Official Report: Monday 22 February 2016

Mr Speaker: I wish to inform the House that the Public Services Ombudsman Bill received Royal Assent on Friday 19 February 2016. It will be known as the Public Services Ombudsman Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, c. 4.

Mr Speaker: I want to take this opportunity to remind Members to speak into the microphones when they have the Floor, otherwise their comments may not all be picked up by Hansard as accurately as they wish.

Mrs McKevitt: I beg to move

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

Mr Bell (The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment): With your permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement to update Members on the announcement last week by Bombardier about its global restructuring.

I wish to take this opportunity to express my deep regret at last week's announcement by Bombardier Inc that it is planning to reduce its workforce in Northern Ireland. The impact of that decision will be hard felt in Northern Ireland, particularly by those who are personally affected. First and foremost, my thoughts are with the workers and their families as they continue to absorb the news.

Bombardier took the decision to rationalise its workforce across all its sites to ensure its viability for the future.

While the news was deeply disappointing, Bombardier Inc made it clear that the decision was taken to safeguard the company's long-term future globally and here in Northern Ireland. I want to take this opportunity to assure the House that I am already working with my colleague the Minister for Employment and Learning to do all that is possible to limit the impact of the redundancies that will take place during the coming weeks and months. Bombardier has reaffirmed its commitment to the CSeries programme and to Northern Ireland's critical role in its delivery.

While we try to absorb the news of significant job losses, it is important to note that Air Canada has signed a letter of intent for up to 75 CS300 aircraft. I view that as a positive development for the CSeries project as a whole, particularly as the wings for the aircraft are designed, developed and manufactured here in Northern Ireland. The CSeries CS100 aircraft received Transport Canada certification in December 2015, which was a significant milestone in the programme's transition into service. I look forward to the CSeries entering service with Lufthansa Swiss as planned by the middle of this year.

The Government at Westminster, and the Northern Ireland Executive, primarily through Invest Northern Ireland, work closely with Bombardier here in Belfast and at its corporate headquarters in Montreal to ensure that the company's Northern Ireland operations are fully recognised in the strategic contribution that the company makes to UK aerospace. I have met senior and top management of Bombardier on five occasions since taking up the post of Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and I intend to continue that contact.

Since the privatisation of Short Bros plc by the UK Government in 1989, Bombardier has invested £2·6 billion in its six sites in and around greater Belfast: in facilities, equipment, research and development; and in the training and development of its workforce. That is a formidable achievement that we must not overlook. It is indicative of the high-value nature of this important industrial sector.

Over the years, my Department, through Invest Northern Ireland and its predecessor agencies, supported Bombardier as it transformed its Northern Ireland operations through a strategic programme of investment aimed at maximising the company’s capabilities and competitiveness. That equipped it to win major work packages for Bombardier's own aircraft families and for third-party customers, including Rolls-Royce and Airbus. Between 2002 and 2015, Invest Northern Ireland offered £75 million worth of assistance to Bombardier, including £21 million for the CSeries, in support of investment commitments totalling £844·5 million. While Bombardier said that there was nothing we could do to reverse last week's decision, we will continue to work closely with the company and explore other ways to support its drive for greater efficiencies.

It is important to recognise the cyclical nature of the aerospace sector worldwide and the peaks and troughs experienced by all major companies operating in that sector — Bombardier is not unique. It is true to say that Bombardier is experiencing challenges, but it is necessary for it to take action now to address those on a global basis to secure the company's long-term future. Northern Ireland is affected by the restructuring decisions announced last week, but other locations have been hit particularly hard as well, especially Canada and Germany.

I wish to take this opportunity to say something about the importance of Northern Ireland aerospace as a whole and the contribution that our vibrant aerospace cluster already makes to the local economy and the global aerospace sector. Northern Ireland is a global leader in aerospace technology. We have a dynamic, rapidly growing international aerospace industry founded on a strong engineering heritage and rich in knowledge, skills and experience. Major aerospace corporations depend on Northern Ireland's reliable supply chain to provide quality, high-value-added products and services cost-effectively and on time using excellent logistical services.

In addition to Bombardier, on which my focus is today, Northern Ireland firms are working to support major international companies including Airbus, Boeing, Embraer, BAE Systems, Spirit Aerosystems and GKN Aerospace. We have a strong presence in the aerospace cluster involving over 60 companies, and Invest Northern Ireland has been working closely with this supply base to enhance its competitiveness and support its continued growth.

In recent months, Invest Northern Ireland has brought delegations from Boeing and Airbus and their top-tier suppliers to Northern Ireland to see the advanced aerospace design and manufacturing capabilities that have been built up over many years. I must pay strong tribute to Bombardier for the major part that it has played in the development of this supply chain that is now able to offer expertise in key technologies including precision machining, composites design, manufacturing advanced metal forming, seating and interiors, and design and stress, along with tooling design and manufacturing.

There is an ongoing programme of investment by Northern Ireland aerospace companies in technology, people and R&D to support expanding production rates in many of the world's aerospace programmes. Invest Northern Ireland has been leading a programme of improvement through the 21st century supply chain initiative in conjunction with the industry association, ADS UK, and is strongly supported by Bombardier Aerospace and B/E Aerospace in Kilkeel to drive improvements in on-time delivery and quality. These are crucial to success in this high-value sector of the manufacturing economy. This programme has already delivered significant improvements in turnover and profitability in the aerospace sector, which, in turn, are helping to create additional jobs in Northern Ireland. This initiative is also helping to reduce the dependence of the participating companies on Bombardier, as a number are successfully diversifying their sales base into other key customers worldwide. The strategy for Northern Ireland aerospace launched by my distinguished predecessor, Arlene Foster, in 2014 is already delivering benefits in internationalising the Northern Ireland aerospace brand, and I shall continue to support the implementation of this strategy in every possible way.

Shortly after taking up the post of Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment last year, I led a group of Northern Ireland companies to the Paris Air Show. I am pleased to say that an even larger group plans to exhibit at the Farnborough International Air Show in July this year. Such was the interest and enthusiasm that has been shown for Farnborough by our companies that Invest Northern Ireland is significantly increasing the size of its stand this year; I find that greatly encouraging. In April, Invest Northern Ireland will be taking a group of companies to the Aerospace and Defence Supplier Summit in Seattle, USA. I feel strongly encouraged by the enthusiasm with which Northern Ireland aerospace companies are embracing these opportunities. This is further evidence of the ambition and confidence with which our aerospace companies are seeking to take their expertise to the four corners of the world.

My focus so far has been on the immediate challenge of the Bombardier job losses. Working with Minister Farry to soften the blow as much as we can, we will continue to work with the company to secure its future and to help those affected to find new jobs. We must now also look beyond that immediate challenge to the future of the manufacturing industry and the overall economy. The job losses at Bombardier, along with those at Michelin and JTI, are serious blows, but we must be neither despondent nor complacent. In the midst of these recent devastating redundancies, it is important to remember that the total number of jobs in manufacturing continues to grow. Recently, total numbers employed in manufacturing passed 80,000 for the first time in a number of years. We can and we must build upon that base.

I want to see flourishing manufacturing companies at the heart of our growing economy, with Northern Ireland supplying the world with everything from complex aircraft structures to portable defibrillators and quarrying machinery, to name but three. As I visit companies across Northern Ireland, I meet inspiring, brilliant people in every sector. I have witnessed at first hand a wealth of entrepreneurial flair and talent working with first-class research and development capacity in our universities.

Our job in the Executive is to create the right environment for that talent to take root and to flourish. It starts with having the right strategy in place. Work is under way in my Department on a major refresh of the Executive's economic strategy. I have tasked my officials with putting manufacturing at the centre of that new strategy, as one of its major themes. Those will not be just warm words. I want to see a real focus on the role of manufacturing as the bedrock of our economy. In that strategy, there will be three key themes to support manufacturing: tax, talent and competitiveness.

First, on tax, the lowering of the rate of corporation tax to 12·5% from April 2018 will be a game changer. Members are familiar with the headline figures: in excess of 30,000 additional jobs; an economy that is nearly 10% larger; and an up to 5% improvement in productivity. Lower corporation tax will not merely grow our economy — it will transform it. Northern Ireland's corporation tax regime will enable our indigenous companies to grow and will bring new forms of foreign direct investment. We already have a well-earned reputation for attracting major back-office and support functions, and we can now look forward to attracting, and retaining, major profit centres. Those profits will in turn drive investment in research, development and innovation, leading to more and better jobs.

Secondly, on talent, we will place a real focus on skills. New jobs in manufacturing and other sectors will depend on having a supply of people with the right skills ready to take up the opportunities. Building that supply chain of skills will be at the core of the new Department for the Economy, working closely with colleagues in schools, further education colleges and universities.

Thirdly, on competitiveness, we must create the right policy environment to ensure that our manufacturing is competitive. For example, the challenge of energy costs is already well recognised. We know that energy costs have fallen in recent years and are at a six-year low, but that means that they are at a six-year low for all our competitors as well. Other countries focus their energy policies on growing the economy and supporting business: we must do the same. That is why I established the energy and manufacturing advisory group, on which we have brought together expertise from manufacturing, energy and academia to generate new ideas on the way forward. The group's work is progressing well, and I look forward to receiving its report in the coming weeks.

The broader policy environment also needs to change, with every part of the public sector sharing the responsibility for growing the economy. With the support of my Executive colleagues, my Department is leading on a programme of deregulation, cutting red tape and reducing the burden on business. The aim, quite simply, will be to make the entire public sector much more business-friendly.

In conclusion, I and my Executive colleagues will do everything that we can for the people who are directly affected by the job losses, and we will continue to support Bombardier — I will stand shoulder to shoulder with Michael Ryan and the men and women on the shop floor in Belfast — to secure its future. Beyond that, the economic strategy will reflect our unshakeable belief in the future of manufacturing in Northern Ireland, which will continue to be the centrepiece of our economy and the envy of the world.

I commend the statement to the Assembly.

Mr Speaker: Thank you very much, Minister. Before I call for the first question, I advise the House that the statement has attracted a very high level of interest and many Members have put their names down to ask a question. I am sure that Members will agree that as many as possible should be given the opportunity to ask their question. For that reason, I ask Members to ensure that their question — and I emphasise "question" in the singular — is as brief as possible and relates to the ministerial statement.

Having said all that, I call Mr Patsy McGlone, the Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment. I will give the Chairperson the usual latitude in making some comments.

Mr McGlone (The Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire as an ráiteas sin. Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. I will not need latitude; all I want is some answers with a degree of precision.

I note that the Minister stated that he had met the management of Bombardier on five separate occasions. I also noted, with some interest, that he — that is the Department — will:

Perhaps he would care to explain what he means by "greater efficiencies". For the rest of us who have listened to this bad news, efficiency usually equals further cutbacks. I would not like to think that that was indeed the case.

Mr Bell: I thank the Member for his question. As he outlined, I met representatives of the company on five separate occasions. I met them twice in Montreal, most recently with Mr Bellemare. In all those meetings, the critical nature of what we wanted to do was to ensure that the Belfast plant is a key part of Bombardier going forward.

We know that Belfast is critical to Bombardier. Indeed, many of the discussions centred on how Bombardier cannot see a future without the Belfast plant. We have the research and development, the patents, the skills and brilliant manufacturing workers. Indeed, 90% of Bombardier's manufacturing staff are accredited, and it is probably a world leader in accreditation.

We know that, in the future, we have to be competitive and efficient. The honourable Member is wrong when he asserts that, when a company becomes efficient and cost-competitive, it always reduces its staff. History would tend to argue against that. We want to see Bombardier in a position where it can win not only orders for the CSeries but other orders.

Michael Ryan and I had a very positive and constructive meeting with many of the trade unions this morning. We are agreed on the critical nature of manufacturing in Belfast and how we take that forward. In the future world economy, cost-competitiveness will be key for Northern Ireland to ensure that we have the jobs in Belfast. I am determined to see those jobs in Belfast.

Mr Douglas: I thank the Minister for his very comprehensive statement. What plans does his Department have to look at areas such as retraining for the unfortunate people who will lose their jobs?

Mr Bell: I spent most of the last 72 hours working with the Minister for Employment and Learning. I want to put on record my deep thanks to Minister Farry, who has been available pretty much 24/7 as we worked together to first absorb the news and then channel our energy into seeing what we can do for the workers affected.

We know that 580 jobs will go by Christmas 2016, and we also know of the announcement of up to 500 jobs going by 2017. I understand that about 380 of those jobs are with a recruitment agency and are part of the complementary labour force. Together with Minister Farry's Department — effectively the two Departments are amalgamated in driving forward support for the workers — we are looking to ensure that the other manufacturing work that we believe to be out there can be introduced to those in the complementary labour force, who are in the most immediate position of losing their jobs.

Secondly, to answer Mr Douglas, I know that many members of the workforce are in the East Belfast constituency, and, as he knows I grew up beside the factory.

We know that there are up to 3,500 jobs coming forward in manufacturing. We want to ensure that, of the 200 who will lose their job in this period, we can seek, where we can, to have those people re-skilled. In many cases that will mean getting accreditation for the skills they already have and programmes of retraining. I am informed by the industry experts that over 90% of the workforce in Bombardier are accredited skilled engineers, and part of our job is to see how we can put them in the best position to attract the new manufacturing jobs that are coming forward.

Mr Ó Muilleoir: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his full statement.

First of all, we should emphasise and echo your statement of standing with the workers and management of Bombardier in this city today. All of us from all parties will, despite our differences, do our best in the days ahead to boost the fortunes of Bombardier. In that respect, I will travel to New York later this week to meet the New York City Comptroller, who owns millions of dollars of stock.

Minister, you have said that, as the manufacturing sector grows, you might try to pivot or move some of the workers who are being made redundant into some of those jobs. Can I ask you also to look at the apprentice schemes? I am particularly concerned about the plant at Newtownabbey and the plants at Dunmurry. It is important that some of the other engineering companies take up some of the slack from Bombardier, because those are highly prized and valued apprentice schemes.

Mr Bell: I am pleased to do that. Anybody who knows either Stephen or myself knows how deeply we value apprenticeships and how we see them into the future. I understand from the company that it will be suspending the scheme, not ending it. It is a suspension of new apprenticeships. All apprentices in the current scheme will have their full apprenticeship programme honoured. I look forward to a time when we can see that suspension lifted and apprenticeships going forward. Minister Farry and I agree completely that apprenticeships are the way forward.

I also thank the Member for the work that he is doing in the United States. He shared some of that with me on both a private and a commercial basis. I am encouraged by it, because right around the world they are looking for us to stand shoulder to shoulder to protect these jobs. This was a global initiative that Bombardier took. In the UK we took 17% of the pain, Canada took somewhere in the region of 50% of the pain and Germany took a higher degree of pain than we did. I will work with everyone in the House, whatever they have said in the past, if they can bring forward fresh ideas about how we can attract new markets and ensure that manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland is best placed to take advantage of the new opportunities that are emerging.

Mr Cochrane-Watson: Minister, there are some issues in your statement that I very much welcome. First, I highlight the priorities set by Manufacturing NI: the cost of energy, which you have addressed, and the manufacturing strategy being at the heart of the economic strategy moving forward in the new Programme for Government. That is very welcome.

I have two questions for you, Minister. Following on from the previous question on the apprenticeship programme, I used to accredit the apprenticeship programme for Bombardier at both Interpoint and Queens Island, and I strongly urge you, if there is any influence on Michael Ryan and senior management, to re-establish that programme. Do not let it drop because, in three or four years, when, hopefully, economic conditions will be a lot better, these young people will come out of these programmes highly qualified and highly skilled —

Mr Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Cochrane-Watson: I am passionate about that. Could you do that, Minister? Secondly, the question, Minister —

Mr Speaker: It is one question.

Mr Cochrane-Watson: — when setting industrial rates —

Mr Speaker: When I make an announcement, I mean it: one question. Minister, if you get multiple questions, I would much appreciate it if you could answer just one so that I can get as many in as possible.

Mr Bell: OK. Well, you have heard what I am going to do on energy with the manufacturing group and you have heard the answer that I gave to Máirtín Ó Muilleoir, who raised the question of apprenticeships. I have been speaking with the unions this morning, and we will do all that we can on that. As we take our manufacturing industry forward, be assured, Mr Cochrane-Watson, that putting apprenticeships and young people at its core will be a key priority for me and Minister Farry.

Mr Cochrane-Watson: On a point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: There are no points of order until the end of a Minister's statement.

Mr Lyttle: I, too, express my sincere regret at the Bombardier announcement as someone with a close relative who has given 40 years' proud service to the company. As someone who has experience of the impact of this type of redundancy, I will make myself fully available to assist any workers affected by this devastating news. What, specifically, will the Minister and the Alliance Minister for Employment and Learning be able to do to ensure that workers have access to redundancy advice and retraining so that they can get alternative employment in the wider manufacturing sector?

Mr Bell: I grew up in east Belfast — my father had a church there — alongside people in families who, for generations, earned their livelihood in manufacturing. I believe that, into the future, Northern Ireland will have a bright aircraft manufacturing industry. It is worth about £1·1 billion and employs somewhere in the region of 8,500 people in Northern Ireland. I want to see that grow to 12,000 people, and I want to see that £1·1 billion value to our economy grow to £2 billion by 2024. Specifically, all the resources of DEL are being put behind the workers through careers advice, reskilling and retraining and into how we can ensure that the complementary labour force, where there are other manufacturing areas that need skilled workers, can see people married to those positions. Into the future, as we build the SC21 supply chain, we will look to see how those workers can be reskilled and retrained to take advantage of those opportunities. Let us not forget that every major aircraft corporation in the world is accepting manufacturing from Belfast and Northern Ireland.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement today. I think we are all concerned about the loss of the engineering jobs. Coming from the neighbouring constituency of North Down, we recognise the excellent employer that Bombardier is. Will the Minister indicate what financial support has been given to Bombardier and what involvement there has been by Invest NI in trying to secure the future of Bombardier?

Mr Bell: I share the Member's concern. I represent Strangford, another neighbouring constituency with a plant, and we are all desperate to ensure that we retain as many jobs as we can. Part of the success that Mr Dunne refers to is down to Michael Ryan and the chairman, Mr Brundle, and I pay tribute to both of them. I talked with the unions this morning and with people from the shop floor in Bombardier late into Friday night, and what they told me is that they share my confidence in Michael Ryan and the team there. We will stand shoulder to shoulder with them as we go forward.

Over a 13-year period, you will see that the investment has been some £75 million. That has triggered £844·5 million of investment in Bombardier. If you take the work specifically on the CSeries that Invest Northern Ireland and UK BIS have done — my last engagement with Alain Bellemare, which was with Lord Maude, the then Trade and Industry Minister, when we went together to present a united front for the jobs in Belfast — you will see that there has been about £135 million in investment in the CSeries. We should not dismiss the fact that Bombardier itself placed £520 million into the company. That is the largest single investment ever made in Northern Ireland, and it is something that we deeply respect.

Mr Humphrey: I thank the Minister for his statement and his answers so far. I share the regret and sadness of other Members at this devastating news for those who will be made redundant at Bombardier. Indeed, I took the opportunity to speak to a senior official from Unite the Union on Saturday.

Can I ask the Minister for his assessment of the effect that the reduction in corporation tax will have on helping manufacturing in Northern Ireland?

Mr Bell: As I said before — this will not be applicable in every sector, but it is applicable in many sectors across Northern Ireland — I do not see a reduction in corporation tax as something that will improve the economy; I see it as something that will transform it. I take the message of Manufacturing Northern Ireland around the world, and I make this commitment: I will go anywhere in the globe where I can attract jobs in manufacturing to Northern Ireland. We have a key message that is not only about corporation tax, as the Member says: we are running at about 84% to 85% of the business costs of the rest of the United Kingdom and about 95% of the business costs of the Republic of Ireland. Add to that the talent of our people. I have major companies employing well over 2,000 people in Northern Ireland saying to me, "Jonathan, we came for your costs; we stayed for your people". Then we add the third unique offering: after 1 April 2018, we will have the most competitive rate of corporation tax in western Europe. That three-pronged strategy is a winning prize that I believe will deliver results, not least the independent advice that I get from the Economic Policy Centre at Ulster University that we can grow our economy by up to 10%.

Mr McKinney: I think, given the scale of the job losses, that it is incumbent on all of us to reflect on the individual and collective impact on the workers, and I do that today. It is our job as Assembly Members to critique the Minister and his Department. Anyone who has criticised the Executive's economic policy in the past has been rebuked —

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I ask the Member to come to his question.

Mr McKinney: I am coming to it now, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker — has been rebuked, I believe wrongly, in the past, but is the Minister's announcement today of a new manufacturing strategy in the dying days of the mandate not simply an acknowledgement of failure to date?

Mr Bell: I think that the Member does not understand the current position of manufacturing. I am in a difficult position, and I shared this with the trade unions this morning. I speak to the industry and to Manufacturing Northern Ireland, and the Member should be aware that the manufacturing strategy is part of our economic strategy for Northern Ireland. If he had listened appropriately when I said that I would give it a renewed focus and a central place, he would have known that I am doing so because the manufacturing industry tells me that it thrives on confidence. It has asked me, as Minister, to do everything that I can to promote confidence. However, if I do not talk about crisis and disasters and tsunamis and all the other hyperbole, I do not give the manufacturing industry confidence, and then I get accused of complacency.

I believe in Northern Ireland manufacturing, and the reason is that we have turned a point this year where we have more than 80,000 manufacturing jobs. We have not been there since 2008, and, if the Member would care to reflect on the HMRC figures, he will be aware that manufacturing in Northern Ireland is growing at a faster rate than that in any other part of the United Kingdom. I look at some of my critical friends, like Stephen Kelly at Manufacturing Northern Ireland, who has refreshingly told the media that manufacturing is growing in Northern Ireland; I look back at two Programmes for Government; and I see 18,000 manufacturing jobs and £3 billion invested in manufacturing in Northern Ireland. That is why I will stand shoulder to shoulder and give confidence to the manufacturing industry and, as part of a refreshed economic strategy, give manufacturing its place. I believe in Bombardier, and I believe in manufacturing in Northern Ireland. We can go into the future and grow jobs in this sector of our economy.

Mr Allen: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement. It is encouraging that both he and the DEL Minister are doing everything to support those affected by the devastating news. Will he tell the House whether he shares the confidence of the Invest NI chief executive that there will be no further job losses?

Mr Bell: I can tell the Member that, between Alastair Hamilton and me, we will do everything — I mean "everything" — that is humanly possible to ensure that there are no further manufacturing job losses in Northern Ireland. No Member can ever say that, in this industry, we can guarantee no job losses. All Members understand that, as do the public.

The chief executive was referring to the specific situation in Bombardier, and I place this on record: we are very fortunate to have the skills of the men and women in Invest Northern Ireland for what they have done for our aerospace manufacturing sector. Why do I say that? It is their skills and the manufacturing base in Northern Ireland that have taken some 60-plus of our Northern Ireland companies to a position where they contribute £1·1 billion to our economy. Under the distinguished work that my predecessor Arlene Foster took forward with Invest Northern Ireland, they took all our companies and looked at the whole supply chain. The world needs tens of thousands of new aircraft. We looked at SC21 over the last number of years, with a long-term focus, for what we could do to ensure that our companies in Northern Ireland are best placed on that supply chain. The position today is that there are companies dependent on Bombardier to a huge degree, but there are also companies that have diversified so successfully under the work of Invest Northern Ireland that they are in a position in which more than three quarters of their work does not include Bombardier work. That is a huge success for aircraft manufacturing in Northern Ireland. We supply every major aerospace sector on the globe from our supply chain in Northern Ireland. I see that growing into the future and am determined to drive it from a £1·1 billion industry to a £2 billion industry by 2024.

Mr Givan: Northern Ireland has undoubtedly been buffeted by global decisions taken by international companies, and, in the global market in which we operate, we will always be susceptible to that. I encourage the Minister to keep sustaining and building those relationships and developing new ones across the globe. Will he outline how, particularly through a reduction in energy costs, we can help not only to sustain our indigenous manufacturing companies but to attract foreign direct investment?

Mr Bell: We have to go to every corner of the globe, and I go inspired by a man whom I never had the privilege to meet. I have read the missive that he set out for us, which was that we should not let anyone tell us that Northern Ireland cannot compete against the best in the world and win. He did it not once with his company but twice, when he bought that company back. Sir Allen McClay's message is to the front of my mind when we go to global markets with Invest Northern Ireland. We will continue to go to them because, in every part of those global markets in the aerospace sector, we are attracting jobs and investment to Northern Ireland through the long-term strategic approach that we took with SC21.

We know that energy is a factor. Some people have wrongly made it out to be the number one factor in why we have lost jobs. Companies have said that that is not the case. We know, however, that it is an issue, and we want the manufacturing and energy advisory group to look at the short, medium and long term for what we can do to reduce those energy costs and make us as competitive as possible to the emerging new world markets.

Mr D McIlveen: I thank the Minister for his statement. He is aware that the news that the good people of east Belfast had to come to terms with last week is something that my constituents in North Antrim have had to face up to on at least three occasions recently, with the closure of Patton's and the announcements by JTI and Michelin. In that context, will he advise the House what support Invest NI has given to the wider manufacturing sector in recent days?

Mr Bell: In relation to some of the areas that the Member has mentioned, we know that over 18,000 manufacturing jobs have been created over the last two Programmes for Government and that, as we stand — I will not go into individual companies — there are some 3,500 manufacturing jobs coming on stream in Northern Ireland.

What particularly concerned me about the Member's area was that many who had joined those companies and built up their skills base had never been formally accredited. What we have done in those areas through Northern Regional College is, where necessary, put short courses in place to allow people to have their skills accredited immediately or after a short period of training.

We will, through Invest Northern Ireland and DEL's Careers Service, provide them with hours of individual work with careers and skills advisers, who will also inform them where new jobs in manufacturing are coming. I have been working with companies, particularly Michelin, on an individual amount for each person to see what we can do for them because, at the end of the day, every job is individual. The question is what we can do for the individual. In many cases, companies like Michelin have been saying, "Jonathan, if there is a programme of training that will help the individual worker and it goes a little bit over that time, we will, as long as it is not excessive, look positively at that." It is about skills support and careers advice so that those men and women are best placed, with a competent CV and the necessary accreditation, to take advantage of the 3,500-plus new jobs in manufacturing.

Mr McCarthy: I thank the Minister for his statement. Of course, we are all devastated by the loss of so many skilled jobs. I welcome the Minister's commitment to work with others, including Dr Stephen Farry, the Minister for Employment and Learning. It just shows that we can work together in this place for the good of all our community. The second of the three key themes was talent. What extra measures can be taken to place a real — "real" being the important word — focus on skills to move us forward?

Mr Bell: I thank the Member. I paid tribute to Stephen earlier. He and I have been synonymous with what the two Departments can do to help the workers. To all intents and purposes, we are nearly amalgamated already, in that we have both put our shoulder to the wheel.

The thing that I found most valuable was talking to workers in Bombardier just after the announcement was made. I was in the boardroom for the announcement, but I talked to many workers on the shop floor and after their shifts, including in their homes in Newtownards, until about 8.30 pm on Friday. They deeply appreciate that we did not get involved in party politicking or any nonsense. Instead, we reacted immediately to put all the resources of our Departments and the Northern Ireland Assembly behind the workforce.

I believe that, particularly with the complementary labour force, there will be key new areas with alternative manufacturing options. I further believe that, with the skills support that DEL has given, coupled with the investment advice and the intelligence of Invest Northern Ireland on where new manufacturing markets will open, many of those who have unfortunately lost their jobs on this occasion will be able to find new work in manufacturing.

I am not sure that Minister Farry and I have an open door; it is more of a revolving door between our Departments to ensure, first, that those who lose their jobs are in a position to take advantage of what comes on stream and, secondly — Mr Farry, has an ambitious skills agenda, which I want to encourage, and I know that he gained some additional money through his work with the then Finance Minister — to look constantly at our skills barometer to ensure that we have what we need now and, through the comprehensive work that Invest NI is doing, particularly in light of corporation tax, the skills sets ready for new jobs as they emerge.

Mr Lyons: I thank the Minister for his statement. Last year, the Minister visited my constituency and saw the work that some people were doing in supplying Bombardier. Can the Minister inform the House what effect this announcement will have on the aerospace supply chain in Northern Ireland?

Mr Bell: I took the opportunity to visit specific projects with Mr Lyons. I was pleased to see young people, particularly those who are hard to reach, being able to get into the market. In his constituency, through to North Antrim and others, I have looked at projects that have particularly tried to help young people who are out of work and have problems with alcohol and other forms of chemical dependency to re-enter the market. We have sought to get all our companies in the supply chain to diversify. What we are reaping today are the benefits of years of work that Arlene Foster put in when she was in this job to ensure that eggs were not placed in one basket. Invest Northern Ireland worked with every major company around the globe to see where, with the UK SC21 supply chain, they could take best advantage of the expertise and excellence of manufacturing in Northern Ireland.

These are early days to assess the specific effects of the Bombardier announcement for the supply chain. Remember that, on the back of this announcement, we also had the hugely significant announcement from Air Canada that it intends to purchase 75 CS300 aircraft. There will be difficulties with Bombardier but, as we supply right across the entire supply chain, we have ensured that many of our companies will take advantage of the need for tens of thousands of new aircraft across the globe. When you go across the globe, whether it is to the Paris Air Show or one of the many others, one thing that becomes clear is that, when people come and look at our manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland, they look at its excellence and efficiency. The two things that we have to ensure into the future are that quality is maintained and that we have delivery on time. That way, we will grow from a £1·1 billion industry to a £2 billion industry by 2024.

