow capital at a higher rate than if it were a stand-alone municipal company. All of that could mean that households are, indirectly, paying more for the provision of water and sewerage services than if a direct charge or fair domestic pricing per household were introduced. That concerns me, and that is the level of detail and information that the Assembly needs to have an open and transparent debate on this issue.

It is also my understanding that the Chair of the Regional Development Committee, Mr Clarke, was quoted on 4 October 2014 as saying:

— as a result of this Bill, which we support, they will be deferred until 2017 for obvious reasons, given that there will be an election in the middle of that period —

It is my understanding that previous DUP Ministers of Finance and Personnel have made similar comments.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr Lyttle: I am happy to give way.

Mr Clarke: I am happy to stand over my comments, just as you were with your party's position. However, if you set aside clause 3 today, you are bringing about the introduction of water charges. In the last five minutes of your contribution, you were giving all the reasons why water charges should start sooner rather than later. I am being a realist. I see a day when they may come. However, there is a commitment from my party and others that there should not be the introduction of water charges in this mandate. In relation to clause 3, this will not prevent meters being installed in the future, because it is only the meter caps that have to go in; the tobies are still in place. To be fair, I think that John Dallat was the first person to raise this in the Committee. He was concerned about the cost. A sum of £2 million has been wasted to date on something that has a 15-year lifespan. Until the day comes that charges come along — if and when — it is time enough to put the meters in place, but we should not continue to waste money until that date.

Mr Lyttle: I thank the Member for his intervention. I note that he did not dispute what I quoted him as saying about how all the issues should be up for discussion. I wish that we were not only discussing the installation of water meters but having a more wide-ranging discussion, which he has supported previously.

It is important to reiterate that a chair of an expert panel appointed by the Executive to look into the important issue of governance and financing for water has gone as far as to say that we could be costing households more under the current governance model than we would be if we were able to apply fair domestic pricing for the recovery of water costs. It is important that the Assembly continues to investigate that important matter.

Mr McCallister: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Are you making the absolute assumption that, if water charging was brought in, you would want to do it by metering? Originally, it was going to be based on the rating system or on some sort of capital value. Are you committed to the idea that it should be done on a meter?

Mr Lyttle: It should be based on a fair system. We can look into ability to pay as well. As the EU framework directive sets out, it should be based on a manner that incentivises users to use water resources efficiently. I am saying today that, as a result of the ongoing deferral, we are unable to even get into that level of debate in detail. Indeed, I appear to have been chastised for daring to suggest that the Assembly might want to get detailed reports on the governance and financing of our water system in the future to help us make those decisions.

The Minister of Finance and Personnel has previously stated that budget and finance for the Executive and the Assembly will be about tough choices, yet it appears that we continue to defer difficult decisions on many issues. On this occasion, it will be water services. We have done the same thing on other revenue-raising and revenue-redistribution matters that would help us to adequately invest in our public services such as health, education and schools. Not to put too fine a point on it, at this time, people are arguing that we have a crisis in social care, for example. The argument that the choice is between no water charges and water charges is not very accurate; it is about how we use the money and whether it is being used as effectively as possible.

We need to remember that this is a Department that, only a matter of months ago, could not keep the lights on, could not cut the grass, could not clean our gullies and could not conduct general road maintenance. We welcome the funding that has been achieved to address those issues in the short term, but we clearly need to look at how exactly we prioritise the scarce resources that we have. If we are to have an ongoing ability to modernise the water infrastructure, we will need to make adequate investments.

Amendment No 6 is on sustainable urban drainage. As a Member for East Belfast who has seen at first hand the acute pain and damage that is caused to constituents' homes as a result of inadequate urban drainage, I give a warm welcome to amendment No 6. I welcome the manner in which the Committee for Regional Development, the Department, the Minister and officials worked together and with sectoral representatives to secure an amendment that was appropriate at this time. We will support that. That concludes my comments on the Bill.

Mrs Hale: I also welcome the opportunity to speak on the Consideration Stage of the Water and Sewerage Services Bill. Having been away from the Committee for Regional Development for a while, I will be brief. I apologise for reiteration, but, as I am the sixth speaker, it will be inevitable.

The Chair and Minister outlined most of the points that I would agree with. I thank all those who assisted with the Committee's deliberations for their hard work in crafting the Bill. I acknowledge those who gave evidence to inform the Committee's decisions.

In relation to amendments to clause 3, I support the Minister. Indeed, I welcome the fact that the Committee is in support of the proposed amendments. It makes logical and common sense that, before making regulations under clause 1, the Department must consult local councils to ensure that they have an input into proposed changes. I oppose amendment No 7.

As many Members will be aware from my past life on the Committee for Regional Development, I am enthusiastic about the use of SuDS. I was disappointed when the Department did not support the Committee's amendment on soft SuDS, so I welcome the amendment to clause 5 on landscaping and natural features as that will cover the Committee's view that soft SuDS should be included in the Bill. I expect property owners, the private sector and public bodies to be actively involved in the management of SuDS. In the aftermath of Desmond, I welcome the fact that SuDS is now in the Bill. The cost of the implementation of soft SuDS will far outweigh the distress, the insurance claims and the cost to the public purse that the mop-up demands. Having been with the Committee to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, I have witnessed their active implementation of soft SuDS. I look forward to the Department publishing guidance on Northern Ireland's approach to SuDS that will be comparative with industry standards.

Miss M McIlveen: I thank the Chair of the Committee and other Members for their comments on the amendments. It is important that the Bill obtains Royal Assent before the end of the mandate and before my Department's power to pay the subsidy in lieu of domestic charges to Northern Ireland Water expires at the end of March 2016. I know that Members appreciate the importance of the issue. In addition to securing the ongoing subsidy-paying power, the Bill will make significant progress on important governance and environmental issues and will benefit everyone living in Northern Ireland.

I note the positive comments of the Chair of the Committee and Mr Cochrane-Watson. I am conscious of the need for clarification of the different roles and responsibilities. My officials are working with stakeholders to promote soft SuDS and to introduce an appropriate regime for the approval and ongoing maintenance of soft SuDS. That will be ongoing, and we will liaise with the Committee on that work and anything that comes out of the discussions that will continue.

A number of issues were raised during the debate, which is welcome. Mr Dickson, although not making a full contribution, had a number of interventions and raised a number of issues, particularly around the installation of meters. It was envisaged that Northern Ireland Water would become a private company when the legislation was in place in 2006. At that stage, it included the requirement to install water meters to enable charging by the company. That subsequently changed, and the type of company that we now have is not as was envisaged at that time, hence the installation of the meters.

You ask why Northern Ireland Water does not recover the cost of the meter from homeowners. Had water charging been introduced for domestic customers, the cost of the meters would have been offset against those charges. It would not be appropriate to pass on the cost of equipment that is not actually being used to householders. I can confirm that the cost of the meter is £45, but the other costs referred to by the Member are in relation to connection charges.

Mr Dickson: I understand the difference in what the Minister says. In reality, however, new property connections are paid for by developers because they have to connect water to the property before they can sell it. Surely, the Department understands that it is rather splitting hairs to say that the pipe is connection charges and not providing the meter on top is additional to that. It is a complete installation of water supply to the property. It seems to me that the Department could easily recover the total cost. After all, it is not unreasonable that total cost recovery should be looked at in a great deal of instances by Departments. At the very least, we should consider the cost of the recovery of installation of meters.

Miss M McIlveen: I appreciate the Member's comments and am happy to look at that.

Mr Lynch and Mr Dallat highlighted the issue of flooding and, obviously, we send our commiserations in many respects to those who are having to deal with the devastation of their homes and properties. Essentially, their livelihoods have been washed away in floods. I am acutely aware of the need to manage surface water in a more sustainable way. I am looking towards doing that; hence I welcome support for what we are doing today. Obviously, other issues are associated with that in relation to riverbanks and so on that need to be taken into consideration. It is not entirely about surface water; there is more to it.

I turn to Mr Lyttle's comments in relation to amendment No 7. I am somewhat disappointed that Sinn Féin and the SDLP have indicated their support for it. I know that, tongue in cheek, Mr Dallat made the comment that it was an election stunt; however, I believe that it is a little more than that, and, if you look at the consequences, it is much more onerous. It has consequences in relation to the requirements that it places, not only on the Department but also on the Utility Regulator, given the fact that this is a company that is highly regulated. The timing of what is suggested does not fall in line with what is being asked of the company. I ask those parties to reconsider their decision and see what this is really about. It is about gaining evidence in order to do exactly what both parties ask us not to do — introduce water charges. So I ask them to look at that again.

Mr Lyttle said that it is just a technical issue, and he asked what the problem was. However, this provision cuts across existing statutory roles in an area that is already heavily regulated and reported on; and there are also issues in relation to the involvement of the Department of the Environment that need to be explored.

Mr Dallat: Will the Minister give way?

Miss M McIlveen: I am happy to give way.

Mr Dallat: Does the Minister agree with me that probably no government agency has been more heavily scrutinised than the Water Service? I refer to the report from the Audit Office of a few years ago, and I speak as one who has served on the Committee from the beginning. It was one of the most comprehensive and detailed reports into any government agency ever carried out, and, subsequently, it was scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee. Every issue that I listened to tonight was addressed in two reports over the years. So it is a myth that Northern Ireland Water has not been scrutinised. Remember, there were a few casualties as a result of that report. That did not got a mention tonight from Mr Lyttle. Perhaps he has not read the Audit Office report or, indeed, the subsequent report of the Public Accounts Committee. I recommend it to him for bedtime reading.