Mr Rogers: I thank the Minister for his statement. I acknowledge the great work of the aerospace industry and how it contributes to our economy, particularly B/E Aerospace in my constituency of South Down. The Minister talked about the competitive rate of corporation tax. In the refresh of the economic strategy, has he considered that we could be on the edge of western Europe or an integral part of Europe after the referendum in June?

Mr Bell: The excellence of our manufacturing industry will tell, well into the future. Our aircraft industry in Northern Ireland is very well established, not just within the European Union but with Embraer in Brazil and in other areas. I am confident that, as Sir Allen McClay taught us, the manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland can compete against the best in the world and win. They are coming to Northern Ireland on the basis of the quality of our product. They are coming to Northern Ireland on the basis of the huge investment that has been put into research and development. They are coming to Northern Ireland because of the talent of our engineering workforce.

Bombardier possibly leads the globe — it is certainly highly significant in the global industry — in having up to 90% of its workforce qualified and accredited in the work that it does. In research and development, talent and the years of work that have gone into ensuring that we are a critical part of the UK SC21 supply chain, I believe that aircraft manufacturing has a positive future in Northern Ireland.

While I experience all the difficulties and pain at Bombardier, one thing that I know is that there is no future for Bombardier that does not include Belfast. Another thing that I know is that our research and development, our manufacturing, our patents, our complex composites and our metallic structures for the wings of the CSeries lead the world.

Mr Allister: Despite the Minister's anxiety to assure us about how much he is doing, I am not minded to blame him for the global losses at Bombardier. However, does he not accept that his party conference speech just three months ago, at which he said:

spoke to complacency and a lack of alertness to what was coming down the tracks? Is there a contingency plan for Bombardier if the CSeries does not achieve its hoped-for level of sales? Will he remind Mr Rogers that the bulk of our aerospace trade is outside the EU?

Mr Bell: I thank the Member for his question. Some people were foolish enough, within minutes of the announcement being made, to try to engage in silly party political nonsense. When you are on the shop floor meeting people in Bombardier, you can say that it did not go down well. People were looking for the Assembly to do what Minister Farry and I did, which was immediately to put our shoulders to the wheel to focus not on ourselves but on the 580 people who, up until 2018, will lose their job and on retraining, on accreditation and on where we can find extra work for them.

I appreciate the Member's honesty. I think that most people with a reasonable IQ understand that, when a company globally restructures and Germany takes more pain than the UK, we take 17% of the pain and Canada takes over 50%, trying to blame a devolved Minister in Northern Ireland talks more of the silliness of the person who does that than the message that they are trying to give.

I answered the Member's question earlier. I ask him to work with me. The manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland has asked me, in my privileged position as their Enterprise Minister, to project confidence in the sector. I talked with the unions this morning about the damage that will be done if we talk down our manufacturing industry, talk about disasters or tsunamis, if we are stupid enough to talk about them, or talk about manufacturing having no future, if we are silly enough to do so. The industry says that confidence drives its order book. Confidence in the industry drives jobs and apprenticeships. Confidence is key.

I look at the independent advice that I am given. HMRC is telling me independently — you can study the figures for yourselves — that manufacturing in Northern Ireland is growing at a faster rate than in any other part of the United Kingdom. In two Programmes for Government, £3 billion has been invested in manufacturing. Over two Programme for Government periods, 18,000 jobs have been created, sustained and promoted in the manufacturing industry. The fact is that we now have more manufacturing jobs in Northern Ireland than at any time since 2008. We have crossed the barrier of 80,000 manufacturing jobs. That is why I make no apology for saying that I believe in Northern Ireland manufacturing. That is why I will stand shoulder to shoulder with Alain Bellemare, Michael Ryan and all the critical people in our manufacturing industry. We will stand shoulder to shoulder with them to have confidence in the product in Northern Ireland.

Yes, there have been huge challenges. Nobody knows that more than the people who have endured the pain of job loss. However, as I said earlier, even Manufacturing Northern Ireland, which is a critical friend, is saying that manufacturing is growing in Northern Ireland. I make no apology for giving confidence to the people who have the expertise in manufacturing on the shop floor or for telling the facts about a growing manufacturing industry as they are given to me independently.

Miss M McIlveen (The Minister for Regional Development): I beg to introduce the Land Acquisition and Compensation (Amendment) Bill, which is a Bill to amend the Land Acquisition and Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 to provide for additional payments for loss following the compulsory acquisition of land.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I call on the Minister for Employment and Learning, Dr Stephen Farry, to move the Bill.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: A valid petition of concern was presented today in relation to amendment Nos 26 and 27. Under Standing Order 28, the votes on those two amendments cannot take place until at least one day has passed. If the amendments are moved, the votes will be taken at the beginning of business tomorrow, Tuesday 23 February. I also remind Members that the votes on amendment Nos 26 and 27 will be on a cross-community basis.

Members have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments, detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in my provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are three groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn. The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1, 2, 4, 18 to 22, 25 and 28, which deal with review and reporting functions, including the creation of a living wage. The second debate will be on amendment Nos 3, 5 to 17, 24 and 29, which deal with zero-hours contracts. The third debate will be on amendment Nos 23, 26 and 27, which deal with offences for blacklisting and the repeal of article 71 of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998.

I remind Members who intend to speak that during the debates on the three groups of amendments they should address all the amendments in each group on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on each group has been completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill and the Question on each one will be put without further debate. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: We come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2, 4, 18 to 22, 25 and 28. The amendments address the review and reporting functions including the creation of a living wage. Members should note that amendment No 3 is mutually exclusive with amendment No 5. Amendment Nos 19 to 22 are consequential to amendment No 18. Amendment Nos 25 and 28 are consequential to amendment No 4. I call the Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning, Mr Robin Swann, to move amendment No 1 and address the other amendments in the group.

Mr Swann (The Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning): I beg to move amendment No 1:

Today, I will be speaking on the two amendments tabled by the Committee, namely amendment Nos 1 and 2. Amendment No 1 relates to clause 9, which concerns a review of the early conciliation service. The Committee tabled this amendment at Consideration Stage, but was made aware by the Department that there was a minor problem in the wording of the clause. The Minister gave an assurance to the Committee that he would be content to support the amendment, provided that it was redrafted accordingly. The Committee has thus re-tabled the amendment at Further Consideration Stage to specify the remit of the review of the early conciliation service, namely the number of cases dealt with by early conciliation, the average length of time taken to deal with cases and the outcome of cases.

Amendment No 2 relates to new clause 9A. Clause 9A concerns a review of section 8, which involves an assessment of matters relating to tribunal proceedings. The amendment was not called at Consideration Stage, because the Minister’s opposition to clause 4 and clause 8 regarding neutral assessment meant that the references within the Committee's amendment were no longer correct. The Committee has accommodated the changes brought by the Minister at Consideration Stage and has re-tabled an updated version of the amendment to ensure that the policy intention of the review procedure is placed in the Bill. The review of section 8 will begin operation one year after the service commences and, from then on, every three years. The Department has a duty to undertake a review of the assessment service relating to tribunal proceedings. The findings of that review will be laid in a report to the Assembly, and the report shall include a synopsis of consultation responses; an assessment and evaluation of the effectiveness of section 8; the number of cases overall; the number dealt with in accordance with regulations under section 8; the average length of time taken to deal with cases; the outcomes of the cases; and any savings directly attributable to the introduction of regulations under section 8.

The Committee supports the Bill and will watch closely how it is implemented.

I speak now as the Ulster Unionist spokesman on employment and learning. We will be supporting amendment Nos 1, 2 and 4, although we will seek clarity from the Minister with regard to disability. We will be opposing amendment Nos 18 to 22 on the proposal to create a living wage agency. It has not been discussed widely, either within the Committee or any of the consultation responses we received, nor has it been dealt with in any great detail. My personal concern is that we would be creating another quango, which, at this stage, does not have due process regarding what is out there and the concerns that are meant to be taken into consideration. There are also the recommendations. What teeth will it have within legislation, if we are creating an agency only to evaluate and review? So we will be opposing that. We think that the living wage agency should be a UK-wide agency. The issue would be better dealt with on a UK-wide sphere, rather than solely in a Northern Ireland context.

Mr Buchanan: I rise to speak to group 1. Amendment Nos 1 and 2 are technical in nature, as the Chair of the Committee has outlined. I do not intend to say any more on that matter. I have some reservations about the bureaucratic burden that amendment No 4 has the potential to place on small businesses. Rather than increasing that burden, we should be striving towards the reduction of red tape for our business sector. The CBI has also expressed its concern around that issue, especially regarding the disability sector, and we have to acknowledge that as well. We need to be careful that we do not allow gender to overcome ability and that someone with ability is not excluded simply because of their gender. With those reservations, we acknowledge the amendment that is before the House, and we are of a mind to give our support to it.

Amendment Nos 18 to 22, which deal with the living wage, talk about the Department establishing a new body, how that body will report, the membership of that organisation, its operational considerations and its remunerations. I do not believe that that requires legislation at all. I believe that it is a policy matter and should be dealt with in that sphere. It should be dealt with as a policy issue rather than being legislated for. I think it is the wrong place for it. It is my understanding that it is a reserved matter, so we need to be careful about how we deal with the issue. We will be opposing amendment Nos 18 to 22.

Mr F McCann: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buchanan: Yes.

Mr F McCann: Just on the living wage, do you not think that we should aspire to ensure that all low earners are paid a reasonable wage that allows them to feed and clothe their families and that, unless we have that in legislation, we will never move the argument on?

Mr Buchanan: Absolutely. I have no difficulty with that, but I believe that, in doing something like that, we need to do it in the proper and correct context. This is not the context in which to deal with it. It is a policy issue, and taking it out of policy and putting it into legislation is not the correct context at all. Therefore, that is why we will oppose amendment Nos 18 to 22.

Ms McGahan: Go raibh maith agat. I support all the amendments in group 1. I want to specifically speak to amendment No 4. I welcome the opportunity to address the House on this important issue of gender pay and disclosure of information. I am going to be very short in my comments, as the argument for addressing the issue has been well rehearsed over many years. There is no doubt that gender pay reflects ongoing discrimination and inequalities in the workplace and that those largely impact on women. We must have information relating to the pay of employees for the purposes of showing whether there are differences in the pay of males and females. We must also have the details of the methodology used to calculate any statistics in the information. Campaign groups advocating action on the gender pay gap support the need for accurate information on the scale of the problem to allow it to be addressed. That information needs to be of sufficient depth to shine a light on the main causes of the pay gap, and it will need to be shared with employees and trade union representatives. It must very clearly show how the pay gap is calculated and include an action plan on how we can correct it.

It will be the responsibility of OFMDFM, as the lead on equality matters, to bring forward regulations within the time frame. There will also be a requirement on the Department to publish a strategy, including an action plan, on eliminating differences in the pay of male and female employees. The strategy and action plan will be important in addressing the gender pay gap, and only by getting accurate and detailed information from employers on the extent of the gender pay gap and the rationale behind it can the relevant action be taken to correct the situation.

Amendment Nos 25 and 28 are consequential to that amendment and make minor changes to the Bill, including changing the long title to reflect the additionality of gender pay to the Bill. As we approach the celebration of International Women's Day in a few weeks' time, dealing with these matters would be a welcome step in addressing the gender pay gap, which has yet to be abolished 46 years after the introduction of the Equal Pay Act.

Mr Diver: I welcome the opportunity to speak at Further Consideration Stage and to support the amendments. In addressing them, I very much welcome amendment Nos 1 and 2. I know they are the product of discussion in Committee and at Consideration Stage.

Amendment No 4 relates to gender pay information. As Bronwyn said, the arguments for that were well rehearsed at Consideration Stage. I know that, at that stage, the proposer decided not to move the amendment, but the SDLP is on record as being in support of the principles behind the amendment at that stage. Last year, the ONS said that there had actually been relatively little change in the gender pay gap over recent years. In the UK, the gap between women and men's pay for full-time workers was 9·4% in April 2015 compared with 9·6% in 2014. As we know, the difference here in Northern Ireland has thankfully not been so stark of late, but the case remains that we do not require companies to publish pay statistics to the level that we would like to see possible. A notable difference to the amendment, rather than the version in England within the Equality Act, is a duty to publish gender pay statistics to trade unions and within the workplace.

The Minister made the point at Consideration Stage:

That is being ratified in today's amendment.

An Equality Commission code of practice, published in 2013, provides practical guidance to employers on how to promote equality of opportunity and to avoid sex discrimination in pay structures. This is, in the opinion of the SDLP, simply not enough. That is why we are happy to see, in amendment No 4, provision for a strategy on securing equal pay in the workforce to be brought within 18 months. That is, at its very core, a request for information on the gender pay gap. Many important factors, including a legacy of discrimination, have played an important role in gender discrimination in the workplace over the decades. Roles predominately carried out by women are undervalued by many, and men have dominated the best-paid positions.

A point made at Consideration Stage, which is true, is that there is a general inequality in the level of caring responsibilities between the two genders. The gap appears to be wider for older women, women from ethnic minorities and women in certain occupations. The information that the amendment seeks could help us to put in place action to eradicate gender inequality in the workplace, and the SDLP certainly supports that.

Amendment Nos 18 to 22 are concerned with the proposal to create a living wage agency. First, I would like to put on record that the SDLP fully supports the idea of a living wage. That said, we have heard outlined, over the past months, some concerns about the potential effect of the living wage on microbusinesses and employers who have expressed an inability to pay without incurring job losses. Obviously, that needs to be watched on an ongoing basis.

Evidence on the living wage shows that the better you treat an employee, the more valuable that employee becomes in an organisation. The living wage may not be the barrier to growth that smaller businesses feel it to be. We are dealing with human beings, and, around the world, it is the same notion: in general, the better you treat people, the more you will get out of them in any employment situation.

The Oxford Economics report shows that, if we were to pay a true living wage — not the Chancellor's proposed increased minimum wage — net employment in Northern Ireland would actually go up. When those at the lower end of the labour market are paid more, they will contribute more readily to the local economy, and that in turn will stimulate growth and have a multiplier effect on the economy in general, not to mention that employees who are better paid show greater commitment to the organisation and high productivity levels. Following the adoption of the living wage, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) found that turnover of contractors actually fell from 4% to 1%.

As to the particulars of the agency, I look forward to hearing the debate, but the SDLP certainly supports the creation of an agency to oversee this very important matter.

Ms Lo: I will speak briefly on the amendments in this group. Alliance supports amendment Nos 1 and 2, which come from the Committee. They reflect discussions at Consideration Stage on the need for some minor redrafting to avoid the potential identification of individuals and breaches of confidentiality.

We will also support the Sinn Féin amendments on the gender pay audit. That reflects legislation passed in Great Britain through the Equality Act 2010 that, coincidently, came into effect through regulations in the past few weeks. Alliance believes that there should be similar measures in Northern Ireland and that they should reflect our particular circumstances. In that regard, we do not need to replicate the same terms or thresholds that apply elsewhere.

Despite considerable progress in recent years, there is still a significant gap in the rates of pay between men and women. That reflects, in the main, structural differences in the labour market and does not necessarily represent wide-ranging cases of direct discrimination. However, while women, on the whole, have higher participation rates in further and higher education and, in turn, better qualifications, there are issues of retention and progression in the workforce; variances in levels of part-time work or irregular contracts; and differences in the employment rate. That may arise from choice but may also represent shortcomings in workforce policy and practice or government legislation. I congratulate the Minister on the passage of the Work and Families Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 with its new shared parental leave and improved access to flexible working.

On the amendments relating to the living wage, Alliance urges great caution. These amendments have been tabled very late in the day. There may be merit in much of what is proposed, but there has been no formal consideration of the issues, no public consultation, no costings and no assessment of regulatory impact. Given that this is a non-devolved matter and the provisions here are skirting around that, there are legitimate questions as to how effective or otherwise these mechanisms would be and whether they would represent value for money. Alliance is open to action in this area, but there needs to be wider consideration first. If we were to pass these amendments today, coming as they do at Further Consideration Stage, there would be no opportunity to rectify any issues until or unless fresh primary legislation were passed. It is in those respects that we urge great caution.

Mr Flanagan: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh an deis labhairt i bhfabhar na leasuithe go dtí seo. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this group of amendments, and I will focus my remarks on amendment No 4, which deals with gender pay, and amendment Nos 18 to 22, which would establish the living wage agency.

Amendment No 4 places a requirement on OFMDFM to bring forward regulations setting out the manner in which employers must publish information on the extent of the pay differential between male and female employees. This is largely the same as our proposal at Consideration Stage. That received support, in words at least, from Members across the Chamber, except for a few small points that were raised during the debate, which have been reflected in today's revised version.

The original proposal placed a duty on employers with more than 50 employees to report on the extent of the gender pay gap in an organisation. Following consultation with the CBI and others, however, we have decided that it would be more appropriate to allow the Department to set the minimum number, following public consultation, and to set a number that meets the needs of our circumstances, rather than merely to follow the position in Britain, where a figure of 250 has been adopted. We do not think that that is sufficient here, because the vast majority of employers here do not have anywhere near that number of personnel. We propose to allow the Department to bring forward its own proposal on the minimum number of employees that an employer must have to be required to engage in this reporting.

The proposal that we brought forward at Consideration Stage also required that the first regulations on this matter needed to be made by 10 November. Following discussion with the Minister and his departmental officials, however, we accept that that time frame may be too tight, and we have amended it to be the end of June next year. That gives the relevant Department a full year for the regulations to be made.

The other substantive change is that the requirement will no longer be placed on DEL or, indeed, its successor Department; rather, it will be the responsibility of OFMDFM, as the Department that takes the lead on equality matters, to bring forward these regulations within that time frame. One reason for our intention to keep it within DEL is to do with the admissibility of the amendment. Following further advice, we were guided that we could, in fact, transfer this responsibility to OFMDFM and have it remain within the broad parameters of the Bill, so we were more than content to make that change. That also applies to the requirement for the Executive to bring forward a strategy on tackling the gender pay gap.

Some Members highlighted a red herring through the issue of disability reporting. A mechanism already exists, however, for employees to self-report a disability, whether physical or mental. We envisage that it will be a matter for the Department to set out in regulations how best that should work. The CBI has tried to raise this as an issue, but I sincerely do not think that it is a matter of great import.

I think that the Department can find a way through the regulations that it will bring forward to deal with any concerns that employers' groups might have about the requirements of people who have a disability, but I do not think that it is enough to warrant anybody opposing the amendment.

As I have said, there will also be a requirement on OFMDFM to publish a strategy that includes an action plan to eliminate the differential in pay between male and female employees. I will reiterate a point that I made at Consideration Stage: the statistics at a macroeconomic level reveal that females here, on the whole, are paid more than males, but that can be explained by the prevalence of females who are employed in the public sector, where salaries tend to be higher, and by the decline in the construction sector, which was dominated by well-paid male workers in the round.

The strategy and action plan has to be a key weapon in tackling the gender pay gap. Only by getting accurate and detailed information from employers on the extent of the gender pay gap and the rationale behind it can the Executive put appropriate steps in place to rectify the situation. It is up to employers to comply with the law on equal pay, but there are many other barriers such as accessing childcare that prevent females receiving true equal pay in the workplace. The Executive need to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to remove those inequalities and barriers at the earliest possible stage.

Amendment Nos 18 to 22 make provision for the establishment of an organisation to be known as the living wage agency for the purpose of measuring, researching and advancing a living wage. We need to build an economy that is based on well-paid jobs to help to take our people out of poverty. Too many workers here do not earn enough to have a decent standard of living. The proposal from the British Government to increase the minimum wage does not go far enough to address the problems of low pay that exist in many sectors of our economy. We do not yet have the power to set a minimum rate of pay, but that is not what we are arguing about today, even though some Members have once again used the red herring that this is not a devolved matter as a reason for not supporting the amendment. The power to set a minimum rate of pay still rests with the British Government. In my opinion, that power should be transferred, and we, as locally elected representatives, should be able to tailor public policy to the needs of our citizens. The living wage agency would not replace the body that sets the minimum wage; it would be charged with determining what a living wage here is and promote that as the basic hourly rate that people should be paid and that it should be based on the minimum income standard.

The living wage agency would be empowered to identify barriers that impede employers in certain sectors, whether in retail, hospitality, services or others, from paying the living wage. The agency should then bring recommendations to the Executive to address those barriers using existing or potential policy levers. The living wage agency would also have the power to set targets to reduce the proportion of workers and employers who earn less than the living wage and to monitor progress in reducing that number.

There is also a section that states that, before determining what constitutes a living wage, the agency would have to consult the employer and employee representative groups to ensure that all sides have an input into the determination of a figure. At the minute, a voluntary organisation based in England determines what a living wage is, but there is insufficient research here to determine what constitutes a living wage here. It is better to establish a non-statutory agency on a legislative footing not only to guide and assist the Executive in determining a living wage but to play a role in promoting to employers that employees should be paid the living wage.

The amendment states that it would be up to the Minister to appoint a chairperson and members of the living wage agency and to ensure an effective balance between trade unionists, employers' groups and economists so that it can take decisions and make recommendations in the round. Of course, any decisions that it takes will not be binding on employers. It is merely a mechanism to help to promote a highly paid economy, to help to encourage employers to move away from low pay, to pay workers a decent hourly rate so that they can get a good standard of living and to identify for the Executive what barriers exist in some sectors to paying the living wage.

It is not envisaged that the body would be overly expensive to operate because we propose that the staff who service it should be existing staff in the Department and that the nominees should be representatives of groups with a vested interest in this policy area. None of the staff complement would need to be paid any more than they get at the minute, and no members of the agency would need to be paid because they would be representatives of trade unions or employers' groups or from a professional economist background. The only cost that should be applicable in that regard would be to cover basic expenses and potential lost earnings.

I heard one Member say that we were establishing another quango: well, we are not establishing a significant quango. It will be a very small organisation with as few members as the Minister shall determine. That small group of people will be charged with establishing what the living wage here is. At the end of the day, there is broad acceptance that we need more evidence-based policy here. If we are taking decisions, we need to have all the information that exists on the economic climate that we operate in, and one key factor is what the cost of living for our people is.

As I have said, we do not yet have the power to set a minimum wage. That power should be transferred and, if we did that, I would argue strongly that the minimum wage should be increased. Some Members have tried to use the fact that the powers to set a minimum wage have not been devolved as a reason for opposing the amendment: I do not buy it. The agency would not impact on the minimum wage at all. It would make recommendations on what the living wage should be and bring recommendations to the Executive on what barriers exist for employers who might want to pay the living wage and how we can make it more affordable for them to do so through changing existing policy levers or introducing new policy mechanisms. The living wage agency would be empowered to look at all those issues in the round and bring forward a figure that everyone could live with, as well as solutions to help the sectors that might struggle.

The recent proposed increase in the minimum wage has caused some concern amongst employers. The Minister of Health made announcements about putting additional money into domiciliary care and into nursing and care home facilities because of the proposed increase in the minimum wage. That is a welcome step through which workers will be paid more, but it will have a knock-on impact for organisations that have fixed incomes and may not be fully able to cope with the increase. It will be up to the living wage agency to identify what barriers exist in some sectors to stop people being paid more. That is a fairly rational proposal.

There is also a strong argument to be made that, once we establish what a living wage for people here is, more and more employers will want to become accredited living wage employers. That could be one of the strong points of the living wage agency: it could have an accreditation scheme whereby employers are publicly known to be living wage employers. The chances of getting better staff and getting more applicants for vacancies would improve a business's reputation, and I think that it would be a badge that employers would want, along the lines of Investors in People and other forms of accreditation that are currently offered. The public sector should take the lead in that regard. If we get a living wage agency up and running here, the first step that we should take is to ensure that all employees working directly or indirectly through the public sector are paid the living wage, whether that is direct employees, people working in the supply chain or subcontractors. The establishment of a living wage agency would allow us to be much better informed about the potential financial implications of that.

Dr Farry (The Minister for Employment and Learning): At the outset, I want to put on record my concerns at the considerable number of amendments that have been tabled at this late stage in the legislative process, many of which do not relate to the main provisions of the Bill as originally drafted, and some of which do not even fall under the responsibility of my Department. There has been some public consultation and Committee scrutiny of some of the issues covered by the amendments; however, with respect to several, there has been no public consultation or Committee scrutiny whatsoever. With the period of notice for amendments to primary legislation being, in practice, less than for a no-day-named motion in the Assembly, there is a real danger of bad law being passed. That is not to deny that there may be merit in many of the amendments, but there should be proper consideration of the issues involved. There may be a case for some of the amendments to proceed today, but I urge great caution with respect to the majority of them.

I turn first to amendment Nos 1 and 2, which, respectively, amend clause 9 and introduce new clause 9A. The amendments have been tabled by the Chair of the Committee for Employment and Learning. At Consideration Stage, I expressed concern that the amendments, as they were then drafted, could have negative consequences for confidentiality in respect of the important new services of early conciliation and neutral assessment. I am grateful to the Committee for taking that concern on board and coming back to the House with these two considered amendments, which address the issue by removing the requirement to report on individual cases and, instead, placing the focus on cases in aggregate. The Bill, amended in that way, will require separate reviews of early conciliation and neutral assessment at the end of one year and again at the end of three years following the commencement of provisions relating to each respective service.

I am content with that approach. I stress again my appreciation for the positive approach that the Committee has taken, which has enabled the Bill to move to where it is today despite the challenging time constraints.

I move now to new clause 16A — amendment No 4 — and the related amendment to clause 25 — amendment No 25 — tabled by Ms McGahan, Mr Flanagan, Mr McCann and Ms Fearon, as well as amendment No 28. The amendments take a revised approach to the gender pay amendment that was tabled but not moved at Consideration Stage. The intention behind them is the same: to set in place regulations requiring employers to publish information on gender pay differences. Where differences are established, employers would be required to publish an action plan to eliminate them. The responsible Department, having consulted the trade unions, would also be required to publish a strategy, including an action plan, on eliminating gender pay differences. I am pleased to note that the amendments take on board observations that I made at Consideration Stage.

As the proposed new clause 16A stands, the responsible Department is OFMDFM. That is much more in keeping with the broad remit of that Department around gender pay and sex discrimination and, indeed, all equality issues. It is important that we do not preside over a fragmentation of policy responsibility relating to those critical matters. Crucially, the amendment is much less prescriptive in matters such as the threshold for the size of companies or organisations. It is right that that be left to public consultation and, in due course, regulations. That takes on board the comments and fears expressed by Mr Buchanan that we are not locked into this being a company with 50 employees and that consideration will be given to what is the appropriate level for Northern Ireland. That regulation will have to come back to the Assembly for consideration. I also recognise what Mr Flanagan said, in that we do not necessarily have to reflect the case in Great Britain, where there is a threshold of 250. That may well be too large for our circumstances in Northern Ireland. Again, that issue can be bottomed out through the public consultation and, in due course, the consideration of the relevant regulation.

There is a small complication with how realistic it may be to collect meaningful data from employees around disability, as there can often be an under-reporting of that issue. That was reflected in comments by Members. However, that in itself does not negate the Assembly proceeding with the amendment today, although it may limit its effectiveness. Again, those issues could be explored further through regulations.

I said at Consideration Stage and reiterate today that, as Minister for Employment and Learning, I cannot take a formal view on the amendments. However, I am personally sympathetic to their intent, and I expect that Members will be in agreement that we want to see the elimination of gender pay differentials. However, it is for Members to decide on whether they believe that the amendments would achieve the objective in the right way. Anna Lo spoke for our party, and, speaking personally, I can say that we recognise that it is appropriate to put in place those measures to address the differentials. It is also important to recognise the wider context and the policy levers that exist in government, where we look to a range of policies and practices that support participation, retention and progression in the workforce. There is also a powerful economic argument for ensuring that that is the case. If we want to make sure that we fully compete in the global marketplace, we have to make full use of local talents and ensure that everyone's abilities are developed to the full.

Amendment Nos 18 to 22 — five new clauses — tabled by Mr Flanagan, Ms McGahan and Mr McCann would establish a living wage agency:

I want to make it clear that this is a debate not on the concept or the rights and wrongs of the creation of a living wage but on the creation of a living wage agency in Northern Ireland and its potential roles and functions. It is envisaged that the body would report annually on an hourly rate that is to be deemed a living wage; identify barriers to paying it; make recommendations to address those; set targets to reduce the proportion of people who are paid less than the living wage; and monitor progress in achieving those. Provision is also made for the composition, staffing and funding of the proposed agency. It is notable that the agency's financing is to be determined without reference to the Finance Minister or that Department.

The spirit of the clauses appears to be to deliver improved living standards by advocating a wage that, in the words of clause 16B(2), relates to,

I am not sure that there would be widespread agreement on what that standard might look like. To be clear, the clauses may well have a laudable goal, but there was no notice of the amendments until three working days before this stage of the Bill. That being the case, there has been no opportunity for any scrutiny, let alone any public consultation or engagement with stakeholders, in relation to the amendments. Similarly, there has been no regulatory impact assessment. The formal responsibilities in this area lie with the UK Parliament under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The Assembly should take into consideration the value or otherwise of putting measures in place in Northern Ireland that would only be advisory. The limitation on what it could do needs to be set against the costs involved. At this point in time, we have no assessment of the potential benefits, anticipated costs or the relative views from stakeholders on these matters. There is also the issue of how we will reconcile what any agency in Northern Ireland does with what is happening in the UK as a whole and the tensions that may arise between the perspectives that come from the bodies in different jurisdictions.

I do not think that it is reasonable to commit my Department or its successor to establishing and paying for a body that, materially, may make absolutely no difference, however persuasive its recommendations may be, to the living standards of people in Northern Ireland. However, it is important that we do not let go of this issue entirely.

Mr F McCann: Will the Minister give way?

Dr Farry: Yes.