Miss M McIlveen: I thank the Member for his contribution. I hope that, in light of what he has said, he will consider his position in relation to his support for the amendment. It is at odds with what he has said.

Finally, I move to the comment made by Mr Lyttle in relation to Northern Ireland Water's inefficiencies, because it is a public company. Whilst it is true that Northern Ireland Water has to comply with the constraints of public-sector spending, it is also true that, through a more efficient and effective operating model, partly due to the aforementioned PAC report, Northern Ireland Water has been able to reduce the cost of providing water and sewerage, and it is to the company's credit that it is doing so. I am also somewhat concerned by the fact that Mr Lyttle is content to place an additional burden on households through the introduction of water charges without a much more —

Mr Lyttle: I am laughing again because I did not say that.

Miss M McIlveen: Obviously, that is the direction in which he is willing to travel.

I would like to thank Members again for their contributions. I ask, finally, that Members support amendments Nos 1 to 6. I consider that amendment No 7 does not add any value to the comprehensive reporting structure and I hope that Members who have indicated their support will think otherwise by the conclusion of the debate.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Amendment No 3 is consequential to amendment No 1.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Amendment No 4 is consequential to amendment Nos 1 and 3.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Opposition to clause 3 has already been debated.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Water and Sewerage Services Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

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

Mr Bell (The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment): I beg to move

Insolvency is an unfortunate but very real fact of life. Those who get into financial difficulties range from ordinary consumers who simply cannot pay their debts to large companies that are household names. To give you some idea of the scale of the problem, during 2014-15, in Northern Ireland alone, 1,358 individuals were declared bankrupt, 557 obtained debt relief orders and 1,444 entered into an individual voluntary arrangement. In the same period, 233 companies were compulsorily wound up by the courts.

Broadly speaking, there are two sets of procedures needed to deal with insolvency. The first set comprises the rescue procedures. For example, voluntary arrangements give individuals and companies an opportunity to pay their debts over time, and administration gives companies breathing space while attempts are made to put together a rescue package to secure their future. A further set of procedures is, however, needed to deal with situations where an individual or company is so hopelessly engulfed by debt that rescue is not feasible or possible. The procedures to deal with such cases comprise bankruptcy, debt relief, winding up by the court and creditors voluntarily winding up. In administering those procedures, insolvency practitioners and the official receiver rely on an extensive and detailed legislative framework. That framework is modelled on the one that operates in England and Wales. My understanding is that it is the wish of those whose job it is to deal with insolvency that that should remain the case, and Members have expressed the same view.

Insolvency legislation needs to be modernised and improved to keep pace with changes in wider society. That need for change resulted in a surge in insolvency legislation made at Westminster during the lifetime of the last Parliament. That has prompted the need for a Bill to amend insolvency law in Northern Ireland.

The Insolvency (Amendment) Bill has had a long gestation. At times, it has had to be stalled to allow it to be amended to take account of developments at Westminster. I pay tribute to the work done by my predecessor, Arlene Foster, in taking the Bill through from introduction on 7 October last year to the end of its Committee Stage. I thank the Chair and members of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment for their diligent scrutiny of the original Bill and the subsequent amendments to it. I am grateful for the work done by the Office of the Legislative Counsel and for its willingness to draft amendments to the Bill at short notice.

The Bill includes a range of measures. Some will be of benefit primarily to the insolvency practitioner profession, while others will mainly benefit bankrupts or their creditors. The insolvency practitioner profession will welcome the measures to enable the use of modern methods of electronic communications in insolvency proceedings, and I am aware that there is support for the ending of licensing of insolvency practitioners by my Department. However, some bodies have expressed misgivings about the inclusion of provisions to allow insolvency practitioners to be partially authorised to take only individual or corporate cases. The Committee has looked into the matter in great depth and has taken oral evidence from insolvency practitioners as part of its deliberations.

It is important to note that it will remain possible to qualify and be authorised as an insolvency practitioner to deal with both individual and corporate cases. It is expected that the majority of those wishing to enter the profession will choose to do that. However, there will be instances where a practitioner who has chosen to specialise will be able to provide a more efficient and effective service to his or her clients. There is, however, a more fundamental issue. Partial authorisation is being brought in for the rest of the UK, and the legal advice is that we, in Northern Ireland, are obliged to do the same. The Committee was satisfied that that is the case.

A measure aimed at encouraging banks to allow bankrupts to have bank accounts will be welcomed by bankrupts and their advice and support organisations. Banks have historically tended to be reluctant to allow bankrupts to have accounts. In doing so, they are potentially exposed to the risk of claims from trustees in bankruptcy in respect of money paid out of bankrupts' accounts. Not being able to have a bank account can cause serious problems for the individuals concerned, as it is difficult to operate in today's environment without one. They will, for example, need an account to receive payment of wages and benefits and to allow them to take advantage of electronic commerce such as the provision of direct debit payments and associated discounts.

The Bill addresses the problem by giving banks protection against claims by trustees.

At Second Stage, Mr Allister QC asked to have provision for a code of conduct for insolvency practitioners included in the Bill. My predecessor responded to that request by agreeing to an extensive additional provision being inserted by way of amendment at Consideration Stage. The result, while not a code of conduct as such, will achieve the same outcome. Insolvency practitioners can expect, therefore, to be subject to a much more rigorous regulatory regime in future. That is because the professional bodies responsible for regulating insolvency practitioners will now be required to carry out their functions in conformity with objectives aimed at ensuring that the insolvency practitioners are acting fairly and properly and providing a good service at reasonable cost. There will be a range of penalties for bodies that fail to meet those objectives, up to and including having their recognition revoked.

In summary, the Bill is a mix of measures aimed at modernising and improving insolvency administration for the benefit of those who practice the profession and those who use it. I therefore commend the Insolvency (Amendment) Bill to the House.

Mr McGlone (The Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment): Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. The Committee welcomes the Final Stage of the Insolvency (Amendment) Bill, which is intended to update insolvency legislation made before the advent of modern methods of electronic communication. I thank the Minister, and more particularly his predecessor, and especially the officials — I see some of them here today — for their positive engagement with the Committee in both pre-legislative scrutiny and the Committee Stage. It is always very helpful when the officials who attend the Committee are well across their brief and experienced in the advice that they give the Committee. I thank them for that. I thank all those who gave evidence at Committee Stage. I also thank Committee colleagues for their full and conscientious consideration of what were often technical and complex issues.

The Bill helps to bring insolvency legislation into the twenty-first century by maximising the use of electronic communications. It establishes that documents stored and transmitted electronically in the course of insolvency proceedings are as good and valid in law as paper documents. It enables the use of means such as video and teleconferencing at meetings of creditors, members or contributors of companies. It also provides for improvements in the way in which the work of insolvency practitioners is monitored and controlled.

The Committee engaged in a call for evidence from interested organisations and individuals and from the Department. Evidence indicated that there is broad support for the Bill, although concerns were raised over a number of provisions in it. I will focus on the Committee’s consideration of these concerns at Committee Stage. The Committee agreed that the introduction of provisions at clause 1 for remote attendance at meetings is a practical and helpful addition to existing arrangements. It will increase access to interested parties, reduce costs and help to make the administration of insolvency cases easier by allowing for the use of modern methods of communication and eliminating unnecessary procedural requirements.

Issues were raised in relation to verifying the identity of remote attendees. However, the Department assured the Committee that safeguards, including password protections and firewalls, will be put in place. The Committee noted that there is also a requirement in the Bill for anyone proposing to hold remote meetings to ensure the identification of those attending and the security of any electronic means of communication used to enable attendance. In addition, every insolvency practitioner is subject to monitoring by their recognised professional body, which will seek to ensure that insolvency practitioners adhere to best practice.

Some concern was expressed about the need to build in adequate time to allow a suitable venue to be identified and for creditors to be informed. The Department informed the Committee that time periods for individual requirements for meetings are specified elsewhere in legislation and that the same requirements for quite generous time periods will remain in place. Following full consideration of the evidence, the Committee was content with clause 1 as drafted.

At clause 3, the Bill introduces provisions for the requirement to hold a meeting to present progress reports in voluntary winding-up procedures to be replaced by a requirement to issue a report on progress. That is intended to reduce the cost of holding meetings that are poorly attended or not of any particular benefit.

The Committee considered options to avoid the situation where, in practice, IPs would have to operate the legacy legislation and the amended legislation concurrently on their portfolios of cases. However, following consideration, the Committee agreed that, where a procedure is under way, those involved would expect the case to be conducted in accordance with the existing law. The Committee agreed that it would be bad practice for any party to be confronted by a different procedure than the one they had expected and started off with at the outset of that particular case. The Committee was therefore content with clause 3 as drafted.

Clause 6 adds a requirement for the official receiver to notify the Department as well as report to the High Court whether a proposal by a bankrupt for a voluntary arrangement with the official receiver acting as nominee has been approved or rejected by the bankrupt's creditors. Those giving evidence to the Committee supported this proposal. However, the Westminster Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 is intended to repeal the fast-track system entirely. When asked whether the system would be retained here, officials informed the Committee that the Department intends to repeal it in a future insolvency Bill to be passed during the next Assembly along with a large number of outstanding amendments to be made to insolvency law in Northern Ireland. On that basis, the Committee was content with clause 6 as drafted.