Mr F McCann: I understand the list of issues you have raised, but I think that the point my colleague made was that, whilst we may not have any power over this at the moment, that does not stop us sending out a clear message to people on low pay that the Assembly stands shoulder to shoulder with them, recognising that the wage they earn is not enough for them to meet their weekly needs. He said that we had some power and influence over Departments, statutory authorities and councils to ask them to initiate the step of having a living wage, in preparation, hopefully, for us getting some power to deal with that.

Dr Farry: I was going to say that I note and compliment the enthusiasm of the Members in tabling the amendments, but, in doing that, we need to be clear what the amendments would do. If the intent behind them is to make a statement of the value that the Assembly places on the living wage being paid in Northern Ireland, there is a range of ways in which we can do that. We do not need to pass specific amendments into law to achieve that outcome. It is entirely conceivable that a body could be established by a future Minister. Whether that needs legislation remains to be seen, but it is an initiative that may well be taken in the future.

It is important that we have proper engagement with stakeholders when we move ahead with these issues. I have no doubt that tonight, when we discuss the fair employment exemption for teacher training, we will hear an argument from the Member's Benches about the fact that we need more time for proper consideration of those issues, that there has been no public consultation around the matters and that the Assembly should not jump ahead on the basis of an amendment tabled at Further Consideration Stage. I have not seen the speeches, but I imagine that that is what they will say. I have to say that you cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, you cannot rule things out because you want more time to think about it and then come to the Assembly with three days' notice, saying, "Here is a raft of amendments around a living wage agency, and let us pass them because we want to take a stand on the living wage".

We can take a stand on the living wage if people want to do that, but we have to think carefully through the implications of putting an agency into law at this stage without any engagement with stakeholders and without ensuring that what will be put forward will make a difference and will not be counterproductive. No one has assured me on any of those points whatsoever. There will be other opportunities to legislate, if legislation is required, to take that forward, but I do not believe that it would be right for the Assembly to move ahead today on the basis of what is before us. We will need to separate the proposals from the issue. The two are not the same. Anyone who votes against the amendments today is not voting against a living wage. I am certainly not voting against a living wage, and I am sure that I speak for everyone else who expresses caution on the issue. We are discussing five amendments around an agency, and it is important that we take proper time to reflect on that and take the views of stakeholders and think through how this will work and whether it will make a difference.

For that reason, I am opposing the amendments. I look forward to discussing and responding to the debates on the other groupings.

Mr Swann: I rise to wind up on group 1. I thank the House for its, I think, unanimous support for amendment Nos 1 and 2, tabled in the name of the Committee.

On amendment No 4, which deals with the gender pay gap, it has been noted here through Members' contributions that not moving the amendment at Consideration Stage has allowed the proposals to be tweaked and amended so that they meet the needs of the House and of Northern Ireland society in general. From what I have gauged, that is why amendment No 4 is receiving the full support of the House. Concerns were raised about the reference to disability, but I think that the Minister has allayed our fears, in that disability remains a self-declaring aspect in the amendment, so we are keen to support it, and I think that it has received the full support of the House.

With regard to the living wage agency, this is a response to what some Members have contributed. Tom Buchanan said that it was still a reserved matter and that the House needed to be careful in how it proceeded. Gerard Diver raised concerns about how it would affect microbusiness and made a very valid point that the better we treat the employee, the better the employee becomes. That is an opinion that nobody in the House could argue with. Anna Lo made the point that the matter had come late in the day without public consultation, and the Minister raised that to some extent.

In response to my comments as an Ulster Unionist Committee member, Phil referred to my concerns that we were creating another quango. In his contribution, he referred to the fact that the decisions of the body would be non-binding, and the Minister reinforced that by saying that it would only be advisory. That is why we want to proceed with caution in regard to the amendment —

Mr F McCann: Will the Member give way?

Mr Swann: Certainly.

Mr F McCann: Again, I understand what you say, but we are not only trying to create the thing. I know what the Minister said, but the likes of Belfast City Council took a decision on the living wage. Having had the discussion here today, we should be able to move that forward and encourage and advise other councils and statutory authorities to move to a position of paying a fair wage for a fair day's work.

Mr Swann: I think that the Member knows my position on the issues well enough to know that I agree with him on that point, but I do not think that the amendments do what you want to do, Mr McCann, and that is the concern. We have a responsibility through our councils and public agencies across Northern Ireland, and this is something we should move to, but my concern and that of my party is that we will not achieve that through the creation of this body.

When I raised my concerns about creating another quango, Mr Flanagan's response was that it would have only a small number of members supported by departmental officials, but he went on to refer to it actually delivering an accreditation scheme for organisations and said that employers could be recognised as living wage employers. His comparator for that was Investors in People. I am sure the Member remembers as well as I do that one of the cost-saving measures that the Minister for Employment and Learning made was to give Investors in People and that accreditation back to BIS in Westminster, so he is arguing against himself on that.

I appreciate what the Member and his party are trying to do, as I did on the gender pay issue, and I appreciate the fact that he did not move the amendments at Consideration Stage but instead tabled them at Further Consideration Stage with the further tweaking that was necessary. However, we in the Ulster Unionist Party echo the concerns raised by Anna Lo in this case: there has not been the proper work and dedication put into this as a legislative motion in these five amendments. That is why I support amendment Nos 1 and 2.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: We now come to the second group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 3, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 5 to 17 and 24 and 29, which deal with zero-hours contracts. Amendment No 24 is consequential to amendment No 3, and amendment No 29 is consequential to a number of earlier amendments. I call Ms Anna Lo to move amendment No 3 and to address the other amendments in the group, but, before she speaks, I remind her that Question Time is at 2.00 pm and I may need to interrupt her.

Ms Lo: I beg to move amendment No 3:

Ms Lo: Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I hope to finish within 10 minutes.

My colleague Stewart Dickson and I are moving amendment No 3 in the hope that it can be an amendment that the whole Assembly can unite on, as it creates the opportunity on a realistic platform from this point onwards for the proportionate regulation of zero-hours contracts. There are many legitimate concerns about those contracts, and it is important that the Assembly takes the opportunity to put in place proportionate regulation that permits them to remain in areas where flexibility for employers is important and where they may work from the perspective of employees while addressing abuse and exploitation.

Opportunities to take forward more detailed proposals over the past year have not been taken. There is an irony that some of the amendments tabled for today reflect the proposals tabled by my colleague the Minister for Employment and Learning. However, they have come far too late in the process for any proper consideration by the Committee and the full Assembly or for further engagement with stakeholders on the proposed way forward. It is important that the Assembly is satisfied that what is proposed will be effective, that the arrangements are not capable of being circumvented by some employers and that there are no unintended consequences.

With respect to those who tabled the amendments, there is no basis on which they can provide that assurance. Also, given that the regulation of zero-hours contracts is a relatively new area of law, there is a strong argument that the bulk of legislation should be provided through regulations, rather than by primary legislation, as, in the event that we need to modify what we are doing, it would be far easier to amend regulations than it would be with the longer time frame and the process involved in primary legislation.

The amendment in my name and that of my colleague Stewart Dickson offers the Assembly the only plausible option to provide a platform on which the proportionate regulation of zero-hours contracts can be taken forward. It will provide the basis on which the next Minister with responsibility for employment law, who, I understand, will be the new Minister for the Economy, can make regulations. Our amendment is not prescriptive about content and gives scope for an open and transparent process in which detailed proposals can come forward and be tested with stakeholders and provide space for engagement with the Committee. Nothing would be taken forward without the agreement of the Executive and then the approval of the Assembly.

The main amendment in our names defines zero-hours and non-contractual zero-hours arrangements and provides a broad enabling power to make regulations for those provisions.

Apart from providing definitions, the clauses are not prescriptive on how zero-hours contracts are to be dealt with in legislation. Instead, they provide for regulations to amend or repeal any statutory provision, including the revision of the definitions if events or circumstances warrant that.

Our second amendment provides that this would be done by affirmative procedure. The contents of the Sinn Féin amendments would be progressed through regulations. Given that an affirmative route would be required both today and in relation to any regulations, nothing would be lost through waiting and taking the opportunity to ensure that we are confident that we are providing the most appropriate and proportionate regulation.

Passing our amendments today would recognise that this is a significant area of public concern and is a focal point for the public discourse. It would also avoid any further delay that would result from the Assembly having to wait for the next opportunity of a relevant employment Bill coming before it.

Mr Flanagan: Will the Member give way?

Ms Lo: Yes.

Mr Flanagan: The Member's argument is quite contradictory. On the one hand, she says that this power will allow any future Minister, at any time of his or her choosing, to bring regulations forward. Yet the Member has not stipulated when any future Minister will have to bring regulations forward or when they will be made. So we could be sitting here for another one to three years waiting for this issue to be dealt with. Meanwhile there are proposals on the table that could be enacted much more quickly. So whilst the Member says that nothing is being lost by this amendment alone being voted through, on every day that goes by without this issue being addressed, the rights of working people are being eroded, and a small number of employers are allowed to abuse people who are on zero-hours contracts at the minute.

Ms Lo: I thank the Member for his intervention. I understand what you are saying, but what we are doing now is setting the path for the Committee and the future Minister to look at this again through regulation. There is no doubt that it is an important issue and that there are concerns about abuse and exploitation. However, this is not the right time to put amendments forward, as we need Committee scrutiny and further consideration. I think that the future Minister will take this on board and bring it forward as soon as possible.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: As Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the House take its ease until then. The debate will continue after Question Time when the next Member to speak will be the Chair of the Employment and Learning Committee, Mr Robin Swann.

Mr Speaker: Questions 5 and 10 have been withdrawn.

Mr Ford (The Minister of Justice): As I set out in my ministerial statement on 8 February 2016, access to justice is not simply a matter of physical proximity or about having courthouses in every town. In this context, it is about ensuring that court users are treated fairly and have access to appropriate services when they are needed. The closure of six courthouses will not see a reduction in scheduled court sittings, as business will transfer on a like-for-like basis to the new venues, so there is no reason that there would be any negative impact on access to court time.

The remaining courthouses in the estate will ensure that access to justice, within a reasonable travelling distance, is preserved for court users. I welcome the indication from the Lord Chief Justice that the judiciary is prepared to consider the timings for court proceedings and to explore the benefits of a more flexible court sitting day to alleviate any difficulties that individual users may have.

The Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service (NICTS) has invested significantly in improvements to operating models and to the services that it provides to court users, particularly its IT infrastructure and the ability to support video links in all major courthouses. The retained venues are some of our more modern or larger courthouses, which offer advantages for vulnerable victims and witnesses, including better facilities for segregation.

Mr Swann: I thank the Minister for his answer, in which he used the phrase "physical proximity". During questions on his earlier statement, he told me that there would be no job losses. Will he comment on the effect that the closure of Ballymena courthouse will have on the town — on the solicitors' practices and law offices that are based in the town because of the proximity to the courthouse and on the business that they create for shops, coffee houses and restaurants in the town?

Mr Ford: I thank Mr Swann for his supplementary question. A small number of direct Courts Service jobs will move from Ballymena to Antrim. Living between Antrim and Ballymena, I have some knowledge of both towns. I would have thought that a significant number of solicitors' practices, given that they have a variety of interests and do not solely concentrate on business in courts, will continue in Ballymena because it is a significant shopping and market centre. The likelihood of any significant number of jobs moving, other than the small number of direct jobs in the Courts and Tribunals Service, is, I suspect, quite small.

Mr Ross: The Minister will know that a considerable amount of money has been put into Ballymena courthouse in recent years to upgrade its facilities. Rather than leaving the building not fulfilling a function, would he look favourably on creating a community justice centre at Ballymena courthouse or, indeed, given the other facilities around the town, on piloting a drugs court there in future?

Mr Ford: I appreciate the Committee Chair's question; indeed, he wrote to me recently about the issue. There are questions about whether it is possible to do alternative work beyond that which is being provided for and whether there is a displacement issue. I have asked officials to look at the Chair's suggestion, but that is a promise to look at the suggestion and not a promise to deliver anything specific at this point.

Mr McCartney: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his answers. There seems to be a lack of clarity about the savings that will be made when the courthouses close. Some people say that, although there will be a saving, the Department will have to pay some money towards what is called "warm storage". Will he outline the exact amount of money that will be saved each year in each courthouse?

Mr Ford: I do not have those figures with me. I have given them previously, and I can confirm that all the figures given to me were net of the cost of continuing to maintain businesses until such time as they are disposed of.

Mr Allister: Of course, if access to justice for the people in the area really mattered to the Minister, he would not be closing the wonderful, expensively upgraded Ballymena courthouse. For all the platitudes that his actions speak towards, he could not care less about access to a courthouse for the people of Ballymena. Today, when asked how many jobs will be lost, he could not even put a figure on it. Will he at least put a figure on it so that we know?

Mr Ford: Along with the usual insults that we expect from Mr Allister, he asks me to answer a question that simply cannot be answered. I do not control the location of solicitors' offices, which are private businesses that locate where they wish. That was the point that I made very specifically to Mr Swann. I do not know whether Mr Allister, with his extensive legal experience, can tell solicitors where they will locate in the future, but I am afraid that I cannot.

Mr Ford: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 2, 7 and 11 together.

First and foremost, I believe that this is a good news story. In 2011, we changed the law to keep recovered criminal asset money in Northern Ireland. Since it was launched in 2011, the assets recovery community scheme (ARCS) has awarded nearly £3.5 million to a variety of projects. This funding is money that has been taken out of the hands of criminals and returned to the community. It is clear to me from witnessing a number of projects at first hand that they make a real difference. ARCS is a popular scheme and, perhaps influenced in part by the current economic environment, is greatly oversubscribed. In the 2015-16 competition, 75 applications were received, and the available funding allowed awards to 23 groups. The recently launched 2016-17 competition has received around 150 applications, and their assessment is under way.

Applications are assessed individually against the criteria for the scheme. Although submitted via policing and community safety partnerships (PCSPs), they are not considered geographically. Those meeting the criteria are then scored on areas including evidence of need, actions proposed and value for money. These scorings are reviewed by a panel of senior officials before I reach a final decision.

Details cannot be given about allocations in South Belfast, as most projects extend across the city. In the last four years, projects in the Belfast area have received in the region of £170,000. In the current round, there are 30 applications from the Belfast area.

Mr McQuillan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, I do not know whether you have the figures with you, but can you give a specific breakdown of how many groups applied from East Londonderry? Will you give us a flavour of the support that the groups got?

Mr Ford: I am afraid that I did not come with the full detail, but I will happily write to Mr McQuillan with the details for his constituency. Certainly, at the point when awards are made, the full details will be published. Part of the issue, of course, is that we are not sure, from month to month, how much will be received through the scheme, so there will be, in effect, a first list, and a reserve list should additional money become available.

Mr McKinney: The Minister will be aware of the increase in burglaries in South Belfast in the recent past. Is any consideration being given to directing moneys at deterrence or awareness or to protecting the victims of such burglaries?

Mr Ford: I can assure Mr McKinney that the principal aim behind the scheme is to fight crime, the fear of crime and antisocial behaviour. The issues that he has highlighted on a number of occasions about burglaries in his constituency clearly come well within the scheme. At this stage, I do not have details of the 30 Belfast applications and what they might be, but they are being assessed. If there are schemes that score highly enough, they will certainly get a grant.

Mr Hilditch: I should probably declare a non-pecuniary interest as an official of a midnight soccer scheme that avails itself of some of the money. I acknowledge the work of the scheme and congratulate those responsible on its implementation. I have seen that work at first hand, which is done for the benefit of the young people who participate. Can the Minister give a commitment to its future in terms of length of time or how it could be enhanced going forward?

Mr Ford: I can certainly give a commitment that, as long as I am Minister, the scheme will continue. Arrangements are going ahead for the scheme to run in 2016-17. We should be very clear that this was money that we only got after devolution. Prior to devolution, the half of the money that goes to the agencies responsible came back to the agencies within Northern Ireland, but the half that we distribute in community grants was simply not available in Northern Ireland. That, in itself, is good news. It is £3·5 million in community grants that would not have been made otherwise. I cannot imagine that there are any prospects under which the scheme would not continue. The difficulty is that we have to spend the money in the year we receive it and it is not as flexible as one would hope it might be.

Mr Lynch: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answers thus far and welcome the scheme. One of the objectives of the scheme from the outset was the prevention of crime and the reduction of fear of crime. Can the Minister outline how that has been achieved to date?

Mr Ford: I could probably stand here all afternoon doing that, Mr Speaker, but you would cut me off after two minutes if I gave some of the examples. For example, Mr Hilditch has just highlighted the midnight soccer scheme that is run in a number of areas and which deters young people from getting engaged in antisocial behaviour. I have seen schemes that are directly aimed at providing crime-fighting materials such as door chains, spyglasses and so on, to older and vulnerable people. So, there are a variety of ways in which confidence can be provided and in which crime can be fought, both in the sense of deterrence and direct provision of whatever resources are needed to make it more difficult for crimes to be committed. It really is a matter of a variety of imaginative ideas coming in from community groups, through PCSPs right across Northern Ireland and I think that it has been very positive in that respect.

Mr McMullan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the Minister outline the number of groups that work with people who have disabilities and special needs and which have been successful in applying to the assets recovery community scheme?

Mr Ford: I am afraid that, no, I cannot give that level of detail at Question Time. Groups that work with people with special needs is a fairly wide category. I have no doubt that some of them are included within a general categorisation. If Mr McMullan has a specific question and wants to write to me, I will certainly answer it.

Mr Ford: The role played by the media in reporting cases and their outcomes is an essential component of the principle of open justice. Access to courts by the media and the public is not affected by a reduction in the number of courthouses. In this digital age, it is possible for reporters to submit articles directly from courthouses or to avail themselves of other technologies, such as Skype. Wi-Fi access in courts outside Belfast has also been factored into the Courts and Tribunals Service future ICT modernisation programme.

NICTS provides a specific online service for the media, allowing them to access full case details seven days in advance of the hearing. This, in addition to the services of press teams in NICTS and the office of the Lord Chief Justice, has reduced the need for reporters to attend court for every single hearing, which clearly frees up staff time.

Mr Beggs: As well as reporting the decisions of courts, I think it is important that the public is aware of the cases themselves. With the centralisation of courts, there will of course be no courtroom within the Mid and East Antrim Borough Council area. That will make it more difficult for local journalists to report on cases. Does the Minister accept that, whilst the reports may be online, it will be more difficult for local journalists and people to access that information if it is not near to them? Has consideration been given to putting courts online, so that the public can follow what is said in a courtroom, just like the Assembly Committees or local councils?

Mr Ford: Mr Beggs's latter point, though interesting, takes us into a very different area, which is around the whole issue of putting courts online. You will know that that has been done in only a very limited way in Scotland or in the Supreme Court when giving decisions. I think that we are long way from seeing the benefits of that. I must say that, living not that far away in the council area adjacent to that of Mr Beggs, I see no difficulty in my local newspapers reporting the activities of either Mid and East Antrim Borough Council or Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council, where reporters have to travel a bit. I cannot therefore see that they would have much problem reporting on the courts.

Mr Givan: Given the success of the televising of some court proceedings on the mainland, is it not something that the Lord Chief Justice should be encouraged to facilitate in Northern Ireland, at least for the Court of Appeal, so that the public are able to see exactly what happens in the courts rather than having to rely on a filter from journalists outside the building or, indeed, the print media? That would be a good way of opening up greater access to the courts.

Mr Ford: I certainly think that Mr Givan raises an interesting point when he talks about the Court of Appeal giving judgements. However, I am not sure, given the time that it can take for a judgement in the Court of Appeal, that the public would necessarily see everything. They might well have something filtered through television editors rather than television reporters selectively reporting from the street outside. The issue merits consideration, but I must confess that it is not my first priority in managing the courts at this stage.

Mr McCarthy: I thank the Minister for his answers and for his acknowledgement that reporting in court cases is very important and may even be a deterrent to further crime. Can he advise the House whether any media or press organisations responded to the consultation on court rationalisation?

Mr Ford: The answer to Mr McCarthy's question is fairly simple, Mr Speaker: no media organisation responded to the consultation on court closures. I think that one raised the potential closure of Enniskillen, when a local newspaper representative talked about travelling times for journalists. However, as Members will recall, Enniskillen will remain as a hearing centre, so that problem has been addressed. There were certainly no formal responses from any media organisation.

Mr Ford: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will take questions 4 and 9 together. Both questions go to the heart of what prison is for. I have often said that people are sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment. Recognising that the vast majority of prisoners will return to our community, we have done much in recent years to ensure that we use the time that people spend in prison to address the types of behaviour that put them in prison, to rehabilitate them and to prepare them for return to society.

In September last year, I published 'Supporting Change: A Strategic Approach to Desistance', setting out my Department's commitment to provide a flexible, person-centred approach that reduces reoffending. The Prison Service contributes to the strategy by making rehabilitation central to how prisons operate and by providing opportunities for people to change and make a positive contribution to their families and to wider society.

The prisoner development model supports, challenges and motivates people throughout their time in prison. Individual risks, needs and strengths are identified so that a structured, tailored personal development plan is agreed with the prisoner to assist them as they prepare for release. When appropriate, people in custody may also participate in programmes to address the distorted thinking and attitudes that led to their offending behaviour, thereby reducing the likelihood of future offending.

Belfast Metropolitan College and North West Regional College provide a wide curriculum of learning and skills across prison establishments, all of which will result in an accredited outcome. The Prison Service also works in partnership with employers to provide work experience and job-sampling opportunities for prisoners prior to their release.

In all those ways, we have put rehabilitation and transformational change at the heart of the Prison Service in Northern Ireland. That remains the direction of our prison service, and the Prime Minister's recent statement suggests that those in England and Wales are now on the same path.

Mr Speaker: I call Ms — sorry, Mr — Alban Maginness for his supplementary question. I beg your pardon.

Mr A Maginness: Not at all, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his answer. Progress has certainly been made in relation to providing the means for the rehabilitation of offenders, but much more work needs to be done. Will the Minister outline any plans or ideas that he may have on expanding the area of employment that ex-offenders are able to avail themselves of in order to provide for their full integration back into the community?

Mr Ford: Mr Maginness puts his finger on one of the key issues to do with rehabilitation, which is the opportunity for employment or, rather, constructive, worthwhile activity. We have certainly seen some significant improvements, particularly at Hydebank Wood, but we have also seen significant opportunities for employment and voluntary service based at Magilligan in recent times. We have a number of enterprises based in our prisons that employ people in prison, as they leave prison and for a short period afterwards. The Thinking Cup Cafe and Book Reserve in south Belfast, which works with young men who have family responsibilities and assists them to get into a culture of employment as they leave, is the right kind of example. I am also conscious of the fact that, despite the significant increase in that work, there remain prisoners who do not have the opportunities either in learning and skills or direct work. It is an area where we need to continue to work with some of our voluntary sector partners outside to get the best possible opportunities.

Ms Lo: I thank the Minister for his response and commend him on his determination and his work to reform the criminal system, focusing on rehabilitation and the reduction of reoffending. Does he believe that the prison reform programme has made significant changes that will improve outcomes for prisoners and wider society?

Mr Ford: Yes, I certainly do. We are conscious that, this week, we are due to see the latest update on the Criminal Justice Inspection report on Maghaberry prison. However, alongside some of the short-term difficulties we have seen there, we have seen significant issues. For example, the last meeting of the prison review oversight group signed off on 36 — 90% — of the 40 recommendations made by the prison review team, many of which are about embedding long-term structural change. That is very significant. We have seen massive issues in refresh and improved training for staff across a variety of grades. Hydebank Wood College is the first secure college anywhere in the United Kingdom. We have seen the reopening of Burren House as a step-down facility for men and the opening of Murray House as a step-down facility for women. There are a variety of plans — obviously subject to capital, if anybody wishes to speak to the Finance Minister — to develop all three prisons. There is the very significant partnership with the two colleges in the provision of accredited courses on the same basis as it would happen outside. There is the work that I mentioned on the desistance strategy and on rolling out the Inspire programme for women. All of this shows significant advances in recent years that, I believe, are now part of the culture of the Prison Service and will make a real difference in the years ahead.

Mr Ford: The Prison Service continues to maintain a clear focus on the safety of staff. The Maghaberry senior management team has been refreshed and strengthened, and unit managers are now based in the residential areas to provide visible leadership and support for staff. Staff training and the rotation of staff working in the more stressful areas is ongoing. The introduction of a new core day for prisoners, with more appropriate mealtimes and longer periods outside residential units, reduces prisoner frustration and provides a safer environment for all. Other measures put in place with regard to safety are the visible patrolling of prisoner recreation areas by staff and the piloting of body-worn cameras. The use of these cameras by staff has clearly led to a lessening in verbal abuse and a reduction in aggression directed at officers. The safety of staff and prisoners remains under constant review.

Mr Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his response. Will he advise how many officers are currently off work due to injury on duty and what support services are offered to them?

Mr Ford: I cannot give the immediate stats for the numbers who are off work today for injury on duty, but there are solid arrangements in place to provide support for officers, including counselling services and line managers keeping in touch and offering assistance in dealing with sickness issues. All of that is carried out in connection with the general processes outlined in the Civil Service handbook but recognising that prison officers are in a particularly difficult place compared with many civil servants. That support has shown that the number who are off on sick can be reduced, as has happened in recent months, and that is good for all concerned.

Mr Cochrane-Watson: I thank the Minister for his answers so far. Minister, do you have any plans to meet, or have you met, the Prison Officers' Association on these issues?

Mr Ford: As I said at, I think, my last Question Time, I have not had a recent specific meeting on these issues with the Prison Officers' Association, but I meet it whenever I am requested to do so.

Mr Ford: The fight against cross-border criminality is principally an operational matter for the two police forces and other law enforcement agencies, coordinated through the new cross-jurisdictional joint agency task force. The terms of reference for the task force were agreed at a ministerial trilateral meeting held in Dublin on 21 December. A strategic oversight group will be jointly chaired by the deputy commissioner for operations of an Garda Síochána and the PSNI assistant chief constable for crime operations. Other members will be senior representatives of other relevant law enforcement agencies. The joint chairs have already met twice, and the first full task force meeting will be in early March. An operations coordination group will be chaired by chief superintendents from the PSNI and an Garda Síochána. Membership will comprise senior operational representatives from a wider group of relevant law enforcement agencies to be decided by the group.

Mrs Dobson: I thank the Minister for his answer. I am aware of increases in criminal activity, particularly in Louth and Dundalk, which is leading to a bleed across the border, with the A1 dual carriageway and housing estates, including those in Banbridge, becoming particularly vulnerable. What reassurances can the Minister give that the PSNI, particularly in Banbridge, has the adequate resources to effectively address that issue and bring those responsible to justice?

Mr Ford: I can guarantee only that the PSNI is provided with the resources that are available for me to provide to it. Members will be aware that the PSNI budget was significantly protected for next year compared with other aspects of the justice system. However, the precise allocation of resources across individual districts is a matter for the Chief Constable, not me.

I note Mrs Dobson's particular point relating to cross-border criminality. There is no doubt that the recent upsurge of drug-related crime in Dublin has led to a reallocation of resources by an Garda Síochána, which may well have had some effect in border areas. It is important that we see the arrangements continuing between the two police services. The joint agency task force will enable better coordination between the two.

Mrs D Kelly: I thank the Minister for his answer, particularly the latter points. Minister, you will be aware that there are some 88 gangs here in the North dealing drugs. Of course, we saw the recent gangland violence in Dublin. What reassurance and information can you give to the House around the tie-up and whether the models of Mafia-type violence in Dublin will spill onto our streets here in the North?

Mr Ford: I can give the House the assurance that, on the information that I receive about there being very close coordination between the two police services, very good work is being done, particularly with the new structure of the joint agency task force, to tackle criminal activity.

Mrs Kelly referred to the number of gangs dealing in drugs. We should also be aware, of course, that many of them deal in a variety of different crimes. That is why it was a particular pleasure for me to see last week the very good work being done by HMRC in tackling diesel fraud. The new marker is extremely effective in catching vehicles that were using laundered diesel. Even in cases where the old marker has been laundered out, the new marker shows quite clearly. The good news of that is that it means that we are likely to see a reduction in diesel laundering, with all the effects on public health and pollution associated with it, which her colleague the Environment Minister will be well aware of. The bad news is that that probably means that some of those gangs will turn to other issues. We need to ensure that the police response is adequate on both sides of the border to deal with that.

Mr Ford: I am aware of previous criticism of the Ministry of Defence regarding the disclosure of material and making former soldiers available for interview for a number of legacy inquests in Northern Ireland. I am also aware of the impact that those issues can have on the ability to progress legacy inquests and on public confidence.

I wrote to the Secretary of State on 15 June 2015 asking her to raise the issue of tracing retired military witnesses directly with the Secretary of State for Defence. I asked that he consider what steps might be taken or whether additional resources could be deployed by the MOD to address the problem that the coroners have encountered with retired military witnesses. In response, the Secretary of State for Defence advised that he is conscious of the importance of securing the full participation of the widest possible range of witnesses and that the MOD would do all it reasonably could to facilitate their engagement.

I appreciate that response. However, it is clear that much more work is required in the identification and tracing of retired military witnesses and in communication with them regarding participation in the inquest process.

I also note the involvement of the MOD in the preliminary hearings on legacy inquests before Lord Justice Weir recently. Those 43 inquests with an MOD involvement represent a significant proportion of the legacy inquests that remain outstanding. I trust that the MOD will respond fully to the requests for information that Lord Justice Weir made in those hearings.

Mr Speaker: That ends the period for listed questions. We will now move on to topical questions.