Clause 12 repeals provision in existing legislation that allows a bankruptcy to end within one year if the official receiver files a notice with the High Court stating that the investigation is unnecessary or concluded. The Committee considered the view that, if a bankrupt is disqualified from holding certain positions for the period of time, early discharge may allow that person to take up a position in society, such as in public service. The Department informed the Committee that there would be a cost to the Department to administer early discharge, which would outweigh any benefit to the individuals involved; that only two individuals had ever been discharged early in Northern Ireland; and that it is of very minor benefit to the individuals. The Committee was therefore content with clause 12 as drafted.

At a time when there is a backlog in cases where there are no assets to be realised, concern was raised by Committee members that the provision in clause 17 for a requirement for the Lord Chief Justice to be consulted may impact on processing times. Under clause 17, the Lord Chief Justice will have to be consulted about the making of orders creating a right of appeal to a court in respect of discretionary decisions to disqualify bankrupts from offices or positions. The Committee was content with the Department's response that, firstly, as the courts have an interest, it is essential that the Lord Chief Justice be consulted and, secondly, the clause will have no impact on processing times. The Committee was therefore content with clause 17 as drafted.

The Department brought a number of amendments to the Bill at Consideration Stage. I covered those in detail during the Consideration Stage debate. I do not intend to go over those areas again today as the Committee's consideration of the issues is already on record. However, there is one area that is worth emphasising. The Committee raised the issue with the Minister of the potential for a statutory code of conduct to oversee supervision, control, accountability and regulation of how IPs conduct themselves. The matter was, in fact, first brought to the Committee's attention by Mr Jim Allister MLA. I was looking round for him, but he is not here. I want to place on record our thanks to him for doing so.

The Committee considered the Department's outline proposals to put in place a regulatory objective through a future insolvency Bill to include requirements for appropriate training; ensuring consistent outcomes; providing high-quality services; acting transparently and with integrity; considering the interests of all creditors in any particular case; promoting the maximisation of the value of returns; and protecting and promoting the public interest. Thankfully, the Department had a change of heart and decided that provisions could be brought through the current Bill to police the conduct of insolvency practitioners. The Minister informed the Committee that, through the introduction of new clauses 14A to 14H, provisions for an effective route to policing and controlling the conduct of insolvency practitioners would be included in the Bill. This includes penalties that will apply to recognised professional bodies if they do not maintain a satisfactory standard of regulation. It also gives the Department the power to intervene directly by applying to the court for action to be taken against an IP.

That process will operate at two levels. First, the RPB will carry out monitoring inspections of its IPs. Secondly, at government level, there will be an annual programme of inspection whereby every recognised professional body is regularly inspected.

These are new procedures, and, as such, it is important that they are appropriately monitored and reviewed in a timely manner to ensure that they are not overly burdensome on the industry but, more importantly, that they provide the appropriate protection and assurances for those who are unfortunate enough to be involved in the insolvency process, as well as the protection of the public interest. I would welcome assurances from the Minister that this will, indeed, be the case and that the appropriate monitoring and review of these provisions will be undertaken.

Having given the Bill its full consideration and put forward recommendations for amendments, which were accepted by the Department, the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment is content with the provisions in the Insolvency (Amendment) Bill.

Mr Dunne: I, too, welcome the opportunity to speak at Final Stage. Considerable work has been carried out on the Bill since it was first introduced. We know that insolvency is a very complex and technical issue, and I think that all Committee members realised that over the last number of months. I commend all those involved in the Bill for their substantial work, including the Committee staff and DETI officials, as well as the many who took part in the consultation process.

The purpose of the Bill was always to update, amend and modernise some of the insolvency legislation, much of which is very detailed and specialised in nature and some of which had become outdated, and to ensure that, where possible, there is parity with England and Wales. The Bill is designed to assist those who find themselves in the very unfortunate position of being affected by insolvency and to ensure that those who administrate insolvency procedures are able to do that in the most effective and efficient way possible.

Insolvency continues to affect quite a number of businesses and organisations in Northern Ireland. Therefore, it is important that measures are put in place to make the processes as simple and as effective as possible to ensure that we have a modern and fit-for-purpose system in Northern Ireland and that the most effective and efficient system is in place for all those affected by insolvency, directly or indirectly.

Many similar measures have already been introduced in England and Wales through the Legislative Reform (Insolvency) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2010. I commend the previous Enterprise Minister, Arlene Foster, for introducing the Bill, and my colleague, the current Minister, Jonathan Bell, for ensuring that it will progress through Final Stage today.