Mr Ford: I thank Mr Rogers for that question. I frequently discuss with the Irish Justice Minister— I think probably at every meeting I have with her — the issues of operational support for the two police services. I know that there had been discussions ongoing very recently between officials about the refresh to the cross-border policing strategy, which I hope to be able to launch within the next few weeks, subject to timing arrangements at this stage largely because of the elections to Dáil Éireann. I believe that good work has been done on that, but it is important that we get the public statement of the relaunch of that strategy.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Chris Hazzard, if he has recovered his breath. Sorry, Seán still has a supplementary to ask. That gives you a rest, Chris

Mr Rogers: Thanks, Mr Speaker. A lot of communities have suffered because of cross-border crime, none more so than the farming community through the loss of livestock and machinery. What is being done to address that?

Mr Ford: Mr Rogers is now taking me into the direct responsibilities of the operational cross-border group. Members will be aware of the very significant amount of work that has been done in support of trailer marking and a variety of issues relating to Farmwatch and so on. I hope that, in the next few days, we will see a further announcement on the good work being done.

Most of that has been led by individual PSCPs as they look to see what their local needs are. The precise issue of the operational cross-border arrangements rests with the two leading police officers, although Members will also be aware that a number of other bodies, such as the DARD veterinary service, have been suggested for inclusion in the operational subgroup to ensure that we get not just the policing services and the key agencies but some agencies that have not always appeared on the criminal justice list involved in ensuring that we tackle the variety of different crimes that operate on a cross-border basis.

Mr Ford: There I was thinking that, when I made the courts announcement, Mr Hazzard did a good job by not just making a plea for his local courthouse. The simple answer is that there are no plans to take additional services into Downpatrick at this stage. On the basis of transport and communications links, Downpatrick is seen as serving a fairly discrete area. It is a bit like the point that I made in response to Mr Ross, which was that, no doubt, Members will suggest all kinds of different projects that might be run in particular courthouses, but we need to ensure that we get the balance right and that we manage the costs right, with a lot of the new proposals, such as on problem-solving courts, being handled in the best way to provide an efficient service.

Mr Hazzard: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. I want to thank him for giving special acknowledgement to the very rural needs, nature and aspects of South Down, which are why the Downpatrick court exists. I wish the Health Minister would do likewise. Perhaps there is the potential for a refurbishment grant or some sort of resource to be made available to bring Downpatrick courthouse up to the standard that we expect.

Mr Ford: Members are well aware of DOJ's difficult budget situation. I have no doubt that the Courts and Tribunals Service is keeping all its buildings under review, but I have not, at this stage, seen any specific proposals for renovation in Downpatrick. I suspect that the reality of the next financial year or two is that it will be unlikely that there will be anything significant within that timescale.

Mr Ford: I am afraid that I cannot give any direct additional information on that. It is safe to say that Members are aware that a recruitment process is under way, but I am not sure of the exact detail of where we are with the recruitment of those persons.

Mr Milne: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Mo bhuíochas don Aire go dtí seo. I thank the Minister for his short answer. Why have the job criteria for the new coroner investigators been changed from what was sought and recommended by the coroner in the first place?

Mr Ford: Specific issues regarding the appropriate balance of skills that would be required for the coroner investigator posts and the knowledge that the individuals would have of the operation of the justice system in Northern Ireland were looked at. That is why the criteria sit as they do. On the evidence that is put to me, I am satisfied that it will be possible to recruit people who have the appropriate knowledge but are not in any way compromised in carrying out the work that will be required in the new posts.

Mr Dallat: Earlier, the Minister answered a question from my colleague Alex Attwood about the need to establish the truth from the past. I am sorry that there was not time for a supplementary. Perhaps I can use this opportunity to pursue the issue.

Mr Ford: I certainly accept the point that Mr Dallat makes about the historical position. Following the letter from the Secretary of State for Defence to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on the back of my query, I think that we have seen an improvement in the help being offered by the MOD. However, that is where I hinted that we needed to ensure that it was carried through into reality. For example, we have seen it instituting better administrative checks on records, including pension records, to look at potential witnesses. We have also seen the agreement that the Royal Military Police (RMP) will use its policing powers, if necessary and possible, to assist the process. That would mean, obviously, that the RMP would have policing powers to go into liaising with outside agencies beyond simply trawling through MOD records. I think that there is some progress implied; the important issue is whether the comments made by Lord Justice Weir are taken into account by the MOD representatives and carried through in full.

Mr Dallat: The Minister will be aware that I come from a constituency and neighbour a constituency where more than 20 people from both communities lost their life in rather strange circumstances. Does the Minister agree that the time for sending letters here, there and everywhere is over and that the British Government should acknowledge their involvement in that and pay the cost of finding out and telling the truth about what happened to our loved ones?

Mr Ford: I certainly agree that the Government have a duty, as do other agencies and individuals, to assist in finding the truth about what happened in the case of the 55 legacy inquests awaiting hearing in courts in Northern Ireland. That includes people talking about their involvement in these issues as well as the more bureaucratic approach that we were talking about earlier with regard to finding potential witnesses and making them amenable. There is work to be done by agencies and a moral obligation on agencies and individuals to assist victims.

Mr Ford: I have not specifically discussed burglaries in East Belfast with the PSNI because that is very much an operational issue for the Chief Constable. Whilst we discuss general policing matters, we do not discuss that level of operational detail.

Mr Allen: I thank the Minister for his answer. Constituents from throughout East Belfast have come to me with concerns about the rise in burglaries in the constituency. Will budget constraints have any impact on the PSNI's ability to tackle such crime?

Mr Ford: I thank Mr Allen for the question. At every Question Time that I have done in the last year, I have highlighted the fact that budgetary restrictions are being imposed on the PSNI. It has to deal with significant and severe crimes or threats of crime, with the result that there has been reprioritisation and, therefore, an inevitable slight increase in burglaries. The statistics show a significant decrease in the number of burglaries in Northern Ireland over the last seven or eight years. In that context, much though we might wish it, we cannot expect an ever-decreasing level of crime, and I suspect that, if there is reprioritisation because of budget restrictions being imposed on the Department of Justice, it is inevitable that there will be some increase in burglaries.

Mr Ford: I can go only on the basis that the two key restorative justice organisations are fully accredited and inspected by Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, along with statutory elements in the justice system and the reports to me are favourable.

Mr Newton: Given that those organisations enjoy the Minister's confidence, what plans does he have for their development to increase their competence and professionalism so that they might provide an even better service to the justice system?

Mr Ford: Given that we are talking about voluntary organisations whose direct line of contact is not with the Department as much as with the Police Service, other agencies and voluntary sector partners, I am not sure that it is the Department's responsibility to enhance their training. It is, however, the Department's job to encourage better joined-up working, and I believe that we are doing that to ensure better professionalism among all those who work in the justice system by encouragement but not by direction.

Mr Ford: At present, there is clearly a reduced number of prison officers, which is why one of the key issues that are being focused on by the governor and the senior management team is sickness absence to ensure that, when possible, officers are at work. A recruitment exercise is being carried out. We need to be careful that we do not automatically assume that the prison supervision ratios that applied some years ago are necessarily appropriate. Reference to ratios of one prison officer to so many prisoners in particular areas does not represent the reality of the different threat levels in different parts of Maghaberry and different kinds of prisoners in different parts of the prison. The issue is at this stage is to ensure that there are appropriate but not excessive levels of supervision in every area, ensuring that the most difficult areas receive significantly higher supervision levels.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Buchanan for a quick supplementary question.

Mr Buchanan: Does the Minister agree that the lack of prison officers is the reason for so many being off as a result of injuries received while on duty?

Mr Ford: No. I do not agree that that is the position. In recent months, a cultural shift has led to many more officers being on duty and ensured that prisoners are being managed better, in a way that reduces tension and is less likely to lead to injury to officers or other prisoners.

Miss M McIlveen (The Minister for Regional Development): Two schemes are being developed for the A24. I am pleased to advise that my Department has invited tenders for the proposed junction improvement scheme on the A24 Carryduff Road at Temple. Construction is expected to commence in spring 2016, subject to the successful completion of the tendering and land acquisition processes.

A public inquiry into the proposed A24 Ballynahinch bypass concluded on 27 January. The inspector will now consider all the evidence and prepare a report, which will normally include synopses of the Department, supporters and objectors' cases, details of related questions and answers, the inspector’s considerations and the inspector’s recommendations. It is likely that, as normal, the completed report will be submitted to the Department for consideration within several months. My officials will then address the inspector’s recommendations and prepare a report for my consideration. Having considered all of the issues, I will decide how the scheme should proceed. The decision will be conveyed in a departmental statement accompanied by the publication of the inspector’s report. Subject to a satisfactory outcome, the notice of intention to proceed and the direction order will also be published. Progression to construction remains subject to the approval of the business case, clearing the statutory procedures and funding being made available to my Department.

Mr Lunn: I thank the Minister for what was, effectively, an announcement. It will be very good news for all users of that junction, particularly those who try to turn right from the side roads. In view of the accident history at that point, it is very welcome news indeed. In fact, I can hardly think of a question to ask her. You set out the progression, but when do you expect construction to start? Have you any idea of the timescale?

Miss M McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question. I, too, am very aware of that junction as it borders on my constituency, and I use the route often. I am also aware of the collisions there. All tenders returned by the closing date will be assessed, and the most economically advantageous will be identified. Funding has been set aside for the scheme, and it is hoped that it will commence in the spring.

Mr Craig: I welcome what the Minster has said so far about the scheme at the Temple crossroads, which is an extremely dangerous crossroads. My father witnessed a fatal accident at that junction. Will the Minister outline the approximate cost of the scheme? More importantly, what additional features will it have?

Miss M McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question. The cost is estimated to be in the region of £1·25 million. As I said to Mr Lunn, funding has been set aside for the scheme. There will be a four-leg roundabout at the junction, and, in addition to the junction improvement, there will be road realignment, a new footway on the approach from Lisburn, a 34-space park-and-share facility and traffic islands.

Mr Rogers: Thank you, Minister, for your answers thus far. I, too, welcome that good news. Can you be specific about when you expect to get the findings from the public inquiry into the Ballynahinch bypass?

Miss M McIlveen: I am hopeful that I will hear about the public inquiry quite soon. I am not clear on whether that will be before purdah. As for the earliest date for construction, it is possible that it could be early 2018. The estimated cost associated with that is around £40 million to £50 million. Again, it is subject to that funding being made available.

Mr Allister: The Minister has confirmed that improving the safety of the junction at the Temple is the key consideration. Can she give me an assurance that the same criteria and consideration will be applied to the Woodgreen junction on the A26 in my constituency? Just 10 days ago, we had another fatality of a young person at that junction. Can we have the same safety provision there?

Miss M McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question. I take this opportunity to express my sympathy and condolences to the family of the young woman who was tragically killed on the A26. You will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the circumstances of that tragedy. However, there has been a review of safety around the A26. That review included an examination of all the collisions that have occurred in the last three years, up to March 2015, for which details are available. Transport NI officials have also met PSNI staff — traffic safety officers — on site to discuss possible engineering and enforcement measures that not only seek to reduce the severity of collisions but should reduce the likelihood of them happening in the first instance. I have been informed that the review is substantially complete and will make a number of recommendations for action along that section of the A26, including at the site of the most recent tragedy.

Miss M McIlveen: The budget for the Department for Infrastructure, as agreed by the Executive in January, provided a capital allocation of £46 million for roads structural maintenance, which I welcome. This will allow for increased expenditure on maintaining the condition of the existing network and reduce the cost of maintenance in future years. However, capital structural maintenance is only one element of the roads maintenance programme. A number of roads maintenance activities are funded through the resource budget. These include street lighting inspection and maintenance, pothole repairs, grass cutting, gully emptying, and weed spraying. These are important aspects of road maintenance in ensuring public safety.

A resource allocation of £20 million was provided for roads maintenance in Budget 2016-17, which again I welcome. However, a 5·7% reduction on DFI's overall resource budget presents a challenging position for delivering services across the Department. Together with my officials, I am taking forward a detailed analysis of all activities that impact on the resource budget for DFI. This will ensure that budget is allocated to maximise service delivery across all aspects of the Department, which will obviously include road maintenance activities. I expect this review to conclude in the coming weeks, at which point budgets will be confirmed to all business areas.

In the current year, 2015-16, the budget for capital structural maintenance is currently £39 million. In addition, my Department received a resource allocation of £16·5 million in the November monitoring round to enable road maintenance activities, including winter service, to be provided. This has enabled a reduction in the backlog of street lighting and pothole repairs and additional gully emptying to be undertaken.

Mr McCallister: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. No doubt the Minister will be aware of the extremely wet winter we have been having and the toll that that is taking, in particular on our rural roads. South Down is suffering as much as anywhere. What role and action is the Minister taking, and how much pressure is she exerting, in Transport NI's identification of necessary repairs and of erosion and excess water? Can she give an undertaking that potholes will be identified quickly and filled in with hot bitumen, rather than the cheaper cold bitumen, as it lasts significantly longer? Does her Department —

Mr Speaker: I think you have had enough questions.

Mr McCallister: I was just going to give her a chance to comment on any claims against —

Mr Speaker: Please sit down before I tell you to sit down.

Miss M McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question. Obviously, he has a great deal of experience with pothole repairs. I could nearly offer him a job in Transport NI.

The Member will be aware that there is a duty on my Department to maintain all public roads in a reasonable condition. That is subject to available resources. The maintenance standards for safety are in place, and they are designed to ensure a consistent level of service. Standards and procedures have been established for the frequency of road inspections. They depend very much on traffic volumes and specific response times for the repair of defects. I, like everyone else in the Chamber, will be aware that there have been issues with response times, but it very much depends on the severity of the defect. The time taken can range from it being repaired within one day to it being put into a programme of works for the next time that the route is having substantial repairs done to it. Those systems and procedures have been tested by the courts.

Regarding the type of bitumen that is used, the Member has shown a certain degree of expertise. My Department carries out repairs using methods that are recognised by the industry. The traditional repair method is to use hot bitumen and spray injection patching. On occasions, as the Member indicated, where high-priority repairs are required, the cold layers will be used, but that is a temporary measure and is in place only until further works can be carried out in the area. Be assured, however, that road maintenance is something that I take seriously, and I have been trying to get additional money for it.

Mr Clarke: I appreciate that the Minister took up position with road maintenance at a low under the previous Minister, but has she been able to generate additional funds from her budget as we come to the end of this financial year to put towards road maintenance?

Miss M McIlveen: Since coming into office, I have been focused on the appropriate use of the remaining budget and on ensuring that internal efficiencies have been made. All my Department's budget lines and areas of expenditure have been reviewed to ensure that as much money as possible has been available for high-priority activities such as patching and street-lighting maintenance. We have looked at removing all non-essential expenditure on administration, and that has generated savings. Staff overtime has been significantly reduced, being permitted only when it is required to deliver prioritised services.

Additional savings have been generated from the voluntary exit scheme through a combination of increased staff numbers and staff leaving earlier than originally planned. The relatively mild winter has also allowed some funding that had been set aside for winter service to be redirected. I am pleased to say that, since the beginning of January, an additional £3·2 million of resource funding and £2 million of capital funding has been reprioritised for essential maintenance activities, such as street lighting, patching, gully emptying, road markings and resurfacing. That is good news. It will help the local economy, as well as local councillors and MLAs.

Mr Lynch: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for the funding that has been rolled out in recent weeks.

To continue the theme of potholes, I came across one yesterday that had completely wrecked a car. I have, however, been given an undertaking that it will be fixed this week. The Quarry Products Association (QPA) states that there is a £50 million shortfall in the current road maintenance budget. What is your response to that?

Miss M McIlveen: I do not think that we need the QPA to tell us that there has been a shortfall; we are all acutely aware of the challenges in our constituencies. I have regular conversations with the QPA, and it is aware that, since coming into office, I have bid for additional money and have tried to do the best that I can in a very short time. I know that that adds pressures to the industry. It adds to pressure on families when workers have to go across the water to find work. Again, that impacts on our local economy. It is my job and that of others in the Assembly to ensure that we prioritise money in the right direction, and road maintenance is one of those areas.

Mr Beggs: The road maintenance budget allocated by the Executive has been inadequate and has relied on in-year monitoring for many years, but the Quarry Products Association and, indeed, the Northern Ireland Audit Office have highlighted how important it is to carry out timely repairs and resurfacing or we will end up patching the patches and wasting money endlessly. Has the Minister recognised the strategic importance of road maintenance? What assessment has been made so that we get the balance right between new build and road maintenance? Can we afford to maintain our existing roads? It appears not. What does the Minister say?

Miss M McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question. Having held this position before, his party will be acutely aware of the challenges in relation to that. It is well known that a stitch in time saves nine, and it is important to put as much money as possible into the maintenance of our roads. A study says that we need to put in approximately £141 million per year to sustain our network. There is a backlog, and there will continue to be a backlog, but it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that money is focused on this area.

Miss M McIlveen: There has been an extensive process of consultation with all those affected by the A5 western transport corridor scheme since its inception in 2008. It has taken a number of forms, including a number of public exhibitions at key design stages; regular updates to directly affected landowners through meetings and by letter at key stages in the development of the scheme; and formal consultation with over 30 statutory authorities and organisations as part of the studies and assessments that have been undertaken during the preparation of the orders and environmental statement for the scheme. That includes the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency and the Loughs Agency. In addition, the scheme has a dedicated project website — www.a5wtc.com — and an 0845 telephone contact line. The website has supported the overall consultation strategy for the project, providing an additional means by which statutory, public and private stakeholders have been given access to scheme updates and announcements.

My officials are not aware of farming groups living along the proposed A5 dual carriageway route, although some landowners have chosen to involve the Ulster Farmers' Union. Officials have met the Ulster Farmers' Union generally and as and when requested by individual landowners. I also met the Ulster Farmers' Union only last week to discuss the A5 scheme and the Land Acquisition and Compensation (Amendment) Bill. In December, I invited the landowners' agents to meet me to discuss their and landowners' concerns about the scheme.

Mr A Maginness: I thank the Minister for her detailed answer. Is she fully satisfied that everything has been covered in relation to consultation? If not, you could subsequently come across unexpected roadblocks, if I may put it that way, in the development of the scheme. That must be avoided at all costs. Is the Minister fully satisfied that the necessary consultation has taken place?

Miss M McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question. As you will be aware, I announced the start of a new set of consultations on the new draft statutory orders and new environmental statement for the scheme. The current consultation exercise formally commenced on 16 February and will conclude on 4 April.

It is likely that that could lead to another public inquiry into the scheme. As a result, we have tentatively programmed this in for autumn 2016. It is very much subject to the completion of the procedures, and moving forward from there. It is difficult at this stage to anticipate what may come up during those consultations, but I am certainly keen to ensure that as many issues as possible are resolved in advance of a public inquiry.

Mr Patterson: As the Minister noted, we will soon see the Land Acquisition and Compensation (Amendment) Bill passed, which will bring parity for those in Northern Ireland affected by projects such as the A5. Will the Minister ensure that measures are in place to maintain parity, should there be further enhancements in the level of compensation awarded in England and Wales in the future?

Miss M McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question and for the fact that he recognised that we have moved forward with this legislation, which has been widely welcomed. At this stage, I am unaware of the detail of what may be brought in across the water, but I will certainly advise my officials and ask that that be considered while we are going through the process of the Bill.

Miss M McIlveen: My Department has no current proposals to provide a pedestrian crossing at that roundabout. The layout already includes facilities to assist pedestrians crossing, including pedestrian refuge islands with lowered kerbs, along with tactile paving for the visually impaired. However, I am aware that a site meeting between Transport NI officials and local elected representatives has been arranged for later this month to discuss difficulties that a disabled resident is experiencing when crossing at that junction. The meeting will allow Transport NI to consider possible measures to improve conditions for pedestrians crossing at that busy junction.

TNI considers all such requests for controlled pedestrian crossings against set criteria that take into account the speed and volume of traffic and the demand for pedestrians and vulnerable users to cross a road at a particular location. Usually, surveys will be carried out to determine the peak demand for crossing movements. On occasion, even where the criteria are met, it can be difficult or impossible to provide a crossing at the desired crossing point, and it may be necessary to locate it a short distance away. Where a controlled crossing is not deemed necessary but there is sufficient demand, measures such as pedestrian refuge islands and dropped kerbs may be considered instead.

Ms P Bradley: I thank the Minister for her answer. That pedestrian crossing is in an extremely busy area on the boundary of north Belfast and south Antrim leading to Glengormley, Sandyknowes, Ballyclare and Larne. There is not only a high amount of traffic but a heck of an amount of pedestrians. I had to walk that route every day when my children were young and at school, so I know only too well the problems. You are absolutely right, we do have a meeting later on this month, but has there been any history of collisions there? If we were to get any type of pedestrian crossing, have you any idea what could be planned for that area?

Miss M McIlveen: I thank the Member for her question. There have been six personal injury collisions at that junction during the most recent three-year period when PSNI collision data is available. Three involved cyclists and motorcyclists, both considered to be vulnerable road users. There have been no reported collisions involving pedestrians during the same period, but TNI will be carrying out a review of the safety of that junction with emphasis on vulnerable road users. I recognise that that is a busy junction, and obviously it is local to the Member. Any formal crossing facilities would have to be carefully sited so as not to be too close to junctions or to compromise private entrances. Normally, they take the form of puffin or toucan crossings and, at some sites, there are zebra crossings. I hope that answers the question for the Member.

Miss M McIlveen: I am fully committed to the delivery of Belfast rapid transit (BRT), including not only the current phase but future extensions to the north and south of the city. Belfast rapid transit is a transformational public transport project for the city. It represents a great opportunity for Belfast going forward and is a major undertaking by my Department in support of an Executive priority.

To assess the viability of potential Belfast rapid transit routes to north and south Belfast, my Department has already undertaken surveys. The results of those, along with passenger information and existing data sets, are being used in the development of a new transport model for Belfast. The model will enable my Department to assess potential options for the extension of Belfast rapid transit and to prepare a business case for the extension of the system to north and south Belfast. Any future extension of the system will, of course, be subject to the availability of funding. My Department is continuing to engage with those responsible for current and proposed developments on potential future routes for BRT, including the Department for Social Development and the University of Ulster, to ensure as far as possible that the future provision of Belfast rapid transit to those key areas is not prejudiced.

Mr Humphrey: I thank the Minister for her answer. Has a route been identified for north Belfast, and what is the likely timescale for its operation and implementation?

Miss M McIlveen: My Department has not yet identified the preferred route option for the extension of BRT to serve north Belfast. As with the first phase of BRT, which is being implemented, the route options will be subject to detailed analysis and public consultation. There are a number of potential route options in north Belfast, which include Shore Road, Antrim Road and Crumlin Road. Obviously, the success of a high-frequency and high-occupancy rapid transit system relies on achieving significant patronage levels. Whilst the route has not yet been identified, it appears that, based on current bus patronage levels and the potential for future growth, the Antrim Road is likely to emerge as the preferred option.

A timeline for this is very much dependent on the success of the first phase of the Belfast rapid transit network and available funding for it. However, subject to those caveats, an outline provisional timeline for the extension to north Belfast is as follows. In 2017-18, the options assessment will be prepared. In 2018-19, a business case will be prepared and, following assessment, the first phase will be commenced. In 2019-2020, there will be the detailed design and implementation, and, by 2022-23, I hope that it will be operational.

Mr Boylan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Thank you, Mr Speaker. What discussions, if any, have there been with the taxi industry on any of these proposals on rapid transit?

Miss M McIlveen: My Department, as you will understand, is in regular contact with the taxi service, and that will continue through this project.

Miss M McIlveen: I recognise the importance of supporting this development, and, clearly, public transport will be critical. I recently met officials from the University of Ulster, and I understand that it is working closely with Translink. Future plans to encourage students to access the new campus by public transport will include a range of direct bus services, discounted ticketing options and a wide range of promotional activity. Currently, Yorkgate rail station has capacity to deal with greater numbers of passengers. Translink will improve bus links from the station and is working with Transport NI on improved walkways and cycleways.

Translink has also looked at the possibility of providing a new station at Gamble Street. However, to operate a new station on the line at this location will require the existing single-line Dargan viaduct to be reconstructed to twin track. That is because a delay to each train on the single line section for services from Larne and Londonderry could not be justified. A recent review indicated that the single line across the Dargan viaduct will be sufficient for projected passenger growth well into the next decade.

To justify the track dualling earlier would require a sufficiently robust business case and consideration of impacts across the whole rail network. There is also a question of timing. Reconstructing the viaduct to take a twin track will most probably require an extended period of line closure, which brings with it its own difficulties.

Mr Speaker: I am sorry; there is not time for supplementary questions. We now move to topical questions.

Miss M McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question. My Department has received over £1 million to develop a package of road improvements across Fermanagh and other parts of Northern Ireland to mitigate future flooding. Over 50 roads were flooded in the Fermanagh area during the most recent flooding. Three main crossings of Upper Lough Erne are considered to provide the greatest public benefit, and funding is initially being targeted towards those schemes. The three schemes are as follows: the B55 Wattlebridge Road; the C436 Inishmore Road; and the B127 Newbridge Road. My officials are looking at options and costings for the engineering of those schemes.

Mr Patterson: I thank the Minister for her response on those three roads, to which £625,000 has been allocated. In some ways, that seems like a drop in the lough to complete the raising of the roads. It may be an indication that the Executive still seem unprepared to tackle the wider issues of flooding in Fermanagh. Can she confirm whether those projects will be completed entirely with the flooding fund or whether a substantial amount of money will be taken from the DRD budget for 2016-17?

Miss M McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question. Obviously, the money will go some way towards correcting and addressing the issues in Fermanagh. The Member is right that it will not rectify all the problems in Fermanagh, but at least it will start to make some headway towards it. Additional moneys may be sought during various monitoring rounds for other roads that are identified. At this stage, we are still identifying roads that require work. You will be aware that previous works helped in the past. I know that not all road works were successful, but the majority of roads remained open as a result of previous works. Like other Executive members, I plan to be in Fermanagh on Thursday, when I hope to meet engineers at a number of those sites to discuss the issue further.

Miss M McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question. As he has identified, some alterations are proposed to the lough walk area. However, it is my understanding that my Department intends to ensure that there is public access to that area, and that will be maintained. Obviously, there is an opportunity for that to be raised during the consultation process. I am happy to speak to my officials about the area in question, and I will then write to the Member.

Mr Hussey: Again, I thank the Minister for her response. That response will be greatly appreciated by the people of Ballymagorry. Again, thank you for your letter.

Miss M McIlveen: I thank the Member for that.

Miss M McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question. That greenway is close to my heart, given that it falls within my constituency. There is tremendous potential in developing greenways across Northern Ireland, and not just the Comber greenway. I am keen to harness that potential to deliver a network that provides safe and convenient traffic-free routes in order to increase sustainable travel and opportunities to improve health and well-being by using recreational areas such as that. I was recently in Edinburgh and Holland, where I was able to see what they have made of their greenways and their potential.

I am developing a strategic plan for greenways across Northern Ireland. The Comber greenway has potential, given the large catchment area and the links to the new Connswater Community Greenway, which I also had the opportunity to visit recently.

Mr Newton: I thank the Minister for that answer. She mentioned the Connswater greenway, which she has seen. Is it her intention that the Comber greenway comes up to the same standard as the Connswater greenway.

Miss M McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question. Of course I would like that to be the case. As he said, I visited the Connswater greenway. It really is something very special, and I recommend anyone who has not had the opportunity to see that work as it progresses to go to the area. In the first instance, I see opportunities for enhancements in lighting on the Comber greenway and for better signage and links to communities off the greenway. I want to explore the best way to do that and, for the Comber greenway in particular, greater links with councils. I have given my support to a Sustrans application for EU funding to increase usage of the Comber greenway, and I hope to see the benefits of that.

Miss M McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question. I met him recently to discuss a range of issues, particularly in the Newry and Armagh area, and I am also aware that he met local Transport NI officials to address his concerns.

As I said in response to previous questions, road maintenance is a priority. Since coming into office, I have ensured that money has been directed to that, along with other maintenance issues. I would like to think that, before the end of the term, he will see the benefits of that additional money. I admit that it is not enough, but it will go some way to address the areas of concern.

Mr Boylan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her answer. As part of her legacy and when leaving the old DRD, will she give a commitment and assurance to the House that the money for the 2016-17 budget year will be prioritised for the maintenance of rural roads? In a previous answer, she talked about doing the roads that carry the greatest volume of traffic. She will understand that rural roads have been neglected for many a long day. Will she commit to prioritising that money for rural roads maintenance?

Miss M McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question. The case is well made. As somebody who also represents a rural constituency, I am aware of rural roads requirements, and many in the Chamber would reiterate that. While I can give a commitment that I will seek to get as much money as possible into the roads budget, it very much depends on how local divisions allocate their money and the areas that have the highest priorities. It is about making a case for those areas.

Miss M McIlveen: I thank the Member for her question. As she will be aware, the date was agreed only at the weekend, and, given that it is only Monday, I am not yet at the stage of getting that information, but I plan to do so in the near future.

Ms Hanna: Has her Department applied for money in INTERREG's latest open call, which is worth a potential £30 million to Northern Ireland for cross-border transport? Are there any specific cross-border transport projects that she feels might be at risk in the event of a Brexit?

Miss M McIlveen: My Department is undertaking a number of projects on sourcing EU funding, and I mentioned the greenways. One that has a cross-border dimension is the Londonderry transport hub. I will speak to officials and get the detail of the information that the Member has requested and send it to her.

Miss M McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question. In North Down, Northern Ireland Water is investing in the sewer network through carrying out maintenance activities, as well as addressing flooding issues. A number of schemes in North Down are in construction or nearing the construction phase, including some dealing with unsatisfactory intermittent discharges. The Clandeboye stream phase 2a is in construction, at a cost of £1.7 million, and phase 2b is nearing construction, at a cost of £3.6 million. The Rathmore stream is nearing construction at a cost of £200,000, and Belfast lough is nearing construction at a cost of £2 million. In addition — not in the Member's constituency but mine — the £250,000 Kircubbin drainage area plan and combined sewer overflow upgrade is nearing construction.

Mr Weir: I thank the Minister for her response. Specifically, what improvement works are being done in the Millisle area?

Miss M McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question. The Millisle sewerage improvement scheme is at construction stage. The project is aimed at improving bathing water, reducing the risk of flooding and enhancing the coastal area. The project involves the construction of a new underground pumping station in the car park/seafront area of Millisle. It also includes the laying of approximately 340 metres of sewage pumping main, and that, with the exception of the final connections, is substantially complete. It is anticipated that the overall programme of work will be completed in the summer of 2016.

Miss M McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question. In January, I met members of Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council to discuss the proposal, and I can confirm that my Department will undertake a preliminary assessment of the traffic impacts of the Knockmore link, the results of which should be available in March. I expect the results to provide objective evidence for further discussion between Transport NI and Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council officers.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that response. Associated with the Knockmore/Sprucefield link, particularly along the Knockmore Road, are junction improvements required as a result of planning articles and housing associated with those. Will the Minister provide an update on those junctions in what is commonly known as the LD1 area?

Miss M McIlveen: I thank the Member for his question. My understanding is that TNI is in ongoing negotiations with the development consortia for the financing and building of the three junctions at the LD1 site. I expect that the discussions between TNI, Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council planning officers and the developer's agent will continue to facilitate the agreed junction approvals to be implemented. I have agreed to visit the site and meet the developers afterwards to discuss the scheme.

Mr Speaker: That ends the period for questions. Thank you very much, Minister. Will Members take their ease while we change the top Table?

Amendment Nos 5-17, 24, 29.

Mr Buchanan: I rise to speak on the second group of amendments, which deal with zero-hours contracts, and to look at amendment No 3, which inserts a new clause 16A, and amendment No 24. In relation to zero-hours workers, I want to say that we will be giving our support to amendment No 3. At the outset, I want to acknowledge the role that zero-hours workers play in the workplace, especially for businesses that, at certain times, require extra workers for a length of time to help them in busy periods. I know that, over the past few months, some concerns have been raised about abuses of the use of zero-hours contracts and non-contractual zero-hours arrangements. As a result of that, a raft of amendments to the Bill have been brought forward at a very late stage, but it is far too late to bring them forward on such an important issue as this.

Amendment No 3 gives the Department the flexibility to consider provisions that are appropriate for the purpose of preventing any abuse that may arise. Given that this is subject to affirmative resolution, it gives the future Minister for the Economy the opportunity to bring forward proposals that can be debated and scrutinised in detail at Committee. It also gives us the opportunity to hear from witnesses and to open it up to a consultation exercise to ensure that this matter is dealt with in the proper fashion so that whatever is legislated for in the House meets the needs of employers and workers. It is important that, whenever work is being done on this, a balance is found that meets the needs of employers and workers.

As legislators, we need to ensure that whatever we legislate for is not detrimental to the business world, employers or workers. On an issue such as this, it is important that there is time to fully scrutinise and assess prospective legislation to ensure that what is being legislated for will meet the needs of all those interests. There is only one way to do that, which is to take the time to consult with business people, employers and employees. That has not been done; there has been no time for that, but the Alliance Party amendment gives the flexibility to allow that to be done by the future Minister for the Economy. That is why we will support that particular amendment.

Mr Flanagan: I thank the Member for giving way. He said that no consultation has been carried out, but does he accept that the Minister carried out a very extensive public consultation on this issue and that, through the Committee, we were given a summary of consultation responses and were contacted by a number of people who expressed their concern about the use of zero-hours contracts? For the Member to say that there has been no public consultation on this issue is incorrect.

The Minister, with the support of the Executive, carried out a public consultation, but unfortunately, some of us felt that the Minister's policy proposals just did not go far enough. That is why we tabled amendments that go much further than the Minister had anticipated. For the Member to suggest that there was no consultation is, in fact, incorrect.

Mr Buchanan: It is fair to say that the Committee has not had the opportunity to scrutinise the matter as fully as it should, and it is much too important an issue to drive through in an Employment Bill for which no opportunity was given for us to scrutinise it in the detail required. That is why we will be opposing amendment Nos 5 to 17 and amendment No 29. They are detrimental both to employers who, by the very nature of their business, require zero-hours contracts and to those in the workforce who rely on zero-hours contracts, as they best meet their working arrangements. Let us remember that there are workers out there for whom the zero-hours contracts in place best meet their needs. Therefore, we cannot deny them the right to have zero-hours contracts, nor can we deny the employers.

There is a concern, however, and that concern needs to be addressed. I do not believe that it can be addressed by bringing forward a raft of amendments to a Bill at this late stage that have not had the proper scrutiny, and that is why we cannot support them today and will be opposing them.

Mr Flanagan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to put forward arguments in favour of the Sinn Féin amendments to deal with the vexed issue of zero-hours contracts. As you will be aware, my party tabled an amendment at Consideration Stage that would have prohibited zero-hours contracts. The House did not support the proposal, so we have brought forward a range of amendments today that will protect workers from some of the most awful working practices that exist in the developed world. There has been some criticism here that the amendments were not scrutinised by the Committee, but members of the Committee will perhaps recall that it was given all of two weeks to discuss the Employment Bill, to take evidence and table potential amendments, so there was not really the scope to engage in proper scrutiny even if the amendments had been tabled for the consideration of the Committee at its earliest possible stage.

I will deal first with amendment No 3, from the Alliance Party. As has been said, it is a broad enabling amendment to allow a future Minister to bring forward regulations dealing with the whole issue to prevent abuses arising out of the use of zero-hours contracts. I have no great difficulty with supporting it. It is a forward step, but I certainly do not think that it goes anywhere near far enough, and it demonstrates a clear lack of ambition by Members of the Alliance Party and other Members in the House, who are happy to settle for future regulation, with no surety that improvements will be made to the rights of working people.

It must also be remembered that the first line of the amendment states:

so there is actually no legal requirement on the Department to bring forward regulations that would improve things. Therefore, all the amendment really does is to provide the Department with the opportunity to bring forward secondary legislation to deal with the issue.

Dr Farry (The Minister for Employment and Learning): Will the Member give way?

Mr Flanagan: I certainly will, Stephen.

Dr Farry: I hate to intrude across debates, but the Member will be aware that his party colleagues have brought forward an amendment to the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill later around banning smoking in cars in which there are children under 18 that is phrased around these lines — "The Minister may bring forward regulations" — so amendments from his own party in other legislation use the exact same formulation.

Mr McCarthy: Hear, hear. Answer that one.

Mr Flanagan: I hear what the Member is saying, and I hear Mr McCarthy telling me to answer him.

I suppose that the fundamental difference is that there are, in the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — not to get too far away from the zero-hours contract issue — not two competing options, where something "may" be done, or, because there is an alternative proposal, where something "is" done. Correct me if I am wrong, but there is no party bringing forward an amendment in the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill that states that smoking will be banned in cars. The only option on the table there is that the Minister may bring forward a regulation. What is on the table here is an enabling power for a future Minister to bring something forward and our options, which would deal with some of the worst abuses of zero-hours contracts immediately.

Dr Farry: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. This is an entirely serious point, and I appreciate that the Member may yet come to it in his own remarks. In order to get support for the amendments he is proposing, he needs to satisfy Members that the amendments would actually do what is set out and that they are going to work and deliver, amongst other factors. Simply stating that, "If we pass these things today, we will clamp down on zero-hours contracts", is not guaranteed in some ways, because in no way have they been stress tested.

There are issues around the definition of zero-hours contracts, whereby employers can very easily circumvent them. We could end up in a situation whereby we pass something which locks something into law which may not be effective in delivering what the Member intends. This is why, building on what the vice-Chair of the Committee said, it is so important that we have the scrutiny, not just to ensure that what we are doing is balancing employers versus employees, but to ensure that this will actually work and deliver what people want to see happening.

Mr Flanagan: I hear what the Minister says but I do not necessarily agree with him. The amendment we tabled to bring in a definition of zero-hours contracts would have included the ability for the Department to change or amend the definition of a zero-hours contract by regulation, to reflect the concern — that the Minister has indicated for a number of years — that, regardless of what mechanisms we bring in to deal with this issue, some employers will always try to circumvent them. The opportunity for amending the definition by regulation exists in our amendment No 5, but it also exists in the Alliance Party's amendment No 3; so, there is flexibility for the Department to realise, over time, that some employers are changing how they are abusing workers and it allows the Department to change the definition. So, there is not really an issue of definition. I accept that issues might arise in England from the definition included in our amendment No 5, but it is very similar to the Alliance Party's amendment No 3, and both provide for the Department to alter the definition by regulation at a later stage.

I do not think that putting the issue on the long finger is sufficient. The abuses of zero-hours contract workers happen on a daily basis through a range of guises now. Merely adopting the position of waiting for a future Minister to bring forward some regulations to deal with it is not sufficient in my opinion. It is clear that some Members are burying their heads in the sand by saying that this is going to sort out the whole problem. We have a responsibility to send out a message to people that we are actually dealing with the issue. Giving a future Minister powers to deal with it is not dealing with it. It is, once again, delaying the resolution of a problem that needs to be sorted as a matter of priority.

What we propose complements the approach envisaged by the Alliance Party, without leaving everything in its totality for a year or two before a solution is found. As I said to Mr Buchanan, the Minister has already engaged in extensive public consultation around the issue of zero-hours contracts. He has brought forward a range of policy proposals to the Executive to try and deal with the issue, but, unfortunately, there could not be agreement within the Executive on how best to tackle zero-hours contracts, because some Members wanted the Minister to go much further than he proposed. Unfortunately, he decided that there just was not time to deal with any of this and, as such, it has been put on the long finger, and the Minister has not brought forward any policy proposals because he is, in effect, hamstrung by the Executive and by time in that regard.

I move on to the specific amendments tabled in my name and those of my colleagues. Amendment No 6 gives employees the right to be given written notice of the minimum number of hours of their employment within seven days of the commencement of the contract. In complementing the proposed definition of a zero-hours contract worker, any worker who is not given that written notice will be regarded as though they were a zero-hours contract worker for the purposes of these proposals. It is a fairly simple thing. An employee, or worker, is entitled to a written contract within seven days of starting to work and, if they do not get one, they will be deemed as a zero-hours contract worker.

Amendment No 7 ensures that zero-hours contract workers are treated in the same way as other workers as regards terms and conditions of employment. In essence, what that means is that if a fixed or regular working-hours contract worker is entitled to overtime, then a zero-hours contract worker should be entitled to the same basic entitlement. This means that zero-hours contract workers cannot be penalised just because they are being placed on a zero-hours contract.

Amendment No 8 sets out that all zero-hours contract workers should be given at least 72 hours notice of any request or requirement to undertake a period of employment or any cancellation of a period of employment already agreed. What happens at present in some workplaces is that many workers have returned to the days of queuing up outside the docks or factory, waiting to see whether they will be called in for a day's work. Such employment practices cannot be tolerated in this day and age. Some employers, a very small number, bring in all their staff every day and then send the zero-hours contract workers home again.

Those people get no compensation or payment for the period in question. What we propose would address that.

Through amendment No 9, workers who are not given 72 hours' notice that they are requested or required to work a shift would be paid time and a half for that shift. In the event that the shift is cancelled without reasonable notice they would also be entitled to be compensated for that period. These two amendments would go some way to protecting workers from what I described at Consideration Stage as lazy and ineffective management practices and would certainly address the problem facing the small number of workers whose rights are being eroded by bad employers.

Amendment No 10 gives workers the right to request fixed and regular employment but no more often than every 12 weeks. It also places a duty on employers to respond within 10 working days of receiving the request. At present, too many employers use and abuse zero-hours contracts by having a significant proportion of their staff on such contracts, without considering the needs of the employees or workers for job security, an expectation of earnings and the ability to plan for future events, such as holidays or time off, or even for the assurance that one can borrow enough money to buy a car or own one's home. It is made clear in the amendment that only compelling business reasons can be used to turn down a request for a fixed and regular working contract and that a desire by an employer to use zero-hours contracts does not meet that criterion. Finally, any employee who is refused or does not get a response within the stipulated time shall be entitled to make an application to an employment tribunal to have their case heard.

Amendment No 11 is similar to amendment No 10 but deals with continuous employment. It places a duty on employers who have continuously employed a zero-hours contract worker for a period of 12 weeks to offer that worker a fixed and regular working hour contract 12 weeks after their first engagement with the employer. It also establishes that any worker who works 12 weeks out of a period of 26 weeks shall be entitled to the same rights. Any worker who is not offered a fixed and regular contract shall once again be entitled to make an application to an employment tribunal.

Amendment No 12 is very simple. It deals with exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts and makes them void, except in circumstances where the employer can demonstrate a compelling business reason, such as confidentiality or the protection of trade secrets, to justify such an agreement. I thought that there was widespread agreement across the House and across society that exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts were unacceptable. I heard Members opposite, from all parties, indicate such at Consideration Stage, when they argued that we should not go as far as an outright ban but that issues such as exclusivity clauses should be addressed and not be allowed to stand.

Dr Farry: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Will the Member explain to the House how he can guarantee that the wording he has put forward for the clause will achieve the outcome he seeks? If employers are allowed to provide a compelling reason for an exclusivity clause, what is to stop virtually every employer citing one or other rationale? For example, confidentiality is only cited as a "for instance"; there is not an exhaustive list of reasons that employers can use. On that reading, employers could cite any reason as a compelling business reason, thereby negating the intent of the amendment. That is why scrutiny is so important: it helps ensure that what is put forward will actually work by achieving a proper ban on exclusivity. The Member has not used the wording, for example, in the Great Britain small business legislation; this is entirely different wording. There is no understanding, there is no appreciation and there is no stress test to ensure that the wording put forward, going into primary legislation, will actually achieve the outcome that the Member seeks.

Mr Flanagan: I thank the Minister for his intervention. There is no problem with amendment No 12. It is very clear-cut:

I do not understand how Minister Farry reads into that that an employer could put forward any possible reason for having an exclusivity clause in a zero-hour contract. I read that as providing that an employer must have a compelling business reason. It will be up to the employer to justify it, and it is as not as straightforward as saying, "Because we want to use zero-hour contracts with exclusivity clauses. That is our compelling reason". The onus will be on the employer to prove that there is a compelling business reason for it.

Dr Farry: Will the Member give way?

Mr Flanagan: I will, yes.

Dr Farry: It is one small suggestion, which is why legislative scrutiny is so important. The addition of the word "reasonable" provides a qualification of the "compelling business reason". At this stage, there is no qualification written against the phrase "compelling business reason" in the draft that the Member has provided. I stress that, once this is passed — if it is passed — it will go into law, and tribunals will rule on that basis. If you put in a reasonableness test, that will give some scope for cases to be taken where there are breaches of the content of that amendment. As it is currently worded, there is no qualification. It is open season for employers to define what is a "compelling business reason" without any check or balance on it.

Mr Flanagan: If the Minister reads amendment No 10, he will see it says that:

The fact that an employer wants to use exclusivity clauses and zero-hours contracts is not sufficient to warrant them having exclusivity clauses. We are getting hung up on the detail of what the Minister interprets from an amendment and what I interpret from an amendment.

Dr Farry: That is what legislation is for.

Mr Flanagan: Well, we can agree to differ: I read it to be one thing, and the Minister, in trying to put this on the long finger, wants to read another thing into it. From my reading of it, it is very simple. That amendment would prohibit the use of exclusivity clauses in zero-hour contracts. It would make them void unless an employer could bring forward a compelling business reason why they should be in use. That would be up to the employer to prove.

Amendment No 13 makes it unlawful for an employer to subject a worker to a detriment simply because they are a zero-hours contract worker or for other reasons as the Department may specify by regulation. The purpose of the amendment is that, if any of the aforementioned amendments are made and employees are allowed to request fixed and regular working hours or there is a duty to provide them with a written contract and an employee or a worker requests one of those things, there is protection, in that employers cannot punish them or subject them to a detriment just because they have requested a contract or fixed and regular working hours. There is also the provision that any worker who faces such a detriment shall be offered the right to make an application to an employment tribunal.

Amendment No 14 makes the dismissal of an employee unfair if the primary reason for that dismissal is that the worker is a zero-hours contract worker or for other reasons, as the Department may specify by regulation. That could include some of the earlier amendments on requesting a contract or requesting fixed and regular working hours.

Amendment No 15 deals with continuous employment and makes technical amendments to the existing legislation that deals with the issue.

Amendment No 16 gives the Department the right to introduce regulations that would establish a maximum proportion of workers that an employer can have on zero-hours contracts. The demand and the requirement for employers to use zero-hours contracts may well differ within sectors. This will be subject to further consultation, which would allow input from employers' representatives and the trade union movement. The difference between these amendments and the all-encompassing Alliance Party amendment is that this one places a duty on the Department to bring forward those regulations, whereas amendment No 3 does not place that duty on the Department but merely gives it the power.

Amendment No 17 deals with how the amendments will be interpreted and ensures that those who are genuinely self-employed will not be affected by the proposed changes. It also clarifies, for the purpose of the amendments, the difference between a worker and an employee. The recent increase in the rights of workers, which the Minister has championed largely through agency workers, has led to a move away from casual worker contracts toward zero-hours contract employees, even when that is not the most appropriate form of contract.

That concludes my remarks on the amendments. I appeal to all Members to support the amendments. I do not think we can waste the opportunity to deal with zero-hours contract workers. If we do not do it now, it will be another year or two years before the regulations provided for in the Alliance amendment are made. The people out there who are employed on zero-hours contracts, many of whom are being abused by employers, will not forgive us for not taking the opportunity to protect them from such immoral working practices.

Mr Diver: I welcome the opportunity to speak to the group 2 amendments. At Consideration Stage, I stated that the SDLP was against zero-hours contracts and supportive of the Sinn Féin amendments.

We said that we would have liked to see greater detail on how the prohibition of zero-hours contracts would be carried out, and I welcome the greater detail provided in today's amendments.

The Alliance amendment on zero-hours contracts states:

In terms of the legislative duty imposed on a Department, we do not believe that that is strong or robust enough. The Department may, basically, do what it considers to be appropriate on zero-hours contracts. In our view, that does not represent the sort of impetus and zeal that we need to see to deal with the iniquity of the situation. I cannot stress enough to the House — Mr Flanagan and others have outlined it — the number of people in all sorts of roles and responsibilities who are being exploited under zero-hours contracts. We cannot afford to be ambiguous in the language that we use.

As I said at Consideration Stage, those contracts are often used by unscrupulous employers. In many cases, they are used to avoid paying employees properly and giving them the other reasonable employment rights that one could expect. When we think about it, those contracts are limiting people's lives; they are limiting their ability to plan for the future and to have the reasonable things that people would like to have for their family and children. We cannot forget the long-term effects that people constrained in zero-hours contracts have to contend with daily.

At Consideration Stage, I pointed to a study by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development that found that over 60% of those on zero-hours contracts wanted more hours but could not get them from their employers. I do not think, and neither does the SDLP, that that is a satisfactory situation. We said that we wanted detail as to how zero-hours contracts could be abolished in a reasonable and logical way.

Amendment No 6 requires minimum hours for a worker's employment to be supplied at the commencement of the contract. That amendment does not attempt to specify how long those hours have to be. It will give a prospective employee a firm indication of the working span to anticipate from their employment.

Amendment No 7 is in relation to equal treatment, which is a particularly important point. The clarification in the amendment is welcome; it calls for proper overtime rates to be paid to essentially all workers. That is a sentiment that the SDLP supports. One of the main areas of abuse of zero-hours contracts by employers is that those employees have fewer rights in the workplace. We are talking about a two-tier employment system where some people are treated differently from others; in effect, they are treated as second-class citizens in employment. That is wholly unacceptable. I, and my party, believe that the House cannot and should not stand over that under any circumstances.

Amendment No 8 requires employers to give employees reasonable notice — 72 hours — of changes to the commencement or cessation of an employment period. Those amendments seek to give those on zero-hours contracts the same rights and entitlements as those on fixed-term or longer contracts. We in the SDLP agree with that. I ask the House how, in all reasonableness, anyone who believes in the fair and equal treatment of people in employment can have any difficulty with that.

Amendment No 9 is an amendment to amendment No 8. It stipulates the working conditions, should an employee decide to take up a period of work when not properly notified, as referred to in amendment No 8. The amendments up to amendment No 11 represent the further strengthening of the position of those on zero-hours contracts, who, for too long, have not had equal rights in the workplace and have often been abused as a result.

Amendment No 12 is particularly important. Exclusivity clauses have been the bane of many people struggling in employment and who have been trying to make a living or support their families. In many instances, it is simply illogical to require an employee to work for only one organisation and perhaps receive only a few hours per week and low pay. Let us face it: most organisations do not have trade secrets, although I accept that there may be circumstances in which there are particular aspects with intellectual property or specialisation, but, in most employment circumstances, those things are rare. In the amendment, the duty to satisfy an exclusivity clause is right and proper. There are very few instances in which the contracts can be justified.

We support amendment No 16, which requires the Department to make regulations about the number or proportion of zero-hours workers whom any one employer may employ.

Mr Swann (The Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning): When it comes to zero-hours contracts, members of the Committee know where I stand. When it comes to the Sinn Féin amendments, it is with regret that I say that I cannot support them for the simple reason that we have not had the time to scrutinise fully and challenge the detail. That has been demonstrated by the exchange between Mr Flanagan and the Minister. When the Minister went into detail and tried to draw out some of the finer points, Mr Flanagan read out the text of the amendment without giving a substantive level of detail or explanation.

I take the House back to Consideration Stage on 12 January, when the Minister said that he could be minded to bring forward something at Further Consideration Stage on zero-hours contracts. As Chair of the Committee, I said that, if he did, I would:

That is why I firmly believe that tabling the amendments at Further Consideration Stage is regrettable for employers and employees. Tabling them at this stage does not give the House the time —

Mr F McCann: Will the Member give way?

Mr Swann: I will, yes.

Mr F McCann: You may have a point. We have had discussions on this in Committee, and the Minister has been before us and put across his position. However, two weeks ago, when Phil brought amendments to the House, there were reasons why people would not support them, so he tried to table amendments that would gain the support of other parties. It seems that, no matter what he tries to do to get legislation that will protect workers, it is not enough for the rest of the Members.

Mr Swann: Do you know what I would have liked? If that was the Member's sole honest belief, I would have loved it if he had approached us about the amendments. Instead, the first time we saw them was when the Order Paper was published by the Business Office.

I appreciate where Mr McCann is coming from, but if that is the level of engagement that he and his party believe is enough to convince parties on this side of the House that that is the right way to go, he is lacking. That worries me.

One of Mr Flanagan's comments was that we should not get hung up on the detail. We are talking about the management of zero-hours contracts and the 13 amendments that he has tabled, so there is an awful lot of detail. Shorter Bills get an awful lot more scrutiny at Committee Stage and Further Consideration Stage.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I ask the Member to ensure that he makes his remarks through the Chair and is very careful with his language, giving due courtesy and respect for all Members.

Mr Swann: In what way, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Some language was used that individuals could have taken offence at. I remind all Members to treat everyone with courtesy and respect.

Mr Swann: If I used any Committee member's first name rather than full name, I apologise. I do not think that they will be worried about that when we are talking about zero-hours contracts.

I will go back to Committee Stage and evidence that was presented to us. The Law Centre's submission stated that the introduction of an:

That is where the Alliance Party has gone. Although I am making the case for why I cannot support the Sinn Féin amendments, I want to support the Alliance amendments. The House has a responsibility to tackle zero-hours contracts, because they are being abused. Mr Flanagan will point out that he refers to a small number of employees, but Mr Diver talks about a large number.

There is an imbalance there. We have to get down to the detail that we did not get to in Committee Stage: how many people are employed on zero-hours contracts? Even when it comes to the definition, we have annualised hours, contract hours and casual labour. I think that Mr McCann referred to the councils. Belfast City Council has an advert out for casual employees. To me, "casual employees" refers to zero-hours contracts. We have to get the definition right, and we have to know what the tie-in is to the amendments tabled by Mr Flanagan and Sinn Féin.

In amendment No 5, Mr Flanagan proposes new clause 16A. It says:

I believe that including that in amendment No 5 leaves every other amendment that he has tabled open to change, definition and manipulation — maybe "manipulation" is too strong a word — should a Minister want to change the definition at any stage. The Alliance amendment, however, allows the Committee, the Department and the House to take control of what can be put forward. It worries me that the detail in the Sinn Féin amendments sounds and looks good to people on zero-hours contracts who feel that they are being abused.

I draw Mr Flanagan's attention to amendment No 8, which refers to:

I do not see how the Northern Ireland hospitality or tourism industries and a lot of our smaller businesses, especially around the north coast and in my constituency, could succeed financially if they had to give all employees 72 hours' notice of when they had to come in. Also — I think that this is in a later amendment — if functions are cancelled through no fault of employers, they will have to pay all of their employees on annualised hours and zero-hours contracts at time and a half for the hours that they had expected to be in. It puts an increasing financial burden on even small businesses.

Amendment Nos 10 and 11 refer to "12 weeks". I cannot see where that period of 12 weeks came from. I do not know whether the party that has tabled the amendments put it forward after consultation or whether there was already an established rationale before that.

I hope that the Members are getting why I have concerns about the amendments that they have tabled. I do not get the detail or the explanation. This is the only time that we have had to challenge, debate and get into the fine detail of the amendments, and that is without input from stakeholders from both sides of the house — I mean employees and employers — as well as the Department and the Minister. At this stage, I am minded to support amendment Nos 3 and 24 and oppose the rest in the group.

Dr Farry: It has always been my intention that, during this mandate, the Assembly would introduce the proportionate regulation of zero-hours contracts. Over the past number of years, the casualisation of the labour market has increased, including the use of zero-hours contracts. Their use may be justifiable for some employers, particularly where flexibility is important, and they may be relatively benign for some workers. However, for others, they may represent the only de facto employment option and carry many problems: uncertainty over income, irregular hours, disruption to domestic and family life and difficulties in accessing benefits. As the labour market changes, it is important that we keep up with what the appropriate regulation is.

In February 2015, I presented to the Executive a paper that sought policy approval for a series of reforms that would have been broader and further-reaching than anything else in these islands. My intention was that the necessary legislative provisions would be facilitated through the Employment Bill. Regrettably, Executive agreement was not forthcoming for me to include in the Bill provisions that would have reflected the detailed policy development work and public consultation that was undertaken by my Department.

Given that this is a new area of law, it is important that there is appropriate time and space for proper legislative scrutiny at Committee level and on the Floor of the Assembly. Timely progress on the Executive paper would have allowed the space and scope for that detailed scrutiny to take place. I fully respect and acknowledge the position that the Chair has adopted in saying that any detail in terms of prescription on zero-hours contracts needs to be subject to the Committee's scrutiny as well as further engagement with stakeholders. While reference has been made to the fact that there has been a public consultation on potential proposals that would have led to Executive agreement on that, as the Chair, the Deputy Chair and, indeed, others will fully appreciate, the consultation that has been conducted by the Department is distinct from that conducted by Committees, whereby Committees have their own call for evidence and ask people to come before them to give their views. In that way, we have almost a double lock in the testing of proposals through the departmental consultation and the Committee's call for evidence.

Two new clauses have been tabled by my party colleagues Anna Lo and Stewart Dickson on zero-hours contracts. In doing that, they are very much seeking to find something that the House can unite around. The clauses define zero-hours and non-contractual zero-hours arrangements and provide a broad enabling power to make regulations in relation to these provisions. Apart from providing definitions, the clauses are not prescriptive about how zero-hours contracts are to be dealt with in legislation; instead, they provide for regulations to amend or repeal any statutory provision, including the definitions. They insert a new provision into the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which is an enabling framework only. That approach would allow my Department to make regulations that it considered appropriate to prevent abuses connected with zero-hours arrangements and in relation to particular contracts that could be specified in the regulations.

The amendment would establish a wide power enabling the amendment or repeal of statutory provisions so that we did not have to await the next suitable primary legislative vehicle to take the issue forward. Any regulations would be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, so the Assembly would retain the full opportunity for scrutiny.

I have heard comments from Members about the fact that it is framed with "may", it does not go far enough and there is no guarantee of action, but that is the way we frame enabling powers around regulations in legislation that we pass routinely in the Assembly. I am sure that there is acceptance — we have heard it today in comments from all quarters of the House — that we need to engage in some form of proportionate regulation. Where the difference lies is perhaps in how far-reaching it would be, not the principle or fact that there needs to be regulation. It is important — I think it is clear — that any Minister from any party would, in due course, when they had done the proper due diligence around the work, bring forward proposals in a timely manner for fresh public consultation and regulations that would then be scrutinised through the Executive and the Assembly.

The 12 new clauses relating to zero-hours contracts proposed by Sinn Féin members appear to be drawn from a number of sources including the zero-hours provisions in the GB Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015; existing employment rights contained in the Employment Rights Order (Northern Ireland) 1996; and the recommendations of the research undertaken by the University of Limerick on behalf of the Irish Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. The clauses include a definition of zero-hours contracts, including provision, by regulation, to amend the definition and to provide that any regulations be made under draft affirmative resolution of the Assembly. They also provide for a requirement on employers to give notice in writing of the minimum hours of a worker's employment, to treat zero-hours workers on the same basis as comparable workers engaged by the employer and to give zero-hours workers reasonable notice of work and notice of the cancellation of work. They also include the right for workers to request fixed and regular employment and a requirement on employers to offer fixed and regular employment after 12 weeks. The clauses would provide for the prohibition of exclusivity clauses, detriment and unfair dismissal relating to zero-hours contracts, a limit to be set on the proportion of zero-hours contracts per employer and general interpretation provisions.