One of the Bill's main purposes is to allow for the electronic transfer of documents, which is a welcome step forward. The development that electronic documents will now have the same standing as hard copy documents is a positive step that will help to improve insolvency processes. It will allow for a more efficient, effective and streamlined process and help to reduce delays in the completion of transactions involving complex insolvency cases, which will only benefit all parties concerned. However, it is important that those without access to IT equipment are not put at any disadvantage by this process. That is why I am glad that certain safeguards have been built in to ensure that that will not be the case.

The Committee held a number of evidence sessions, and a wide range of stakeholders was involved, all of whom were valuable in helping to shape the Bill. There was general recognition that this was a progressive way to move forward, and I am happy to commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom fosta tréaslú le gach duine a raibh baint acu leis an Bhille seo ar shaineolaithe dócmhainneachta. I echo the thanks to the staff of the Bill Office, the DETI officials, the two Ministers and, of course, the Chair of the Committee. There were many times when we were discussing this issue that I was not sure that anyone understood 100% all the complexities, but I think that the Chair came close and kept us going forward.

It is clear that the demand for these changes came after the start of the crash, when we were deluged with administrations and people being made bankrupt. It has been a while in coming forward, but I think that this will bring relief to those who suffer the trauma of administration and those who are made bankrupt, which is a dreadful experience. It will also help the practitioners who are there to try to set affairs in order and make sure that those who are entitled to be paid and can be paid are paid, and then get people back on their feet. For all those reasons, it is a positive Bill. I think that it is welcome for those who have been waiting, perhaps too long, for this to go through. The Minister said that it has been a long time in gestation. I do not want to delay the birth any longer, so I am happy to endorse the Bill tonight.

Mr Cochrane-Watson: I rise to speak briefly on the Bill and to offer my party's support. We are content for the Bill as it now stands to pass into law and be put on the statute book. I welcome the comments from the Minister, the Chair of the Committee and other Members who, unlike me, have been here through all of the Bill's various stages. As a relative newcomer to the Committee, I will not delay the House by repeating many of the issues that have been raised, not least because of the lateness of the hour and also because I find this a highly technical piece of legislation that is not in any way party political in nature. As far as my party is concerned, the main issue and the most important aspect of the legislation is that it will bring us into parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. Things have moved on, including technology, and we have to move on and be on a par. On that note, I will finish and take the opportunity to wish the Minister a merry Christmas. Hopefully, Minister, you and I will agree a New Year's resolution and we will come back in better humour with each other. I do thank you; and thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker.

Mr McCarthy: Like others, I will be brief. As I said earlier, Christmas is coming, so we want to get away and get our work and family business done. On behalf of the Alliance Party, I support the Bill and I thank Minister Bell for bringing it to this stage in the Assembly for approval. Insolvency is, of course, a very difficult process for business people and has a significant financial and emotional toll on people affected.

Northern Ireland, like most regions, is emerging from recession, and, as a result of that, we have seen the impact that insolvency can have. Sadly, we have also seen the deficiencies in the law highlighted more often as a result. This is largely a Bill to tidy up the insolvency laws in Northern Ireland. In part, this is about restoring parity between the laws in England and Wales and this region. Although there is no financial cost to having different laws, there is a good case for harmonising some of these rules because of the increasing number of businesses that operate across all jurisdictions. As I understand, there are nine objectives in the Bill, and Alliance is content that the broad thrust of the Bill is well intended and will improve the insolvency process. For example, the proposed abolition of the little-used clause relating to early discharge is welcome. This has been demonstrated in England and Wales to be costly, with little benefit to justify the cost. While I am not on the Committee, I have full confidence in all its members. They have fulfilled their duties and done a good job, and I commend them all for that.

In conclusion, as this is the Final Stage of the Insolvency (Amendment) Bill, it is also the final Christmas when I will have the privilege to contribute to the Assembly. Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to wish you, the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers, all your staff, all the staff working in this Building, and my 107 Assembly colleagues and their staff a very happy and enjoyable Christmas and a peaceful and prosperous 2016.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Bell: I am grateful to all Members who have contributed to the debate. I thank the Chair, Mr McGlone. I think that the reason that this debate has been so short is because of the work that was done in Committee.

I think that, sometimes, people do not fully appreciate the work that Members undertake in Committees, but their work has been comprehensive and diligent, and they have done a huge amount. I think that they can take great credit for the way in which this Bill has gone through. My sincere thanks for that and for his words of commendation to Mrs Foster, to the officials for the comprehensive work that they undertook and to myself.

Mr Dunne, in an excellent contribution, raised the point about safeguards, and I assure him that there will be safeguards to ensure that anyone who is unable to receive communications electronically will not be at a disadvantage.