In the very limited time that I have had to consider the clauses, it appears to me that there may well be merit in a number of the proposed provisions. However, I would be concerned if any or all of the clauses were to succeed in the Bill today as there has been no consultation on the proposals, no assessment of regulatory or equality impacts and, crucially, no Committee scrutiny. There is a particular set or category of questions that we have to ask ourselves. One is whether the proposed regulation by way of primary legislation is actually appropriate.

Another is whether that is what we should be doing to address the issue in society. Members may have their own views on that.

The second aspect, and perhaps one that is more pertinent to the whole process of scrutiny, is whether the amendments will achieve their stated outcomes and objectives. There is no guarantee of that, because we have not stress-tested their wording. There may be means by which employers could circumvent what is put down on paper. It is all well and good to say that we can provide more regulations to prevent that, but if we were to put things into a Bill, we could end up with one unholy mess as we tried to unpick things that prove to be ineffective. It is far cleaner for us to have a broad enabling power in the legislation and then to address the issue through regulations. In that way, we will be able to modify things as circumstances evolve, particularly as we take into account rulings of tribunals as cases on breaches of regulations or, indeed, primary legislation occur. That is the most responsible way in which we can ensure that we protect people. If we get this wrong, we inadvertently raise expectations while putting in place a paper tiger that will not provide the outcomes that people are suggesting.

I do not think that it is good enough for people to come here today and talk about outcomes and make broad speeches about how we want to crack down on zero-hours contracts without going through the detail and explaining the rationale behind the way in which things are framed. This is not a debate on a Back-Bench motion in which we are talking in broad principles. This would alter the law of Northern Ireland. It is something that would go down in statute, and we would have to live with it on the far side.

The irony, of course, is that my paper to the Executive of February 2015 contained a number of proposals that, unfortunately, did not get the Executive's approval. Those proposals are reflected in some of the Sinn Féin amendments. It would have been my preference for those proposals to have been agreed by the Executive, and then for them to have been presented to the Committee for Employment and Learning and subjected to the detailed and appropriate scrutiny that should characterise a sound legislative process.

Mr Flanagan: I thank the Minister for giving way. Had he got Executive approval for the policy proposals that he brought forward on zero-hours contracts, would he still have stipulated that the Committee had only a fortnight to scrutinise the Bill in its entirety or would the Committee Stage have been carried out in such a way as to give the Committee sufficient time to engage in proper scrutiny, if that is actually the issue at the heart of the matter?

Dr Farry: I am very happy to clarify that point, and I thank the Member for bringing it up. We had the frustration that the Employment Bill itself was caught up in the Executive system for quite a period. Had the Bill been brought forward sooner, its Committee Stage would have been much longer than the time available.

I again put on record my thanks to everyone for what they did —

Mr Swann: Will the Minister give way?

Dr Farry: — to move things through that quickly.

On the back of the Executive's approval of the zero-hours contracts paper, we would have brought amendments, which would probably have been enabling amendments for regulations, to the Committee at a very early stage and allowed its wider scrutiny of the Employment Bill to encompass those. In that way, we would have brought everything together as part of the discussion.

Owing to the constrained timescale, what was done was all that was feasible in the time available. We will have a very good result today if we pass the enabling clauses around zero-hours contracts, because we will not have to come back with another piece of employment legislation in order to have a platform from which to move ahead. The new Minister will be able to move very quickly from this platform. I will give way to the Committee Chair.

Mr Swann: Thank you very much, Minister. I just want to put on record that the timetable that the Committee worked to for the Bill was the Committee's timetable, not the Minister's. It was agreed by all members of the Committee.

Dr Farry: Absolutely. I place on record my thanks to the Committee. No influence was brought to bear by the Department — the Committee made its own decision. However, had the Committee not been as proactive as it was, the Bill would not have been able to make its way through the legislative stages in the House to reach completion before the end of the mandate. A sterling effort was put in by the Committee staff and members to ensure that we are where we are today. As part of that process, however, we had to be realistic about what could and could not be scrutinised in the available time frame. We are in a reasonable place, where we have a Bill that is comprehensive, addresses a range of issues and sets out the promise of a lot more happening in the future.

We have a very prescriptive approach from Sinn Féin that has not been tested. I am more than happy to recognise that there may well be a case for supporting some of the policy intent contained in the Sinn Féin amendments. It certainly reflects some of my thinking, and I think that it reflects the thinking of other Members from a range of political parties. However, there is a danger in proceeding in a rushed way and putting in place bad or ineffective law. We do not know that the terms of these amendments will succeed in doing what they intend or whether they will be readily circumvented by some employers. As such, I recommend to my Executive colleagues that we oppose these amendments, and I recommend to the House that we oppose this approach as well.

If the Assembly has a will to take forward the measures in the Bill to legislate for zero-hours contracts, the preferred approach would be that of supporting the amendments from Anna Lo and Stewart Dickson, which make provision for general enabling powers, with regulation-making provisions, to allow for a proper process of policy development to be undertaken. These amendments have the benefit of providing a mechanism for zero-hours contracts to be included in the last opportunity for primary legislation during this mandate, while also providing for the outworkings of necessary consultations, impact assessments and stakeholder engagement to be taken forward in due course through regulations during the next mandate, should that be the wish of the Assembly.

Notably, any and all of the Sinn Féin amendments could be taken forward as part of those regulations. So the absence of support today for those amendments does not need to be the end of the consideration of those proposals, and, indeed, I would look forward to seeing at least some of those being implemented in some form in the very near future.

The amendment from my colleagues is a purely enabling amendment that provides the capacity for a Minister of the Economy to bring forward regulations. The content would be determined by that Minister and could be as broad or as narrow as deemed appropriate. The current amendment is not prescriptive in content; it solely serves to provide an early opportunity in the next mandate for proportionate regulation in an area of significant public concern and discourse, and avoids any delay in waiting for the next piece of employment legislation that, in all likelihood, would only put in place the same enabling powers as proposed by the amendment today. Given the number of variables involved, the issue of zero-hours contracts is probably best addressed through regulations in any event. Those regulations would need to be agreed by the Executive and then by an affirmative vote in the Assembly. I believe that that is the most realistic way forward, and I urge the House to support the two amendments from my colleagues and to oppose all the other amendments in the group.

Ms Lo: I thank all the Members who have contributed to the group 2 debate. It has been a very reasoned debate, and a lot of points have been raised and responded to by the Minister and others.

Mr Buchanan was the first Member to speak. He said that the amendments from Sinn Féin have come far too late in the day. He stressed the importance of having time to assess the amendments and to consult stakeholders, and he opposed amendment Nos 5 to 17 because they had come very late at this stage. He supports amendment No 3, and he said that it gives flexibility to the Department.

Mr Flanagan spoke passionately in favour of his raft of amendments on zero-hours contracts to protect workers from abuses by, he said, "bad employers". While he supports amendment No 3 — I think that he said that he supports amendment No 3 — and thinks that it is a forward step in enabling a future Minister to bring this forward, he wants to see this happen as a matter of priority and for this issue to be dealt with right away. He acknowledged the Minister's proposed policy, which did not get approval by the Executive. There were some discussions on the difficulties in the definition of "a compelling business reason", which was a phrase in his amendment. There were good exchanges between Mr Flanagan and the Minister.

Mr Diver spoke in support of all the amendments put forward by Sinn Féin. He criticised amendment No 3 for not being robust enough and said that, without legislation, zero-hours contracts would limit people's lives and futures. He does not want to see some workers being treated as second-class citizens and said that it was unacceptable. He supports a large number of the Sinn Féin amendments.

The Chair of the Committee, Mr Swann, mentioned that, with the amendments from Sinn Féin coming so late, it does not give the House adequate time for scrutiny. He said that we accept that we have a responsibility to tackle zero-hours contracts. Therefore, he supports amendment No 3, which will allow the Department and the Committee to take control of what will be brought forward in the future.

The Minister concluded by saying that that, while amendment No 3 will provide that enabling framework, he regretted that the proposals that he brought to the Executive last February did not receive approval. If those had been approved, the proposals would have been included in the Bill. That would have allowed for proper scrutiny during Consideration Stage. The Minister said that the Sinn Féin amendments may well have merit, but there was no consultation, no assessment on equality impact and no Committee scrutiny, and that was not the right way to implement primary legislation, so he recommends that the House oppose the Sinn Féin amendments and support the Alliance Party amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I will not call amendment No 5, as it is mutually exclusive with amendment No 3, which has been made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): As amendment No 9 is an amendment to amendment No 8, we need to dispose of amendment No 9 before putting the Question on amendment No 8.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): We now return to amendment No 8.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to a Division.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I will not call amendment Nos 19 to 22 as they are consequential to amendment No 18, which has not been made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): We now come to the third group of amendments for debate, which deal with blacklisting offences and equality exception for employment of teachers. With amendment No 23, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 26 and 27. A valid petition of concern has been received for amendment Nos 26 and 27. I call Mr Phil Flanagan to move amendment No 23 and address the other amendments in the group.

Mr Flanagan: I beg to move amendment No 23:

Mr Flanagan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. For the purposes of this group of amendments, I will direct my remarks towards amendment No 23 and the placing of a duty on the Department to make regulations that would make blacklisting a specific criminal offence.

Members may recall that enabling powers around blacklisting were first given in 1999, yet it took until 2014 for regulations to follow and for the matter to be dealt with in any way. Those regulations have not dealt with all the issues at the heart of the problem, but I commend the Minister for bringing forward the regulations earlier in the mandate. A public consultation took place on the issue in 2003, but at that time, as there was no hard evidence, according to DEL, that blacklisting was taking place, the regulations were not implemented.

Whether blacklisting is taking place is irrelevant to me: proper legislation is required to ensure that people are discouraged from collecting lists of trade union members to block them from accessing employment opportunities. In March 2009, the extent of blacklisting in the construction sector was exposed when the Information Commissioner's Office raided the Consulting Association, which was a vetting service for checking potential employees, and confiscated its blacklist. That whole process was arrived at because of data protection laws, not because of blacklisting laws. Since that incident, not a single company involved in the vetting process has apologised to their victims for their actions.

Over 3,000 construction workers were on the blacklist, and, at present, hundreds of blacklisted workers have lodged cases in the High Court against the companies that had blacklisted them. At the time, victims had no idea that they were blacklisted and often were not especially active in the trade union movement. Despite this, they found themselves on a secret blacklist, and, inevitably, work became harder to find or they were forced out of the construction industry. Blacklisting had terrible consequences for the individuals and their families, and the construction companies remain in denial. Rather than accepting their wrongdoing, they have tried to minimise the cost of wrecking workers' lives by establishing a counterfeit compensation scheme. Blacklisting victims could receive as little as £4,000 in what amounts to hush money.

The existing regulations do not go far enough, in my opinion. It is now unlawful to make and use a blacklist or to refuse employment or subject an employee to a detriment due to a blacklist entry. However, the law does not make the process of blacklisting itself a criminal offence. Although blacklisting is described as unlawful, the regulations that the Minister brought forward do not contain a free-standing right not to be blacklisted.

The Consulting Association was certainly not the only blacklister, and there is every possibility that the problem remains widespread today, because there are insufficient deterrents for people who engage in such activities. Given the secretive nature of blacklisting and the incredible difficulty in finding out if it is occurring, a strong deterrent is required. Blacklisting must become a criminal offence, with a prison sentence a definite option for the guilty. It does not suffice that it is unlawful unless there is a penalty for those involved in it.

Under the current regulations, it is unlawful to compile, use, sell or supply a blacklist containing details of people who are or have been trade union members or who are taking part or have taken part in trade union activities, where the blacklist may be used by employers to discriminate in relation to recruitment or the treatment of existing workers. Courts can award damages, including damages for injury to feelings, when the relevant provisions are breached. The regulations also allow current and former trade union members to complain to an industrial tribunal if they are refused employment, subjected to a detriment or unfairly dismissed for a reason relating to a blacklist. Employment agencies are also unable to refuse to provide a service because a worker appears on a blacklist. Whilst all of that is positive and much better than what we had before 2014, what is actually needed is strong legislation to deter people from engaging in what is already an illegal activity. Amendment No 23 delivers that and will force the Department to make regulations that would make blacklisting a specific criminal offence, something that is long overdue.

Mr Buchanan: Very briefly on group three, we support amendment Nos 26 and 27 as they bring all of the schools into line with equality legislation, and yet time after time in the House, when we talk about equality, it is right on the lips of those in the parties opposite, yet whenever we come to legislate to create that equality, we have both parties putting down a petition of concern to stop that happening — to stop the House passing legislation dealing with equality. Therefore, they have a bit of questioning to do among themselves as to why they shout so much about equality and then, when the opportunity is there to provide equality, they turn around and put down a petition of concern to stop it. I say to you across the Chamber, "Shame on you today". We will support amendment Nos 26 and 27 and oppose amendment No 23.

Mr Diver: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. As has been outlined, amendment No 23 refers to the issue of blacklisting and, more specifically, to the creation of an offence of using blacklisting and stricter punishments, including prison sentences, for those who are caught involved in this process. While I accept that there is, perhaps, a lack of full understanding and knowledge of the extent of blacklisting, nonetheless we understand that it happens in some cases. It is entirely repulsive that any individual should find themselves on a blacklist, as a result particularly of activities that they have done protecting the rights and interests of other workers, such as participation in a trade union or a dispute.

No McCarthy-esque measures should be allowed, with people being blacklisted and marked for the rest of their working lives where potential recruitment or participation in trade union activities are concerned. The SDLP, as a party, is obviously extremely supportive of that. In that light, we support the amendment as it is put.

We have rejected amendment Nos 26 and 27. I know that a valid petition of concern has been put in on those amendments, so we will not be voting in favour of them.

Mrs Overend: I will speak to the group 3 amendments. Obviously, my comments will focus on amendment Nos 26 and 27, tabled in my name and that of my Ulster Unionist colleague Danny Kennedy.

I note that the introduction to the Bill refers to the idea that it will:

It goes on to say in conclusion that it aims to:

I and my party are therefore satisfied that amendment Nos 26 and 27 are absolutely relevant to the Bill.

I will take the opportunity to remind the House what the issue known as the teacher exemption from fair employment is all about and why the Assembly should waste no further time in legislating on it. Members will note that schedule 3 to the Bill refers to the repeal of various articles of legislation on the statute book, including the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996; the Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) Order 1996; the Employment Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1999; and the Employment (Northern Ireland) Order 2003. Articles, or parts of articles, from the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 are identified for repeal. We propose to add to the list, under amendment No 27, article 71 of the Fair Employment and Treatment Order. Amendment No 26 quite reasonably specifies a commencement date for the repeal of article 71 as one year after the Employment Bill receives Royal Assent. To remind Members, article 71 of the Fair Employment and Treatment Order 1998 — FETO — is known as the teacher exemption.

That has nothing to do with the current requirement that appointees to teaching posts in the maintained nursery and primary sector possess or obtain, within a short period, a Catholic certificate in religious education. This amendment is about employment law. FETO is the consolidation and strengthening of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 and the Fair Employment Act 1976. The 1989 Act imposes six duties on employers, including the introduction of compulsory workforce monitoring, and it set up the Fair Employment Commission. FETO extended the monitoring of part-time employees and the outlawing of religious and political discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services.

Nowhere in the Western World is the community or religious background of the workforce checked and monitored more than in Northern Ireland, and any perceived imbalances that do not reflect the local population must, by law, be rectified. All employers in Northern Ireland, whether in the public or private sector, must register with the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland if they employ 11 or more employees who each work more than 16 hours a week. All employers must ask their employees, apprentices and job applicants to fill in an annual monitoring form that asks whether they are from the Protestant, Roman Catholic or other communities. That goes for all employers, except those that employ teachers. Those employers are the Education Authority for the state-controlled sector; the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools; and, for the voluntary grammar and grant-maintained integrated sectors, it is the board of governors that is the employer. All, however, are exempt from the fair employment rules laid down in FETO under article 71, which is known as the teacher exemption. That opt-out for teacher appointments goes right back to the original Fair Employment Act 1976. In 1976, Parliament exempted employment as a teacher in a school from anti-discrimination legislation. The reasons have been somewhat lost in time, but it seems to have been in recognition of the de facto segregated nature of our education system and some sort of special protection for denominational ethos. In 2016 that teacher exemption still exists.

Apart from the ridiculous situation where, uniquely, it is not unlawful to discriminate when recruiting to teaching positions, it also means that roughly 17,000 teachers employed in Northern Ireland are not monitored in the same way as all other professions. So the figures quoted in all reports on fair employment over the past 40 years are not accurate, because we do not know the religious background of 17,000 schoolteachers; they are not recorded or monitored. We can, however, surmise from the survey data collected by the Equality Commission that, 12 years ago, 85% of teachers in state-controlled schools were from a Protestant background, while 99% of teachers in the maintained sector were Roman Catholic.

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Would the Member agree that it is nothing short of disgraceful that SDLP and Sinn Féin Members have tabled a petition of concern to oppose this very sensible change in the legislation, a change that will bring an end to discrimination? Yet it is opposed by parties claiming to be the champions of equality.

Mrs Overend: I thank the Member for his intervention. I agree, and, indeed, I find it astounding that the parties mentioned have tabled a petition of concern.

Mr Swann: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Overend: Certainly.

Mr Swann: Sorry, I just want to reinforce what my party colleague said, especially in regard to Mr Diver's comments on amendment No 7, when we were talking about equal treatment. He said that the sentiment of the SDLP does not support:

Was it a bit hypocritical of the SDLP to sign this petition of concern?

Mrs Overend: I thank the Member for his intervention and for his response. I am astounded that the petition of concern was tabled and, furthermore, at the little debate in the Chamber this afternoon. When the Ulster Unionist Party brought this issue to the Assembly for debate on 22 April 2013, and again in April 2015, the Assembly agreed with our stance that article 71 of FETO was indefensible and should go. There were dissenting voices on the other issue of the Catholic RE certificate, but, in both debates, no one, whether unionist, nationalist or other, argued that the teacher exemption from fair employment legislation should be retained.

For the avoidance of any doubt for those on the nationalist Benches, I will simply quote what CCMS representatives, Jim Clarke and Eugene O'Neill, said when they appeared in front of the Education Committee on 29 May 2013. Mr Clarke said:

Mr O'Neill said:

That is crystal clear. CCMS says that it does not rely on or use the teacher exemption.

On the controlled side, the education and library boards' teacher employment policy, now the Education Authority's, has been set out in the following terms:

The controlled sector does not use the FETO exemption. Why, then, should it stay on the statute book? If it is a dead letter, let us get rid of it now.

As we explained in the two debates in 2013 and 2015, there is no justification for continuing the FETO exemption; it is a historical anomaly and needs to go. Today is an opportunity to get rid of it, and this Assembly should take that opportunity. For some reason —

Mr Hazzard: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member said that the controlled sector does not use this veto. Does the Member accept that no one uses it?

Mrs Overend: The issue is that allowing this to remain on the statute book allows discrimination to happen. Whether or not it actually happens is not the issue; it is the fact that it allows discrimination. If that is the case, let us pursue removing it from the statute book.

Mr Hazzard: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Overend: I want to continue for a moment. If the Member wants in again as I proceed, he can ask.

For some reason, the Department of Education and the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister have played a game of pass the parcel for the past three years. At times, the Education Minister has said that he is against the teacher exception and that he has written to the First Minister and deputy First Minister. However, when pressed on when he wrote to them and what the reply was, he denied having written to them at all. Then, in answer to Assembly questions, the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister said that, although it has responsibility for equality issues, it needs the Department of Education to establish a policy position and refer a review, which has been conducted. However, I recently asked the Education Minister to detail the results of such a review. Instead of giving a direct answer, he said:

In short, it is back to pass the parcel. Nothing has happened for three years. The Assembly should not tolerate such prevarication, and nor should it tolerate discrimination in any field of employment. There was no opportunity to amend the ESA Bill, which was dropped, and the focus of the Shared Education Bill was deemed too narrow to accept a similar amendment two weeks ago.

On the petition of concern lodged by Sinn Féin and the SDLP, the amendments deserve the support of everyone in the Assembly. Everyone who believes in fair employment and equality must support them on a cross-community basis. Repeal of this outdated article does not target one side of the community. I urge Members on the nationalist Benches to do the right thing and vote for the amendments. The argument that OFMDFM has primary responsibility for equality and should have legislated on the matter may sound reasonable, but OFMDFM has been aware of the issue for years and has done nothing. Danny Kinahan MP, when he was in this place, tabled numerous questions to OFMDFM and Education on the FETO exception, and no action was forthcoming. More recently, I have done the same.

Mr Kennedy: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Does she recall that, in debates in the House in April 2013 and April 2015, Sinn Féin representatives, among them Mr Hazzard, Michaela Boyle, Mr Sheehan and Maeve McLaughlin, expressed themselves to be in favour of repealing the FETO exemption? Is it not absolutely unbelievable that they continue to table a petition of concern to oppose the very measure that they spoke in favour of in April 2013 and April 2015?

Mrs Overend: Thank you, Mr Kennedy; I appreciate your intervention and clarification on those points. I find it astounding that, while Sinn Féin is on record as supporting the removal of the exception, the Sinn Féin Minister has not moved to act on it. Meanwhile, the Sinn Féin Minister claims that it is the responsibility of OFMDFM to consult on and move the legislation. This is the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister that is made up of the DUP, which, I believe, is in support of the amendment, and Sinn Féin, which has lodged a petition of concern. On the one hand —

Dr Farry: Will the member give way?

Mrs Overend: I will just finish the sentence. Sinn Féin says that it will support the removal of the exception, as Mr Kennedy said, yet the deputy First Minister is not moving to do so. Do I detect a split in the ranks of Sinn Féin on the matter?

Dr Farry: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Does she agree that it seems a little strange that Sinn Féin seems to be using an argument that this is an OFMDFM responsibility and should be subject to public consultation before it is willing to act, when it has already amended the Bill today on another equality matter regarding gender pay audits on which there has been no public consultation but there was clear consensus in the House that it wanted to move ahead? That, again, is an OFMDFM responsibility.

Mr Flanagan: Will the Minister give way?

Dr Farry: There is clearly a contradiction between those two positions.

Mrs Overend: I thank the Minister for pointing out the hypocrisy of Sinn Féin. While —

Mr Flanagan: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Overend: I will finish my sentence. While we can be astounded by the hypocrisy of Sinn Féin in this instance, maybe we should not be surprised.

Mr Flanagan: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Overend: I am concluding —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Order, please. When it is clear that a Member does not wish to give way, another Member should not pursue it. I also point out that, just now, it was not the Minister's prerogative to give way because he did not have the Floor.

Mrs Overend: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I conclude by commending amendment Nos 26 and 27 to the House. I trust that, after this debate, the proposal will receive support from all sides of the House.

Mr Lunn: There is certainly something strange going on here today. I will happily give way to Mr Hazzard at some point, if he can explain what on earth the Sinn Féin position is. We will not support amendment No 23 on blacklisting, but I will leave it to the Minister to speak to it. I will speak briefly to amendment Nos 26 and 27, which we will, of course, support.

The exception granted to schools has been a long-term bone of contention, as we all know. At the time, Roman Catholic educationalists were concerned that the Fair Employment Act would lead to a non-denominational system with a loss of Catholic ethos, and Protestant educational interests were concerned that Protestant teachers would be placed in an unfavourable position, as, indeed, they were and continue to be 40 years on. The exception is also in line with section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act, which does not include schools. The question is this: is it still necessary, if it ever was? It seems odd that legislation designed to prevent discrimination is causing discrimination to this day.

It is a fact that there are reasonable numbers of Protestant teachers in Catholic schools. I can think of one in north Antrim that Mr Swann will know very well: Dominican College has a Presbyterian headmaster, but that does not appear to be causing any damage to the Catholic ethos of that marvellous school.

Does the exception contribute to the annual oversupply of teachers from our training colleges? That question links to this debate, although not perhaps directly. We certainly supply too many teachers, particularly those coming out of the Catholic training system. What is the reason for that? Is it really the case that non-Roman Catholic teachers — I am sorry to keep using the terms "Roman Catholic" and "Protestant", but that is what we are talking about

Mr McCarthy: Forget about the "Roman" thing.

Mr Lunn: I am getting heckled by my own party and being told to forget about the "Roman" part. [Laughter.]

Is it really the case that non-Catholic teachers cannot be trusted to respect the traditions and ethos of Catholic schools as they do their job? Do we really not trust them to do that? I certainly trust them — I have no problem whatever.

I listened with interest to what others said here today. I remember that, when Jim Clarke and Mr O'Neill came to the Committee, they announced that they had no problem with the removal of the exception. Mr Hazzard appears to have confirmed that Sinn Féin has no problem with the removal of the exception. However, if I read it right, that is because you think that that is down to OFMDFM rather than the Department for Employment and Learning. It is the same removal. If that is your only problem, why on earth would you petition it? Here is an opportunity if you want to explain it.

Mr Hazzard: I am going to sum up.

Mr Lunn: OK.

The exemption continues, along with the difficulty in training for the Catholic certificate in religious education, which acts as a key aspect of institutional separation in education. It acts as a barrier to the efforts to bring about a shared future in Northern Ireland. It is a measure whose time has passed; really, we do not need it. I am glad to hear such unanimity across the House to the effect that we do not need it. I wonder who is pressing for it to be retained. I do not know.

There does not appear to be anybody left to oppose this. It would be possible for the Catholic system to retain the Catholic certificate; they do not have to retain the exception at the same time. They could, of course, perhaps make it a bit easier for others to obtain it.

I regard the Ulster Unionist amendments as timely and worthy. It is a pity about the petition of concern — it is a pity about all petitions of concern, frankly — but here we have another one. I still do not understand why Sinn Féin wants to petition this or why, not to let them off the hook, the SDLP is assisting them; it makes no sense. If the time has come to remove this then remove it. It will not be any less legal or less valid if we do it under this legislation instead of trying to persuade OFMDFM to do it. Let us get on with it. We will certainly be supporting amendment Nos 26 and 27.

Mr Hazzard: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I rise to oppose amendment Nos 26 and 27 and perhaps shine a bit of light on the situation. I came into the Chamber about halfway through the debate on the previous group, and it appears that we and the Ulster Unionists have swapped roles. Instead of the Ulster Unionists decrying a lack of consultation and Committee scrutiny, we are perhaps the ones saying that now. For this very delicate equality — Mr Swann is shaking his head but he in particular decried a lack of public consultation on a certain issue —

Mrs Overend: Will the Member give way?

Mr Hazzard: I am happy to give way, yes.

Mrs Overend: If the Member looks at the Hansard report, he will see that my colleague did not mention anything about a lack of consultation. He may have mentioned a lack of debate on the issue, but we have been debating this issue for the past three years on the Floor, so there has been plenty of consultation on it.

Mr Hazzard: I thank the Member for her input. I referred directly to Committee scrutiny. This issue has not been in front of the OFMDFM Committee for scrutiny. This is very delicate equality legislation we are talking about.

Mr Swann: Will the Member give way?

Mr Hazzard: One second. We are talking about repealing equality legislation here. Sinn Féin has repeatedly said that the time has come to look at this very carefully and see if it is needed any more. I am certainly of the view, as are members of my party, that it is no longer the time for the measure, but we want to see the process being followed through properly. We want to see a proper public consultation through OFMDFM, who are in charge of it. We do not want to see it latched onto the side of a different Bill, which is unfortunately what is happening here. Members can shake their heads, but those are the facts about what we are dealing with. This is being attached to a Bill that is the responsibility of a Department that does not have the authority for it. That is exactly —

Mr Swann: Will the Member give way?

Mr Hazzard: Yes.

Mr Swann: I thank the Member for giving way. He said that he came in part of the way through the debate on the last group. That is obvious, because he is not aware of what his party has been putting into the Bill, from measures on zero-hours contracts to those on gender pay and disclosure of information. Those areas are the responsibility of OFMDFM.

Dr Farry: With no public consultation.

Mr Swann: With no public consultation, Committee structure or anything. So, the Member is arguing against himself.

The Member has petitioned against the amendments. I was going to say that he has been conned, but I am not allowed to use that unparliamentary language so I will not. He still has the option tomorrow to vote in favour of the amendments. Even though the petition of concern is still in place, they can do the right thing, as everybody in the House is saying, and support amendment Nos 26 and 27. His arguments against them are not stacking up, because his own party has countered them through what it has done at Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage. To say that this is not the responsibility of the Department for Employment and Learning is a nonsense, because the Department for Employment and Learning ceases to exist in a few months. Responsibility for the legislation in this Bill will be passed to the appropriate Department afterwards.

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

Mr Hazzard: I take the Member's points on board to a certain extent but, on the gender pay stuff, the regulations would involve public consultation and scrutiny. That would not have been the case with this, because it is different; it is delicate equality legislation that should be dealt with through OFMDFM. Let me say it on record: I am for the repealing of this legislation, but I want to see it done in the appropriate fashion. I and my party do not believe that this is the appropriate forum to do it. It is as simple as that.

There are a few things to touch on. There is a growing concern in this House — the Minister himself has touched on this — that issues are being attached to Bills that they should not be attached to. This is a case in point; the repeal needs to be dealt with through OFMDFM. I think that Members are looking for pot luck. They see this as an opportunity to attach something to a Bill to get it through. I do not see that as —

Dr Farry: Will the Member give way?

Mr Hazzard: No, I will not give way.