I thank Mr Ó Muilleoir for another constructive contribution to the debate. He acknowledged the difficulties that many people found themselves in through a crash, in many cases through no fault of their own. The fact that we have proper legislation will be helpful in future.

I thank Mr Cochrane-Watson for a comprehensive contribution to the debate and for his party's support. He is my friend now; he will be my friend after Christmas, and I wish him a very happy Christmas and prosperous new year.

I turn to the contribution made by Kieran McCarthy, not so much for what he said, excellent though it was, but for the point that he made that it was his last Christmas contribution. I have been privileged to know Mr McCarthy for a number of years. We both served on Ards borough Council, and it was with a certain sadness that I heard him say that this was his last contribution at Christmas. Anybody who knows Kieran knows that he is a gentleman of the highest integrity. He had huge support from right across all sections of my constituency. He worked extremely hard, from what I could see, in council and in the House. I thank him for his Christmas best wishes, and I assure him of the best wishes from all the House, and particularly from Strangford, for the excellent contribution that he has made. I commend the Insolvency (Amendment) Bill to the House.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. I thought that you were going to forget to do that.

Mr Storey (The Minister for Social Development): I beg to move

I would be the first to acknowledge that pension regulations can be complex and, as I have said previously, it is all too easy to get lost in the maze of technical provisions and pensions jargon, particularly at this late hour in the evening. The rule that we are considering today is somewhat technical, and whilst I will try to keep my comments at a fairly high level, some jargon is, unfortunately, inevitable, but I will do my best to keep it to a minimum.

Perhaps I could start by providing a brief background to the regulations. The Pensions (No. 2) Act (Northern Ireland) 2008, and corresponding provision in the Westminster Pensions Act 2008, introduced a duty on employers to enrol eligible jobholders into a qualifying workplace pension and to make minimum contributions to it. Under the legislation, employers can choose the qualifying workplace pension scheme that they adopt to discharge this duty. A qualifying scheme is a scheme that meets specific criteria, for example, an occupational pension scheme or a workplace personal pension scheme. As automatic enrolment rolls out, there is a need to ensure that workers' pension savings are invested in well-governed schemes, with fair and reasonable charges.

These regulations aim to protect members in occupational schemes from high and unfair charges and to introduce consistent governance standards. The Financial Conduct Authority introduced similar rules for workplace personal pension schemes. First, the regulations introduce measures to control the level and types of charges in pension schemes used by employers to meet their automatic enrolment duties. They restrict the charging structures that schemes may use in their default arrangement. Broadly speaking, a default arrangement is one into which members contribute if they have not made an active choice about where their savings should be invested or that has a minimum percentage of workers contributing.

Schemes must use either a single funds under management (FUM) charge or an FUM charge together with either a contribution charge or a flat fee. The charge cap is set at 0·75% annually for FUM or an equivalent combination charge. The cap covers all costs and charges relating to general scheme and investment administration. Transaction costs, along with a small number of other costs, including those associated with providing death benefits, are not included.

The regulations provide two methods by which trustees can measure whether charges in their default arrangements have complied with the cap. They may decide which of these methodologies to use depending on how they levy charges on all members. Regulations also prohibit higher charges from being imposed on non-contributing members; a practice sometimes referred to as active member discounts. These are charges imposed on a member's pot, which are increased when they stop contributing to the scheme because, for example, they leave their job.

All of these measures apply to occupational schemes offering money purchase benefits which are used by employers to meet their duties under automatic enrolment. They do not cover those schemes that include a promise to the member about the benefits they will receive.

Secondly, the regulations set out minimum governance standards for relevant occupational pension schemes. These require trustees or scheme managers to ensure that default arrangements are designed in members' interests and are kept under review. They also require that core financial transactions are processed promptly and accurately, that trustees report on the level of charges and costs borne by scheme members, and that they assess the value of such costs and charges.

To make sure that trustees have appropriate freedom in how they govern their schemes, the regulations also ensure that trust deeds and rules do not tie trustees into using particular service providers. This requirement overrides any conflicting provisions of the scheme. Where a scheme does not already have a chair in place, the regulations require the trustees to appoint one. The chair will be responsible for signing off an annual statement on how the minimum governance standards have been met.

The regulations strengthen the independent oversight of schemes used by multiple employers, known as master trusts. They require that relevant master trusts must have a minimum of three trustees. The majority of these trustees, including the chair, must be independent of any providers of services to the scheme. This will apply to schemes used by employers that are not part of the same corporate group. The regulations also require trustees of master trusts to be subject to limited-term appointments and to be appointed via open and transparent recruitment processes. In addition, they are required to make arrangements to encourage the airing of members' views on matters relating to the scheme. The aim is to ensure that the master trusts have members' interests as their priority.

The National Employment Savings Trust is exempt from these multi-employer trust requirements as it already has rigorous governance requirements set by statute. Similarly, the regulations provide for exemption to the master trust requirements for other schemes set up by statute. This will be reviewed following further work on the level of governance requirements that already exist in these schemes. The governance measurements have a wider scope than the charges measures. They cover occupational schemes offering money purchase benefits regardless of whether they are being used for automatic enrolment.

In summary, these regulations introduce a comprehensive package of measures to ensure that savers' interests are put first by protecting members from high and unfair charges and the consequences of poor governance. These measures are underpinned by the enforcement powers of the Pensions Regulator.

Before I conclude, I would just like to concur with the comments that were made by my colleague the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment in relation to Mr McCarthy. We wish him well in his future and thank him for helping us to remember the important things in life as we get nearer that date of 25 December.

Also, I am glad to be able to remind Members that we are dealing with something that we all have to declare an interest in, and that is our pensions.

Mr Maskey (The Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Just following on from the Minister's sentiment, I am afraid to leave the Chamber because I do not know who else is going to resign or leave this great gathering. I pay tribute to those Members, because I understand that Mr McCarthy is leaving us, and Pat Ramsey announced his retirement as well. I wish them well and, indeed, anybody else who chooses to leave between now and May of their own volition. What the public may decide after that for the rest of us is something that time will tell.

I thank the Minister for bringing forward these regulations on occupational pension schemes. The Committee for Social Development considered the Department’s proposal to make the regulations at its meeting on 4 June 2015 and the resulting statutory rule at its meeting on 3 September. The Committee was supportive of the regulations.

The Committee noted that the regulations are a consequence of clause 42 of and schedule 18 to the Pensions Act to restrict charges or impose requirements on certain occupational pension schemes and set requirements relating to governance. The Committee further notes that the regulations cover a range of measures aimed at controlling the level and range of charges in relevant schemes that are used by employers to meet their automatic enrolment duties. Those include, for example, capping charges in the default arrangements within schemes.

The Committee notes that the regulations also impose a ban on active member discounts from April 2016 and apply new governance measures across broadly all occupational pension schemes that offer money purchase benefits. There are also a number of largely technical provisions in the regulations, which the Minister has comprehensively drawn our attention to.

On that basis and in conclusion, a Cheann Comhairle, the Committee for Social Development formally recommends that the statutory rule be confirmed by the Assembly.

Mrs D Kelly: I will not delay the House too long, except to endorse the comments of the Chairperson and to say that, on behalf of my party, I welcome the regulations. We welcome the assurances given by the Minister that those who have paid into the schemes will have a level of independent scrutiny of how their money is to be spent and that the principle of value for money is not just about who can bid in the lowest tender but will actually be value for money with all its consequences, particularly for the money that is paid back.

I welcome the regulations, and in keeping with the spirit this evening, I wish all of you a very happy Christmas and a very prosperous and peaceful new year.

Mr Beggs: I, too, support the regulations. As the Minister said, it is quite a complex area. The regulations seek to protect members of certain occupational pension schemes by imposing obligations on trusts and managers in relation to the charges imposed on certain members of those schemes and how they are governed. The Minister also made reference to the Pensions Regulator, and I think it is important that we continue to benefit from the United Kingdom pensions regulation regime and maintain parity for the benefit of our citizens. I am content with the regulations.

Mr Dickson: I note that the debate this evening is on occupational pensions. On that basis at least, I presume that I do not have to declare an interest, in that I became eligible for state pension today.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Dickson: You worked that one out.

Like others in the Chamber, we are happy to support this and the element of parity that it has for the protection of pensions. Also like others, we wish those who remain in the Building this evening the compliments of the season. To those who will not be returning after the recess, either in the early new year or like my colleague Mr McCarthy, who will actually be with us to the end of the mandate, I say farewell.

Mr Storey: I thank the Members who contributed for the level of consensus across the Chamber. Again, I thank the Chair of the Social Development Committee and Committee members for the positive way in which they have dealt with the issue. I trust that as we have progressed through the regulations we have endeavoured to make sure that we give confidence to people. I think that it is vital that people can have confidence that their pension savings are being safeguarded and are not being eroded by excessive charges. These regulations introduce important measures to ensure that pensions are invested in value-for-money schemes that are run in the members' interests.

With those words, and endorsing the words of the last speaker, Mr Dickson, I want also to say a word of appreciation and thanks to my staff, who worked tirelessly on these issues, for all they have done to ensure that the regulations have been brought forward in the way that they have been. I, therefore, commend the regulations to the House.

Mr Speaker: Happy Christmas, everybody.