I do not see that as being the right way to go. As I said, there has been no scrutiny and no examination in a neutral environment of the consequences that may roll out from it. That is what we want to see when we are looking at the issue. I say to Mr Kennedy and Mrs Overend that that is the reason. This is not a flip-flop from a previous education debate. The Education Minister has written to OFMDFM, as far as I am aware, to take the issue on. That is why we are opposing it. This Bill is not the place to be discussing the issue.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Hazzard: No. I am coming to an end. We want to see dialogue in a neutral environment and a public consultation through OFMDFM. That is the place to deal with this.

Mr Allister: Mr Deputy Speaker, seldom have Members from the SDLP and the Sinn Féin Benches spoke more unconvincingly out of both sides of their mouth. Mr Hazzard —

Mr Swann: Will the Member give way? [Laughter.]

Mr Allister: Why not?

Mr Swann: He cannot accuse the SDLP of speaking out of both sides of its mouth, as it did not speak at all on the matter. [Laughter.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Order, please. Whatever about speaking out of both sides of the mouth, I would much prefer that you spoke through the Chair.

Mr Allister: Mr Swann is quite right, because we had a contribution from the SDLP in which the Member spectacularly failed to mention the amendments whatsoever, other than to say that the party was going to oppose them, without reason or rationale.

To return to the point, Mr Hazzard says, "In fact, we support the removal of article 71", but today — or tomorrow — Sinn Féin is going to veto the amendments. So intent is it on vetoing it that it is going to deploy a petition of concern. You therefore speak with no credibility whatsoever when you try to suggest to the House that, in fact, you are in favour of repealing the application of article 71, when, by your actions, you are going to guarantee that it is not repealed. Therein is the hypocrisy of the situation.

There are politicians on the nationalist Benches who have made a career out of talking about discrimination. The walls of the Chamber have echoed for years with protestations about discrimination and about how a community, in one way or another, has been shamefully treated and hopelessly discriminated against. It is, however, those very people who, in this debate, and tomorrow, are going to protect and cement discrimination and ensure that this very modest move to chip away at discrimination is defeated. Of course, they are the same politicians who pin their colours to the European Convention on Human Rights and laud all its protections, yet article 71 can be in existence only because of a derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights. In order to make it lawful to discriminate in the manner that article 71 permits, there had to be a derogation from the convention. Therefore, those coming from that background, having made their careers out of protestations about discrimination, to end up as those who are the defenders of discrimination, they have a lot of explaining to do.

"Pitiful" is the only word that I can think of for Mr Hazzard's attempt to explain the inexplicable. As for the SDLP spokesman, as was pointed out, he did not even go there, because he knows, I suspect, full well that it is utterly inexplicable why those who claim to be against discrimination should themselves be those determined through a petition to ensure that discrimination stands.

Mrs Overend is right: there has been shameful passing the parcel on the matter. I have answers from OFMDFM and the Minister of Education, each saying that it is the other's responsibility. I welcome the indication from Mr Buchanan that he and his colleagues will support the amendment, but what has the First Minister done about it? When you ask a question of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, the answer you get is this: "Well, that is for the Department of Education." When you ask the Department of Education, it says: "That is for the First Minister." What has the First Minister done to bring the matter to a head; this disgraceful, ridiculous, unedifying discrimination provision whereby teachers, and employing authorities when they employ teachers, are exempt from discrimination legislation?

Mrs Overend: I thank the Member for giving way. Will he join me in asking either of the Sinn Féin Members who spoke this afternoon to clarify, or get clarification from the Minister, on whether he actually has written to OFMDFM, because we have received conflicting messages about whether there has been a letter? Maybe that letter and the response could be put in the Library for other Members to see.

Mr Allister: I certainly endorse that suggestion. If there has, allegedly, been an attempt by the Education Minister to encourage OFMDFM to deal with the issue, let us get it out into the public domain. Let us see that correspondence and the reply. Who is hiding from the issue and why? That is the question. It is a nettle that needs to be grasped. Nobody seems prepared to grasp it. When there is an attempt to grasp it in the House, the people who line up to ensure that the issue is not dealt with are the SDLP and Sinn Féin.

Mr Givan: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Obviously, Mr Hazzard has been put forward to try and sell the unsellable and the indefensible in this respect. At times, Back Benchers have to do these things for their parties. Does the Member agree that the rationale put forward by Mr Hazzard that there was no Committee scrutiny or consultation — and that seems to be what he is hanging the issue on — flies in the face of the position taken by Sinn Féin on what were sensitive and controversial amendments brought forward by Mr Lunn and Mr Dickson to the Justice Bill? Does it not highlight the stark contrast in the approach that Mr Hazzard's party is taking today and reveal the hypocrisy in its position?

Mr Allister: Well, I will have to take the Member's word for it that, as a Back Bencher, sometimes — and maybe he was speaking from personal experience: I do not know— [Laughter.]

— he has to say things he does not believe in. I have no idea. He is absolutely right that, today, Mr Hazzard was the emperor without clothes to say that, "Oh, we could not do that because we are very cognisant of the need for consultation", when his party, as Mr Givan points out, were the very people who were so anxious and eager to rubbish his amendments and those of others when it suited on the pretext of all that. Yes: it only adds another layer to the hypocrisy that is so self-evident here.

I say to those parties: apply your own standards of what you are on record as saying about discrimination. If you believe in them, then, overnight, withdraw the petition of concern and allow the matter to be dealt with because, patently, neither Department is willing to deal with it. Now is the time to grasp the nettle.

Dr Farry: First of all, I will discharge my duty as Minister in relation to the blacklisting amendment, which relates directly to the functions of my Department. The intention is to modify article 5 of the Employment Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 so that regulations must make non-compliance with blacklisting regulations an offence which could, in certain circumstances, be punishable by imprisonment for up to three years. The current blacklisting regulations make it unlawful to compile, supply, sell or use a prohibited list, ie a blacklist. This core feature of the regulations is termed the general prohibition. As well as the general prohibition against compiling, selling, supplying and using a blacklist, the regulations also make it unlawful for an employer to refuse a person employment for a reason related to a prohibited list; to dismiss an employee for a reason related to a prohibited list; and to subject a worker to any other detriment for a reason related to a prohibited list. The regulations also make it unlawful for an employment agency to refuse its service to a worker for a reason related to a prohibited list.

Individuals may enforce their rights contained in the regulations through an industrial tribunal or a court. Complaints against employers or employment agencies for refusing employment or services, for dismissal or for detriment can be made by the individual concerned to an industrial tribunal. Compensation can range from £5,700 to £76,600. Individuals, trade unions and other organisations may complain to a court that the general prohibition in the regulations has been breached, or was likely to be breached, where they have suffered a loss, or may suffer a loss, as a consequence of that breach. Where the court upholds the complaint, it may award damages to the complainant. The award of damages may include compensation for injury to the feelings of the complainant. No minima or maxima apply to the size of these awards.

During consultation on the 2014 blacklisting regulations, consultees were asked whether they supported the Department's view that enforcement should take place via civil law. Those not in agreement with that view were asked to indicate what alternative approach they favoured. Of the six substantive responses, five agreed that enforcement should take place via civil law. Only one consultee considered that enactment of both criminal and civil sanctions would be appropriate.

The blacklisting regulations can be read alongside the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998, where there are criminal sanctions. The Information Commissioner already has the powers to investigate breaches of the Data Protection Act and to undertake criminal prosecutions if necessary. If blacklisting occurs in the future, it may well be covered by an investigation by the Information Commissioner and lead to prosecutions. Criminal offences are unusual in employment law, and the Department considers that the package of measures in the 2014 regulations provides adequate protection, especially taking into account the outcome of the public consultation on the issue.

In my view, civil law is the best area in which to enforce the regulations. Other employment relations concerns are dealt with appropriately using this method, and, as I have indicated, there is recourse to criminal penalties through data protection legislation, if that is warranted. I therefore oppose the amendment and invite Members to join me in doing so.

I also want to make some comments as an individual Member, primarily on the amendments tabled by Mrs Overend and Mr Kennedy. Their purpose is to repeal article 71 of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 a year after this Bill receives Royal Assent. The effect would be to remove the current exception that exists in fair employment legislation in relation to schoolteachers. I am aware that this is a matter on which there has been some discussion, albeit not in the context of the Employment Bill. The policy focus here is very much on equality in education. The Department referred to in article 71 of the Fair Employment and Treatment Order is, in fact, OFMDFM, which has the lead on equality matters.

It is my view that this exemption to equality legislation should be removed. It was not justifiable in the first place, and the arguments against it are today even stronger. Any professionally trained and educated teacher should be capable of teaching in any type of school or sector, irrespective of their personal background. Therefore, we need to separate personal background from the ethos of a school. Teachers should be able to reflect and promote the ethos of a school in which they work, irrespective of their own particular views.

The situation would be helped by more ready access for all trainee teachers to the certificate of religious education for situations where it is still retained. As others have said, it is important that we decouple the issue of the exemption to equality legislation with the potential to require the certificate, because the requirement for the certificate can be applied on a non-discriminatory basis to anyone from any background. The issue is therefore a level playing field in terms of access to the certificate, which is clearly embedded in the St Mary's University College approach to the curriculum and available to students at Ulster University, but it is only available to students at Stranmillis via distance learning from the University of Glasgow, notwithstanding the fact that there are institutions on their doorstep that could equally provide them with access.

In so far as we have different sectors in Northern Ireland and no matter what teacher training infrastructure we will have, there should be provision to reflect the particular requirements of the various types of school, but there should also be scope for the development of a much more integrated module that trains all teachers in the full spectrum of diversity, with top-ups available specific to particular sectors. The application of the exemption to equality legislation serves only to restrict the job opportunities of some qualified teachers compared with others in what is a very tight and competitive labour market.

In closing, I want to refer to some of the comments that were made. Like other Members, I am stunned by the arguments or the lack of arguments being put up on these very particular amendments. The point I want to return to is the notion that the reason for the petition of concern and presumably the votes against today is the fact that this has not been subject to public consultation or Committee scrutiny and is a matter for OFMDFM when this is not an OFMDFM Bill. Let me be very clear about this: we have already made an amendment, only a matter of about an hour prior to this point, that passed a new duty relating to equality to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

I heard Mr Hazzard, before he left the Chamber, refer to the fact that the amendments were different because the amendment about the gender pay audit was one where we have enabling powers but the issue before us here is prescriptive. However, if people refer to that amendment, they will see that, while it has enabling powers in some respects, it is also prescriptive in a range of areas. I invite Members to note the occasions on which we have duties on employers that they must do certain things and on the Department that it must do certain things — that is right across what is quite a lengthy amendment. I will give one example that appears towards the end, where it says that the Department "must" produce a strategy. That is not "may". We have had no consultation on the merits or otherwise of having a strategy, but we have a directive from the Assembly today that the Department "must" do something. Therefore, we have a massive inconsistency. The basis on which the amendments are being rejected today does not stand up to scrutiny. The arguments that those who propose it are using are the selfsame arguments as have been used to justify them doing something in OFMDFM on equality matters today — on a matter on which there has not been any debate in the Assembly, certainly not in my time as an MLA over the past nine years. At least you can say that the teacher exemption to fair employment legislation has been discussed and voted on in the Assembly. Until we had the discussion and vote today, there had not been a single vote in the Assembly on gender pay. Members from Sinn Féin saw fit to proceed with that and to set out prescription on the way forward, but they are not prepared to do that on an issue that is well established and on which everyone seems to agree we want to see change.

We have already accepted the principle that my Bill today is a bit of a free-for-all and does not have to refer to matters that extend directly to my Department or the Department for the Economy, but we are drawing an artificial line around this issue for some bizarre reason that I cannot understand and virtually no other Member seems to understand.

Mr Flanagan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank Members who contributed to the debate on the group 3 amendments that deal with the proposed criminalisation of blacklisting and the repeal of article 71. I will go through some of the remarks that Members made.

Mr Buchanan was a strong proponent of equality during his short contribution and never mentioned blacklisting. Mr Diver spoke in favour of criminalising blacklisting and never mentioned article 71. That seemed to be the way the debate went on, as Members focused on amendment Nos 26 and 27, while a minority spoke on amendment No 23.

Sandra Overend provided an overview of why she believes article 71 is no longer required. Trevor Lunn appeared to ponder the question of whether segregation was necessary in education in any sense. Chris Hazzard argued that, given the sensitive nature of the matter and the fact that it deals with repealing equality legislation, the unintended consequences of the proposed legislative change need to be fully explored before it is repealed.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Flanagan: Yes, go ahead.

Mr Dickson: You commented that Mr Lunn said that there was no place for segregation in education in Northern Ireland. It is not only Mr Lunn who said that: President Obama, when he came to Belfast, said that as well.

Mr Flanagan: I thank the Member for his intervention. I do not recall Mr Obama being present during the debate that we are winding up on, but I am happy to be corrected that President Obama is a strong advocate of integrated education, as are many other Members of this House and elsewhere in society.

Mr Allister highlighted how the issue appears to have fallen between the stools of OFMDFM and the Department of Education, yet the Minister for Employment and Learning is here to respond to the issue. We now have three stools that the whole thing has fallen between.

Minister Farry seems to — I cannot even read what he said now — sorry, Minister Farry responded first on blacklisting. That is why I was confused. He reckons that the current mechanism for dealing with blacklisting through civil law provision is sufficient and argues that there is recourse through criminal law for anybody who breaches the Data Protection Act. I do not think that that is sufficient. Some trade unionists do not agree with that, and that is why the legislative change has been proposed. I suppose that the proposed changes to blacklisting have been somewhat overshadowed by the amendment from left field by the two Members from the Ulster Unionist Party. Far be it for me to criticise anybody for bringing amendments from left field into Minister Farry's Bill, which may well be described in the Bill Office as now being a skip where everything is dumped.

I think that the phrase that Stephen Farry was hunting for when he was talking about the debates that we have had today is "consistent inconsistency". Members from some parties have highlighted the fact that we cannot support some amendments because they have not gone through any scrutiny process, and, now, at the end of the day — we are not even near the end of the day because this has gone on longer than it was supposed to — but, at this stage of the day, the same Members are arguing that that is not a good enough reason for opposing something. Consistent inconsistency is the order of the day. Before I conclude —

Dr Farry: I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate his point that we are all being consistent on being inconsistent today, but can the Member have a go at trying to reconcile his approach where his colleague proposed an amendment earlier today to this legislation that modified equality legislation, which is the responsibility of OFMDFM, without any public consultation or discussion in any format whatever, while he is perfectly content to oppose that being done with another matter on which there has been quite a bit of debate?

Mr Flanagan: I thank the Minister for his intervention, although I presume that he is speaking as an individual Member in this debate. I can see where the Member finds the inconsistency, but if you take the — [Laughter.]

You asked me to try; I did not say that I would succeed. If you take the example of —

Mr Kennedy: It is like the Fermanagh and South Tyrone selection.

Mr Flanagan: No comment, Danny.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Order, please. I have to discourage this cosy little chat between the Members from Fermanagh and South Tyrone and direct the remarks through the Chair.

Mr Flanagan: I thank the Deputy Speaker for his intervention —

Mr Allister: Protection.

Mr Flanagan: "Protection", Jim, would be a good word. What we proposed earlier with our raft of amendments, as Anna Lo helpfully called them, were changes, most of which have been subject to a full public consultation by the Department for Employment and Learning or which would be through the regulations process, but I will be reminded by the Deputy Speaker that I am no longer speaking about the amendments in group 3.

Nobody can be quite sure what the unintended consequences of repealing article 71 would be. We are not opposed to the principle of repealing article 71; we are concerned about the potential unintended consequences that might arise if it were to be repealed. For that reason, we do not think that this is the proper legislative mechanism, but it is something that we would be willing to explore with other Members, as we have done in the past, to find a way of doing it that meets the needs of everybody concerned.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Amendment No 26 is a paving amendment for amendment No 27.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): As the Principal Deputy Speaker explained earlier, a valid petition of concern has been received on amendment No 26. Amendment No 26 has been moved, so I must advise the House that today's proceedings on the Bill will now stop. The vote on amendment No 26 and the remainder of the Further Consideration Stage of the Employment Bill will be taken at the start of tomorrow's business. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I call the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, Mr Simon Hamilton, to move the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): No amendments have been tabled to the Bill. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to group the nine clauses of the Bill for the Question on stand part, followed by the long title.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Health and Personal Social Services (Amendment) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I call the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, Mr Simon Hamilton, to move the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments, which details the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are three groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn. The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1, 2, 3 and 5, which deal with the prohibition of smoking in an enclosed vehicle. The second debate will be on amendment No 4, which deals with the consultation on a sugar-sweetened drinks levy. The third debate will be on amendment Nos 6, 7 and 8, which deal with a duty to promote information and awareness of human transplantation.

I remind Members who intend to speak that, during the debates on the three groups of amendments, they should address all the amendments in each group on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on each group has been 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 Question on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

No amendments have been tabled to Clauses 1 to 4. I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group those clauses for the Question on stand part.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2, 3 and 5, which deal with the prohibition of smoking in an enclosed vehicle. Amendment No 1 is mutually exclusive with amendment No 2, and amendment No 3 is consequential to amendment No 2. I call Ms Rosie McCorley to move amendment No 1 and address the other amendments in the group.

Ms McCorley: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom leasú uimhir a haon a mholadh. Beidh Sinn Féin ag cur i gcoinne leasuithe uimhir a dó agus trí, agus beidh muid ag tacú le leasú uimhir a cúig. Sinn Féin will oppose amendment Nos 2 and 3 and support amendment No 5.

As you said, this relates to making provisions to prohibit the use of nicotine products or tobacco in an enclosed vehicle at a time when a person under the age of 18 is travelling in the vehicle. This also relates to major health issues, and the arguments about the dangers of smoking and its impacts have been well rehearsed over many years.

This amendment relates to second-hand tobacco smoke, and it is the impact on children that we are addressing. Second-hand tobacco smoke is the smoke from a burning cigarette, pipe or cigar as well as the smoke exhaled by a smoker. It is a complex mixture containing more than 4,000 chemicals, over 50 of which are known carcinogens.

Second-hand tobacco smoke is a major preventable contributor to acute and chronic adverse health outcomes, and those exposed to second-hand tobacco smoke for long periods of time are more likely to develop and die from heart disease, respiratory problems and lung cancer. There is no safe level of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke. Exposure to second-hand smoke in the confined space of a vehicle is particularly dangerous since second-hand smoke levels from a single cigarette can exceed concentrations previously found in the smokiest bars and restaurants.

Protecting children from second-hand tobacco smoke is critical as they are more vulnerable to the adverse health effects of exposure. This is because children are smaller and have immature immune systems and higher respiratory rates. Second-hand tobacco smoke is linked to leukaemia and brain and other childhood cancers, as well as to sudden infant death syndrome, asthma, ear infections and respiratory diseases in children. Even short-term exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke can trigger an asthma attack in children, and effects on lung health may be long-term.

Mr Ross: I thank the Member for giving way and I totally concur on the dangers of passive smoking and why it is not a good idea. I want to ask two questions about the amendment. It would seem to suggest, by the way it is drafted, that other products such as nicotine patches, nicotine gum or even e-cigarettes would be contained within the provisions. Is that something that the Members intended or did not intend in the drafting of their amendment? Second, does the Member have any concerns about passing an amendment that the police may not enforce, given that a similar provision has been passed in Great Britain but the police have said that they will not enforce it?

Ms McCorley: I thank the Member for his intervention. We are concerned about all nicotine products. Clearly patches are not offensive and would not affect other passengers, so it would be nicotine tobacco things. Clearly the intention relates to where there would be second-hand damage or impact on other people; that is what the intention is.

As regards enforcement, we hope there would be a dual responsibility so that both the police and local councils would take responsibility for this. Obviously that is something that would need to be worked out either in regulation, further legislation or guidance.

Mr Ross: I appreciate what the Member is saying, but has she had any conversations with the Police Service of Northern Ireland about whether or not they would enforce this, given the comments that have been made by police forces in Great Britain?

Ms McCorley: No, we have not had any conversations about that. I do not actually have anything more to offer on that, so I will just continue.

In addition to protecting children from exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke, smoking restrictions also influence social norms regarding the acceptability of smoking. Smoke-free policies help to challenge the perception that tobacco use is a normal adult behaviour. This, in turn, can have a positive effect on youth and help them to remain smoke-free. We hope that positive intentions would arise as regards attitudes towards smoking, as well as the protection of children and young people under the age of 18, as a result of this amendment being brought into effect.

In response to the Member, I have already mentioned amendment No 3, relating to enforcement, and so we see that there would be a dual responsibility as regards enforcement between local authorities and the police. In addition, the effect and impact of the legislation being brought in to being can, in its own right, affect behaviour.

We can talk about the impact of seat belts. There are very few people now who would get into a car and not put on a seat belt, but very few have had those regulations enforced on them. The enforcement procedure is probably not that obvious or strong.

The first part of amendment No 2 is the same as our amendment. We would see the second part brought into being in subsequent regulations to raise public awareness. We support amendment No 5, which is about reviewing this not later than three years after commencement. I am not too sure whether three years is the best amount of time, but on the face of it, we support that amendment.

Ms Maeve McLaughlin (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety): Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. First, I want to make a few comments on behalf of the Committee and to welcome the Consideration Stage. It has been debated that the main purpose of the Bill is to make provision to allow the Department to make regulations banning the sale of nicotine-containing products to minors. It also amends existing provisions on primary dental services and other services such as pharmaceutical services, as well as charges for services provided to persons not ordinarily resident.

I take this opportunity to quickly provide a brief overview of the evidence taken by the Committee and the key issues that we identified during Committee Stage. The Bill was referred to the Committee for Health for scrutiny on 9 December. Following our request for evidence, we received 10 written submissions from a range of stakeholders and took oral evidence from the Department, the BMA and Cancer Focus. The written and oral evidence focused mainly on the clauses that deal with the regulation of the sale of nicotine products and tobacco. However, significant comments were also made about smoking in private vehicles carrying minors — a provision that was not included in the Bill.

Having considered the written and oral evidence that was received on the regulation of the sale of nicotine products and tobacco, the Committee identified an issue on the enforcement of the age of sale provisions for e-cigarettes. The Committee came to the view that the best way to address that was for the tobacco retailers' register to be extended to include e-cigarette retailers so that they also would be subject to regulation. Members certainly felt that that would future-proof the legislation should evidence emerge at a later date of difficulties in enforcing the age of sale provisions for e-cigarettes.

In response to the views expressed by the Committee, the Department proposed an amendment that would allow it to amend the relevant provisions of the Tobacco Retailers Act 2014 to apply them to nicotine product retailers as well as tobacco retailers. The Committee was content with the Department’s response and agreed to support an amendment at Consideration Stage.

During the Second Stage debate, the Minister indicated that he intended to table an amendment to ban smoking in cars carrying minors. During the Committee Stage, the Department proposed such an amendment for consideration by the Committee. Such an amendment would provide the Department with regulation-making powers to allow for the creation of offences on smoking in a smoke-free private vehicle, for failing to prevent smoking in a smoke-free private vehicle where under-18s are present and for fixed penalty notices to be applied to the offences. The Committee welcomed the new policy and, therefore, agreed to support the amendment at Consideration Stage.

The Committee was aware that Executive approval was required for the departmental amendments, as they represented a change in policy, but, on Monday 15 February, the Minister wrote to the Committee to advise that Executive agreement had not yet been received for the amendments and that he was seeking agreement through the urgent procedure to allow him to meet the deadline for tabling amendments to the Bill. However, as we stand today, the amendments were not tabled.

Turning to the amendments before us, the Committee did not form a view on any of them during Committee Stage, so there is no formal Committee position on them. Therefore, that concludes my comments as Committee Chair.

I would, however, like to make a few comments as a Sinn Féin MLA on the proposed amendments in group 1 in the name of Rosaleen McCorley, Daithí McKay and myself. Rosaleen articulated the position on amendment No 1 and our position on the rest of the amendments. In reply to some of the commentary earlier, particularly from Mr Ross, I should say that amendment No 1 prohibits the use of nicotine products or tobacco in enclosed vehicles, and it is our intention that the debate be as wide as possible. Indeed, that was why we offered our support to the extension of the Tobacco Retailers Act to include e-cigarettes and why we advocate that that is a genuine enhancement to the legislation.

My colleague outlined the impact —

Mr Ross: I thank the Member for giving way. I understand and appreciate that research on e-cigarettes is still probably in its infancy, but, if the rationale for the amendment today is to protect children in a car from second-hand smoke, is there evidence that there is such a thing as second-hand inhalation from e-cigarettes or from vaping? My understanding is that there is not, and, if that is the case, what is the rationale for banning it? Is there not also a rationale that, if a parent is smoking on the way to pick up their child from school, and the smoke and carcinogens are in the fabric of the car, that does an equal amount of damage to the child once they get into the car than this amendment would actually do?

Ms Maeve McLaughlin: I thank the Member for his intervention. He is right in a sense. There is no robust evidence or any real indicators that e-cigarettes impact negatively or positively. The jury is still out on that. However, there is a wealth of evidence on the impact that second-hand — indeed, what is now being called third-hand — smoking has, particularly on children and young people. Again, I point out that the terminology on the use of nicotine products or tobacco is something that was done in full communication and conjunction with the Committee and the Bill Office, so I think that this is a step in that direction.

I want to reference enforcement because there has been some discussion about it. It is apparent from the work of Cancer Focus, in particular, and the other cancer charities when they worked with organisations in England in 2012 and found that 80% of people wanted a ban on smoking in cars carrying children. There is a view in charities that, with such a high level of support, legislation could be self-enforcing. That is why we have issues with Mr McKinney's amendment. Enforcement needs to encompass that dual process, and I encourage the Health Minister to outline how that could be taken forward at Further Consideration Stage or, indeed, through regulations.

In conclusion, I believe that we need a long-term, sustained, comprehensive tobacco control strategy. We need to look at all the influences, at what curtails the tobacco industry, at what helps people to stop smoking and at what protects children and others from second-hand smoke. I urge the House to support amendment No 1 in our names in group 1. Thank you very much.

Mr Easton: Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to speak on the prohibition on smoking in enclosed vehicles and on amendment Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4. I will be supporting amendment No 1, although I believe that it may need tidying up at a later stage. In written and oral evidence to the Committee, the BMA recommended the inclusion of a new provision that would prohibit smoking in private vehicles carrying children under the age of 18. It also recommended that further consideration should be given to extending the ban to include smoking in all private motor vehicles, regardless of the age of the driver and passenger, and I believe that the amendment helps to do that.

Smoking is the single greatest cause of preventable illness and premature deaths in Northern Ireland, killing approximately 2,300 people each year. Some 17,163 people were admitted to hospital in Northern Ireland due to smoking-related causes in 2012-13. The estimated hospital costs of treating smoking-related illnesses in Northern Ireland were in the region of £164 million a year, based on figures from 2011-12, so it is probably substantially more than that now. I welcome anything that helps to reduce deaths and costs in our hospitals.

I will not support amendment No 2; it duplicates amendment No 1 and is not really needed. Amendment No 3 deals with fixed penalties. It has a flaw, in my opinion, in that it should partly be the role of councils to issue fixed penalties, and there does not seem to have been any consultation with the PSNI and the councils on that. I believe that it should be a joint role and responsibility, and there should have been consultation to see how that would affect those services. Amendment No 5 calls for a review, which I do not quite understand the need for. If we stop everybody smoking in cars, what is the point of a review on stopping everybody smoking in cars? We are doing the job — making sure that we stop people smoking — and that will improve everybody's life.

Mr McKinney: I speak as the SDLP health spokesperson and as a member of the Health Committee. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Consideration Stage of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I will address the group 1 amendments.

The rationale that underpins the SDLP amendments is about protecting people's lives and health, especially the health and well-being of children, from the dangers of nicotine and tobacco products. In that context, it is important to remind ourselves that smoking remains the single greatest cause of preventable illness and premature death here. The Public Health Agency estimates that in Northern Ireland around 360,000 people aged 16 and over smoke. Sadly, one in two smokers die early because of their habit. Each year, approximately 2,300 people die from smoking-related illnesses. Those are startling statistics.

I commend the Assembly, which has taken great strides in changing societal attitudes and culture on smoking. A hugely successful ban on smoking in public places and public vehicles, for example, was introduced in 2007. As well as the ban, there were two important ingredients: promotion and penalty. It was a carrot-and-stick approach, but it was effective. You will probably remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, the controversy that surrounded the issue, but, in the end, it produced a good result. Nobody is now fined because we achieved a societal change, and people respect the change that we were trying to achieve, despite its having been controversial. Some of the questions raised now on this Bill are similar to those raised on that smoking ban, but we should try to achieve the ambition.

Mr Ross: I thank the Member for giving way. He is right, of course, and, at the time, there was quite a debate. The distinction, however, is that that ban was about a public space; it was in the public sphere and involved public vehicles or council vehicles that could be shared with other people. This moves the debate into the private sphere — a private vehicle — and, some people would argue, ultimately impacts on a personal and parental decision. Nobody is saying that it is a good idea; in fact, it is stupid to smoke in a car carrying children. However, has the Member any concerns about starting to legislate for the private sphere? Can a distinction be made between a car and a small flat or a room in a house?

Mr McKinney: I think that, for several reasons, we should go some distance towards exactly what you outlined. First, the confined space — the car — means that fumes are more noxious; secondly, a child does not have a choice; and, thirdly, I make a distinction between a car and a domestic house. I appreciate your point about a small flat, but, for me, that is probably going too far. If you are saying that there could be a difficulty with the size of a flat, I guess that you could point out that, if a car is small, the toxicity of the fumes could be more potent.

The child is travelling in that car, whereas he or she could be outside the house when the parents are smoking inside, or the parents could be smoking outside when the child is inside. There are arguments there, and I urge Members to support the exact direction of travel.

We continued on that journey when we raised the age for purchasing tobacco to 18 in 2008. Once again, we had the promotion and the penalty — the carrot and stick. We passed the Tobacco Retailers Act last year. It aims to restrict the availability of cigarettes to children and targets adults buying for children. We supported Westminster regulations on plain cigarette packaging, which I hope will act as a further disincentive to young people taking up smoking. Once again, there was promotion and penalty. The ingredients for success on the journey to protect people from the dangers of smoking are there, and we should embrace them.

Those who oppose what we propose today have not included promotion and penalty in their amendment. I urge those who have declared that they want to back a certain amendment to think about the SDLP amendment, which includes the successful ingredients for limiting the harmful effects of smoking. These are all evidence of a progression that must be welcomed and is all the more important given the detrimental impact of smoking.

What we have not done so far is legislate on smoking in cars with children, which is an important piece of the anti-smoking jigsaw. I will quote some statistics from the Department of Health: 15% of adults smoke with their children present in the car, which, given the headline figure that I outlined earlier, means that roughly 50,000 to 55,000 people regularly smoke with one, two or more children in the car. You begin to see the impact that it can have. That is unacceptable. Passive smoke poses a serious health hazard. 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, and every time a person breathes in passive smoke, the danger increases, as the smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, many highly toxic and more than 50 known to be carcinogenic. The evidence is stark.

Passive smoke also affects children more than others, causing a variety of adverse health effects, including an increased susceptibility to respiratory tract infections, such as pneumonia and bronchitis, the worsening of asthma, middle ear disease, decreased lung function and sudden infant death syndrome. The Minister will be conscious of the earlier debate on the need for early interventions in all of these issues, and one of the earliest interventions would be to stop people smoking, which would have a tremendous effect on limiting child ill health. We know that children are more vulnerable to passive smoke exposure in vehicle because their immune systems are not yet fully developed, they breathe more rapidly and they inhale more pollutants than adults. Scientific evidence shows that ventilation does not eliminate the risk to health of passive smoking in enclosed spaces.

It is against that backdrop that 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 children with effective protection from passive smoke in cars is to prevent them breathing it in in the first place. It is simple, and it is exactly what has happened in other jurisdictions: Scotland, Wales and the Republic are all legislating on the issue, and England introduced a ban that came into force in October last year. I refer to Mr Ross's earlier intervention from across the Chamber and would like to clear up what the police said. The police simply said that they would give a three-month grace period after the implementation of the English Act; they did not say that they would not act on the Act. They said that they would give it a three-month grace period, which is a different thing. The headlines around the implications of that were perhaps much more negative, but, in fact, they were saying that they would implement it but were giving it a three-month grace period. My amendments are not solely about fining people; they are about creating a behavioural and cultural shift for people to realise that their actions are impacting on their child's health and that such actions will not be tolerated. In marrying those two things together, the police are perhaps sensibly looking at it and saying, "Promotion and penalty; let's go for the societal shift here. People are aware now". It is about that awareness programme as well.

I would like to put on record my appreciation of the many organisations that have called for the introduction of the ban. There has been overwhelming support from the royal colleges, health experts and leading authorities in public health across the UK. During Committee Stage, the British Medical Association and Cancer Focus wrote to the Committee stressing the need to include a ban in the Bill, while Chest, Heart and Stroke has campaigned for its introduction for a number of years. We all celebrate the expertise and commitment of those organisations; indeed, they have presented to the Committee many times in the past. We take the bona fides of that evidence. In fact, they have conducted a public opinion poll in Northern Ireland that reveals that a staggering 92% of people agree with the ban. I am sure that the House would agree that such public support reinforces the need to support the SDLP amendments in the first group.

Turning to the specific amendments in this group, I commend Sinn Féin for tabling amendment No 1. However, as I have outlined, it is limited. The SDLP believes that accompanying such a change in the law must be an effort to raise public awareness of the issue. You may simply say, "It will come in regulations", but there is no guarantee. We need to say what we mean and mean what we say. We should introduce a ban, promote it and introduce the penalty. We have already recognised the importance of raising public awareness during recent debates on organ donation. In fact, later in this debate, Sinn Féin will ask for a promotion campaign on a different issue. On one hand, they ask for it on that but, on the other, they say, "Just support our amendment and reject the SDLP's amendment, which includes promotion".

Ms McCorley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that the Human Transplantation Bill was well discussed and debated in Committee and we heard lots of evidence that informed us? It is not as though we are at the same place here. As we know, that Bill was then dropped and we were left with the useful public awareness-raising aspect of it, which was supported by everybody who gave evidence. It seems only right that we ensure that that part of the Bill is kept and that we have something that helps to increase rates of organ donation.

Mr McKinney: To borrow a court phrase, there rests the case for the defence. You either want promotion or you do not want promotion. In the transplantation issue that is coming up, Sinn Féin will be looking for evidence promotion. That is exactly what we are looking for in this group of amendments.

The same principles apply in amendment No 2. There is a need to have a substantive element of public awareness, but it is not just about that. This is the importance of the promotion aspect of it. I am talking about the balance of those two things: penalty and promotion. It is about creating a societal shift. It is about celebrating what we did all those years ago to ban smoking in bars and applying it to something that we categorically know is causing all these problems. We know that children are inhaling these dangerous and noxious toxins. We know that that is stacking up huge health service bills for us in years to come. We know what we have to do, and we cannot ignore that. To choose an amendment that ignores those crucial elements and ingredients of success would be to miss an important opportunity.

At this late stage, I still appeal to parties to think again. If there is a bit of nuance required at the next stage, let us look at that, but let us not cast our amendments aside now for a one-sentence amendment that bans smoking in cars without those important proven-track-record ingredients that would make such a difference attached. We are talking about our children — your children, my children and others' children. We are all talking about parents, but what happens if somebody who smokes in a car is taking your child to another destination? You are not going to be too happy about that. We need to send out a very strong signal tonight that we recognise and endorse those essential ingredients. If there is a bit of a tweak needed, let us talk about that, but let us not send out a signal from the Chamber tonight that we have rejected two of the most crucial elements of what will work to limit aspects of smoking that will affect our children.

We have had a whole range of anti-smoking campaigns here. I referred earlier to the Public Health Agency's one-in-two campaign. The SDLP believes that aspects of that campaign can easily be extended to ensure that members of the public are aware of the changes. As I said, I believe that the Sinn Féin amendment is flawed. I hope that the House has understood the nature of the flaw.

Amendment No 3 prescribes powers for the police for administering fixed penalty notices. The Minister had signalled an intent to amend in that regard. He clearly recognised a lot of what I am talking about by way of penalties. However, there appear to have been some drafting difficulties or other issues. The Minister's focus was then on how local authorities are hampered by not having stop-and-search powers, meaning that they are unable to issue a fine when they see a breach of the provision taking place. Only the PSNI here has those explicit powers and can issue on-the-spot fines. That is why we believe that it is vital to include amendment No 3 in the Bill. As I said, taking another approach might lead to another conversation, but we will have rejected one of the vital ingredients and easy options that could make a difference in the debate.

It is paramount to review any piece of legislation that changes the law. Amendment No 5 would place an obligation on the Department of Health to review our amendments to ensure that they are operating as they were intended and to give an opportunity for any further amendment that may be necessary to ensure that the legislation is as robust and coherent as possible. Earlier, Mr Ross intervened on the matter, and I wish to reflect on that. There has not been any conclusive study compiled on the impact of e-cigarettes. We accept that, but, at the same time, and as a precaution — you could always step outside the car for five minutes and have your e-cigarette — the SDLP believes that they should be included in the Bill. E-cigarettes have proven to be a great success for many adults quitting smoking, and I support that. However, we cannot afford to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to children's health. We are proposing that further amendment so that we can —

Mr Ross: I thank the Member for giving way. One thing that people often talk about in the House is evidence-based policymaking. The Member seems to be suggesting that we make the policy with a lack of evidence just to be overly precautious. Is that not a little bit strange? There is no evidence to suggest that passive smoking from vaping — it is not smoke but water vapour — is damaging to somebody in the proximity. If we are looking at having evidence-based policymaking, surely we will not be looking to ban somebody from using an e-cigarette in a car. It does not seem to make logical sense.

Mr McKinney: On the face of it, perhaps, but, at the same time, it is an inhalable tobacco product, and, by extension, you exhale.

The issue is the size of the car and the space within which you are using the device. So, it is a precautionary principle. Principle attached to precaution is acceptable, and it is understood in our society that we can be precautionary and can say that we are banning something. This is something that comes under the umbrella of nicotine products or tobacco.

We understand the negative effects of nicotine and tobacco products on people's health. That is why we are proposing the measure. It does not shut the door; it is saying, "Let's review this in three years' time". That is a reasonable and sensible approach.

So, I think that the House would agree that a change in the law is necessary. Northern Ireland may remain the only jurisdiction in these islands that does not have a ban on smoking in cars with children. If so, children here would suffer as a result. I urge support for the amendments.

Mrs Dobson: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this group of amendments. No one who has been watching the Bill's progress will have been surprised to see amendments of this nature coming forward. However, I reiterate the point I made at Second Stage: the Department should have brought this issue forward. That would have allowed for a greater degree of consultation as well as an opportunity for key stakeholders, such as the PSNI, to fully engage in the process. Indeed, I find the Department's appeal for a Back-Bench MLA to take forward a ban on its behalf, through amendments, to be quite bizarre.

The facts are clear. In Northern Ireland, approximately one in four people smoke, and one in two smokers will ultimately die early because of it. Whilst many people realise that the habit is damaging and generally bad for your health, I am sure that most would be shocked to realise the true impact of it on the local population. The habit kills well over 2,000 people here every year. That is more than the number of deaths from obesity, alcohol, illegal drugs and road accidents put together. It is our leading cause of preventable death, and it is putting a huge amount of pressure on our health service.

It is interesting to note that funding from the Department, through the Public Health Agency, towards TV advertising was £206,000 in 2011-12, whereas, in 2015-16, it is £58,000. In addition, smoking is the largest cause of inequalities in death rates between the richest and poorest in our communities. I therefore fully support any efforts taken to assist people to give up the habit and to stop others from taking it up in the first place.

Smoking causes harm, not only for the individual but for those around them. When people decide to smoke, they take a conscious decision to do so. However, when people have to breathe in other people's smoke, they have little choice in the matter. Second-hand smoke is a toxic by-product that is medically proven to affect anyone who is exposed to it.

The ban on smoking indoors in public places split public opinion when it was first proposed. However, even the most ardent smoker would not think about lighting a cigarette in a restaurant or pub now. Who could possibly disagree that the ban has not only helped the health of our workers but also greatly improved those environments? People have been protected in public areas and in their workplaces since 2007.

On that issue, we also have the smoking ban in psychiatric hospitals, which is due to come into effect next month. That will, in itself, raise a number of questions over how it can be effectively managed by staff. However, there is very little legislation in place to protect children and young people from the effects of smoking.

Young people are particularly vulnerable to exposure to second-hand smoke, much more so than adults, which is why the amendments are so important. Medical practitioners will tell you that children's bodies are still developing and that exposure to harmful substances puts them at risk of severe respiratory diseases. Exposure to second-hand smoke is known to cause asthma, bronchitis, pneumonia, sudden infant death syndrome, middle ear infection and a raft of other health problems. In addition, children who are exposed to smoke from an early age are statistically much more likely to smoke later in life.

Most drivers already take an active decision not to smoke in cars if children are travelling with them, but one of the leading local charities believes that as many as 13,000 children may still be exposed to second-hand smoke in cars across Northern Ireland. Some parents smoke in cars under the assumption that winding down the car window will let the smoke out, but, as we have heard, in reality, that only pushes it back into the car. In such a confined space, smoke can reach up to 10 times the recognised unhealthy level, and it often lingers for hours.

People should, absolutely, be free to do what they wish, within the law, in their homes and cars. I appreciate that some people will be concerned when they hear about the Assembly taking decisions such as this, but, before people jump to a conclusion, I urge them to consider the issue and to accept that, when actions are harming the lives of children, the Assembly should have a duty to intervene and introduce safeguards that limit such actions and harm. Whilst I do not expect the PSNI to carry out roadblocks as a result of this legislation, it is my hope that criminalising smoking in cars with children will prevent people from doing it in the first place.

Mr McCarthy: I, like others, welcome the Consideration Stage of the Bill. The Alliance Party is supportive of the intent behind all the amendments in this group, but, like others, I am extremely disappointed that there has not been Executive agreement to permit a formal amendment to come from the Department. Perhaps the Minister can give us a reason why his colleagues failed on this occasion. Had it happened, it would have been instrumental in guiding us around the most effective route of establishing the best way forward.

Our understanding of the dangers of smoking has evolved considerably over the past number of decades and, in health terms, it makes sense to inform people of the huge dangers involved in smoking. Thankfully, today we better understand the health implications of smoking directly for the smoker, and also the dangers to others arising from passive smoking. Tackling smoking rates is a core aspect of all public health messages. While addressing the impact of smoking is a major pressure on scarce resources in our health service, it is absolutely essential that government continues to lead on steering our young people not to start smoking in the first place. I applaud the Public Health Agency on its work to date and over the years. Please, please continue to get the message over to our young people.

There are ongoing wider economic and social consequences. It is in that context that it is now commonplace in this and other societies that we regulate where and when smoking in cars occurs. Smoking is effectively banned in most public spaces. That is not just about the interests of the smoker, as the smoker is free to smoke in the confines of their own private space when it does not impact on others, but about protecting others from being impacted by smoking, often when they have no ability to choose or consent to suffer these ill effects. In that regard, it is surely a loophole that, today, smoking can take place in vehicles in which those under the age of 18 are being carried. They often have no means of consenting to the damage to which they are being subjected.

With that said, I am happy to support these amendments on behalf of the Alliance Party.

Mr McCallister: It will probably not come as a surprise to many that I support banning smoking. I led a debate on this subject in the early months of this mandate. I accept Mr Ross's arguments round civil liberties, how this impinges or impacts on those and how we make sure that we send out a very strong public health message when it comes to smoking. That is one of the key messages that legislation or regulations flowing from this should send out. It should send out a very, very strong message to people that this is not acceptable, that it is dangerous and that, most of all, it is dangerous to the most precious thing that parents will have in their life — it is a health risk to their children.

The health risks for all the population who smoke have now been well-documented for many decades. We have driven down those numbers with different measures. Now when you go abroad and people are smoking in a bar or restaurant, it almost seems an alien concept. We have become so used to the ban. It was very much a welcome step a number of years ago. The same arguments were put up then, such as, "This could be very difficult to enforce." It has become probably one of the most complied-with laws that we have passed here.

On the very idea that we would allow or permit in any form people to smoke in cars, I agree with the Minister. I think that when the issue was also talked about at Second Stage and people declared that they would be likely to bring forward amendments, he used the phrase "stupid" — "stupid", "reckless" or maybe even one stronger than that. I agree with his comments about anyone who would smoke in the car with their children. It is absolutely mind-numbing that people would act in such an irresponsible, reckless manner. The Assembly, with, I hope, the support of the Minister, can send out a clear message that that is not an acceptable way to behave.

Mr McKinney: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCallister: Yes.

Mr McKinney: I referred to the Department of Health's statistics. Does the Member accept that, if the Department has found that 15% of smokers smoke in their cars with children present, which represents 15% of 360,000 people, there is a problem that needs to be solved with, as I say, a ban, promotion and penalty?

Mr McCallister: I am grateful to the Member. Certainly, 15% is way too high — way, way too high. There is a sizeable number of people who do that. I will also point out — I think the point was raised in an interchange between Mr Ross and Ms McLaughlin or another member of Sinn Féin — that the damaging impact of smoking can last in a car for up to an hour after a cigarette has been smoked. I realise that we are probably not going to solve that problem. Having that sneaky fag, if you like, on the way to lift the kids from school is still incredibly damaging.

Maybe this is where I will test some of the arguments on civil liberty and even enforcement. Does it then become easier to ban smoking outright in cars regardless of the age group because it becomes easier to police, or do we just ban smoking in cars with children under the age of 18? I am certainly open to being persuaded either way on that.

Mr Ross: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCallister: Yes.

Mr Ross: I certainly agree that it is probably an easier way of doing it, if that is what you want to achieve, but the argument surely is not so much about whether anybody thinks it is a good idea to smoke in a car with children, or, indeed, whether anybody thinks it is a good idea to smoke full stop — I do not think that anybody does think that. The question is whether it is appropriate for government to legislate in what is a private sphere. The car is a private space. It is a private sphere, much like the home. Nobody is saying that it is a good idea to smoke around children in the home either, but it is accepted that it is a private space and that we do not legislate on it. In my view, the same, by extension, can be said about a private vehicle. It is a car, a private sphere, and we should not legislate in that area. That is what the argument comes down to, rather than what would be the easier way to enforce it.

Mr McCallister: I accept the argument that the Member makes about private space. However, even in a very modestly sized house, the volume of air in a smallish room is significantly larger than that in a car. That comes into it.

As for the argument as to whether the Government should ever interfere in regulating anything that goes on in a private space, we have done so over the past 30 or 40 years, particularly with cars. There is a reference in old files that the Northern Ireland Parliament almost introduced seat belt wearing 11 years before it was introduced across the United Kingdom. That would have saved thousands of lives, had it happened, but the Parliament collapsed before it could be progressed. Today, no one argues that seat belts are a huge infringement on civil liberties. They save lives. They, along with many other factors that we have introduced, make a huge difference to road safety and to the injuries sustained. For example, when children are brought home from hospital, no one seriously says, "Well, it is a private space, so you can bring your child home lying across the back seat of your car". You cannot leave hospital without an approved child seat. You might say that it is an infringement of civil liberties, but I say that it is a good thing because it saves lives. It is too important to be left up to the individual when individuals do not always make the right choices.

Ms Maeve McLaughlin: I thank the Member for giving way. On a similar track, the BMA gave evidence to the Health Committee and referred to a recent study that said that the concentration of toxins in a smoke-filled vehicle — in essence, a car — could be up to eleven times greater than in even a smoky bar. There was clearly an identified urgent need in relation to that statistic that was given to the Committee.

Mr McCallister: I am grateful to the Chair of the Health Committee for that intervention. There is a small volume, in cubic metres, of air in a car. Even with the windows open, smoke simply does not clear. That is where the risk comes from.

I come back to the point that the big debate on the amendments is about what will be most effective. I would have preferred the Executive to table their own amendments, as there was a clear will at Second Stage for that to happen, although I know that there were issues, maybe, with getting Executive clearance. However, I would have liked us to have been through that process by the time we hit Further Consideration Stage so that we could build on any amendments to make them as effective and as robust as possible.

For me, this is probably the big debate for the Minister in moving this stage: do we go for a total ban on smoking in cars, which would probably be easier to enforce, or do we leave the discretion that it is simply a ban in cars carrying children under the age of 18? That is an important distinction to make. One is easier to enforce, but it might go too far and be an infringement on civil liberties.

Mr McKinney: I thank the Member for giving way. He has touched on an issue that the Minister might reflect on later. If he is saying that there is the potential that the Executive might not let some of this go ahead, is it not easier to back an amendment now, because there might not be a guarantee that it will happen? For whatever reason, something might happen in the Executive that would not allow this to proceed.

Mr McCallister: I am grateful to the Member for that, and I intend to back the amendment. I will listen keenly to what the Minister has to say and will possibly be guided by his advice. At Second Stage, he gave a commitment, as much from the perspective that this sends out a strong message in a public health arena as from anything else. It sends out the message that the Assembly is serious about tackling smoking and the dangers to children. I am minded to listen intently to what the Minister has to say. I support the principle, and I hope that the amendments do enough to get us to where we want to go.

Mr Speaker: Your timing is impeccable. That is one that we owe you. I now call the Minister, Mr Simon Hamilton.

Mr Hamilton (The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety): I will talk to you later about that, Mr Speaker.

I thank Members for their contributions to the debate, which has been quite good. To pick up on one of Mr McCallister's latter points, Members will no doubt recall that, during the Second Stage debate, I expressed my support for legislation banning smoking in cars when children are present. It was my intention to table an amendment on that issue, and a draft of my proposed amendment was shared with and subsequently supported by the Health Committee in its report on the Bill.

In summary, my amendment would have introduced a clause to provide my Department with regulation-making powers to allow for the creation of offences on smoking in private vehicles where under-18s are present. The offences would be very similar to those for work vehicles under the Smoking (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 and relate to smoking in a smoke-free vehicle and failing to prevent smoking in a smoke-free vehicle.
Unfortunately, I was unable to secure Executive agreement in time to allow my amendment to be tabled for Consideration Stage. I will pick up on a point made in the discussion back and forward between Mr McKinney and Mr McCallister: it was a timing issue as opposed to any outright objection at Executive level, and I expect that further amendments, as required, which I will mention later, will secure the support of the Executive and be able to be tabled at Further Consideration Stage.

Amendment No 1, which is in the names of Ms McCorley, Mr McKay and Ms McLaughlin, goes further than the amendment that I had intended to table, in that it also provides powers for banning the use of e-cigarettes in cars carrying children. I am, however, prepared to support this amendment. I listened to the debates at Second Stage and this evening, and, in my view, the case for banning smoking in cars when children are present is clear. Children are particularly vulnerable, as many Members said, to the effects of second-hand tobacco smoke. For Mr McCallister, I clarify that I described those who smoke in cars with children as "idiots". It was as strong as that — he suggested that I was much more sensitive in what I said — and that view is held, maybe not in quite such strong terms, across the Chamber and in wider society.

I do not believe that there is any evidence at present to justify banning the use of e-cigarettes in enclosed spaces for health protection reasons. The latest report published by Public Health England in August last year concluded that e-cigarettes:

I understand that, in the past, there were incidents about the enforcement of smoke-free work vehicles, where, to avoid paying a fixed penalty, offenders claimed that they were using an e-cigarette and not a tobacco product. While it could be argued that a ban on both products will assist enforcement of the legislation, there has been a considerable shift in the popularity of e-cigarettes in the last two years from the early products that resembled cigarettes to the later generation devices that do not. This argument, therefore, may soon be no longer relevant. However, the inclusion in the Bill of a power to ban the use of e-cigarettes in cars when children are present will future-proof the legislation and allow my Department the flexibility, at a later stage, to make regulations, if sufficient evidence is available.

Whilst I am prepared to support amendment No 1 at this stage, I may seek to tighten it further via an amendment at Further Consideration Stage.

I turn now to other amendments in the group. The second part of amendment No 2, in the name of Mr McKinney, relates to raising public awareness, which is, I agree, an important part of any change in the law on the use of tobacco or nicotine products in vehicles carrying children. In advance of the commencement of any new legislation that could result in a member of the public committing an offence, it is standard practice to raise public awareness of that offence. I do not necessarily believe that that needs to be stipulated in primary legislation.

Amendment No 3 would place the enforcement duty in relation to smoke-free private vehicles in which children are present solely on police constables. Members may be aware that existing smoke-free legislation on places or work vehicles is carried out by authorised officers of district councils. Therefore, councils have years of experience in dealing with similar tobacco control legislation. However, as district council staff do not have stop and search powers equivalent to those available to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, issues have arisen with obtaining the driver information required to issue fixed penalty notices for offences relating to smoking in work vehicles. For those reasons, my Department would prefer a dual enforcement approach similar to that adopted in England and Wales, where a ban has been in place since 1 October 2015. In practice, that would mean that a fixed penalty notice could be issued by the Police Service of Northern Ireland or a district council. It is my intention that a dual enforcement approach would be set out in any regulations drafted in relation to smoking and the use of nicotine products in cars where children are present. Therefore, I oppose amendment No 3.

Amendment No 5 provides:

I am not against the principle behind the amendment, although I am not massively in favour of it either for reasons that are more practical than of principle. It is stating the obvious that it would take some months to draft regulations under Part 1 of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and to consult on them. Therefore, even with the best will in the world, it is unlikely that any new measures to ban smoking in cars with children will be commenced until early 2017. For the impact of the legislation to be properly and comprehensively assessed, a commitment to carry out a review three years after the regulations have come into force, rather than three years after the commencement of the Act, would make more sense and be more effective. I will, therefore, consider building in a requirement for a review in the regulations emanating from the Act, if the amendment is rejected this evening. If it passes, I will give consideration to the possibility of an amendment to make it operative after the commencement of the regulations as opposed to the commencement of the Act.

In short, I support amendment No 1 but oppose amendment Nos 2, 3 and 5 in the group.

Mr McKay: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his swift response to the debate, and I will try to be equally swift.

I welcome the fact that there is general support across the House for the introduction of the measure, whether that be through amendment No 1 or amendment No 2. My party colleague Rosie McCorley moved amendment No 1 and referred to the damage that second-hand smoke causes. It was not that long ago that many of us — maybe not all of us — were sitting in smoky bars and clubs and even in our smoky living rooms. The difference between then and now is like night and day, so extending the ban to cars and enclosed vehicles, especially those with children in them, makes perfect sense.

As always, Mr Ross made a number of combative interventions, which is good. It makes for good debate, and it has been a good debate. He made a point about amendment No 1 and the inclusion of "nicotine products or tobacco" being too wide. The only point that I will make is that that is the beauty of regulations. The Department may make regulations that take into account some of the concerns about it being too wide. That can be drilled down to specifics, according to the wishes of the Department. It is good that the Department is minded to take this forward, hopefully within a fixed period.

The Chair of the Committee outlined that the Committee had no formal view on the amendments. She also said that, according to research, 80% of people want a ban on smoking in cars with children. A very important point is that we need a long-term tobacco control strategy, because what we are dealing with today is just one instance. The point was made that smoking in a car was 11 times more damaging than smoking in a bar or restaurant to those who suffer as a result second-hand smoke. This is an important measure to put forward to deal with the problem of second-hand smoke, but we need to come back to it. When we come back to the Assembly after May, we need to look at a strategy, because this is one of the biggest killers in our society.

Alex Easton outlined his support for amendment No 1. He said that some of the amendments might need to be tidied up at a later stage. We are willing to consider that at Further Consideration Stage, as is always the case.

Fearghal McKinney outlined that 360,000 people in the North smoke and that one in two dies because of it. That figure was also quoted by Jo-Anne Dobson. That is absolutely shocking. It remains shocking that, in 2016, so many people still smoke and that it kills so many people in our society. That is not acceptable. As politicians, we need to take a zero-tolerance approach to smoking, and that is why I say that we need a strategy, objectives and goals to drill down and tackle those deaths.

Alastair Ross asked whether we should legislate for things that happen in a private sphere: I say absolutely, yes. That is not the case in all instances, but there are many laws in place to tackle crime within the home, and, when it comes to public health, especially children's health, we should intervene in extreme circumstances. I believe that, given the damage that is done in a very confined space through smoking in a small vehicle where there are children, we need to intervene and legislate.

Jo-Anne Dobson informed the House that smoking killed 2,000 people a year and that it is the biggest preventable killer. That means that it is the killer that we can do most about as legislators. She referred to the fact that indoor public areas had been protected since 2007. That has been a great success. Of course, opinion was divided at that time, but, looking back, nearly 10 years later, I am sure that a lot of people, especially young people, will ask what all the fuss was about. Of course we should have done it. It was common sense, and it has saved many lives.

Kieran McCarthy was disappointed by the lack of Executive agreement on this and would have preferred to see the Department bring amendments to the Floor today. John McCallister said that he found it strange going abroad now and seeing smoking in bars and restaurants in other countries. We should be very proud that the ban is in place here in the North and, indeed, in the South. We are saving people's lives and protecting people from second-hand smoke when people in many countries do not have that protection. Many bar workers and those who work in restaurants and even in offices do not have the protection that many of our citizens have.

The Minister outlined that he had been unable to secure Executive agreement on amendments. Nonetheless, I appreciate and think that Members appreciate his effort and that of his Department to lead on the issue.

He was clear that the case against smoking in cars with children is proven. In his view, there is no evidence as yet to state that e-cigarettes are doing damage. In my view, however, because e-cigarettes are a recently developed product, we have not had the opportunity for an adequate research base to be formed to assure ourselves that they do not damage children or anybody else. It is wise therefore to keep the issue under consideration for the proposed review, because in three years' time we may have learnt a lot more about e-cigarettes. There are concerns at the moment that we cannot just dismiss.

Amendment No 2 refers to a need to raise public awareness. Rosie McCorley said that it is something that has not been consulted on and thus needs more consideration. That is my view as well.

Amendment No 3 is specific about fixed penalties. Rosie McCorley said that the law itself changes behaviours. Many people do not want to break the law regardless of whether there is good enforcement. That also applies to speed limits to a degree. Alex Easton concurred that there should be joint responsibility between a council and the police. That was supported by the Minister.

We will also be supporting amendment No 5. We support a review within a set time. As I said, we need to be cautious about e-cigarettes. The jury is out, but research is at a fairly early stage, so it makes sense to keep our options open on that one. After three years, we can look at it again.

As was said, people do smoke when their children are in the car. That is a fact. It is happening today and is probably happening right now. Adults do smoke in cars when young children, babies, newborns and infants are present. As far as I am concerned, that is not acceptable.

The Health Survey NI stated that 23% of households here could be exposing children to second-hand smoke in cars, and 30% of schoolchildren surveyed reported that smoking was permitted in the family car. It is not something that is happening in a small number of cases. It is happening to a great degree, according to statistics.

Smoking around children needs to be stubbed out once and for all. I commend amendment No 1 to the House and ask for its support.

Mr Speaker: I will not call amendment No 2, as it is mutually exclusive with amendment No 1, which was made.

Mr Speaker: I will not call amendment No 3, as it is consequential to amendment No 2, which was not called.

Mr Speaker: We now come to the debate on amendment No 4, which deals with consultation on a sugar sweetened drinks levy. I call Ms Rosie McCorley to move amendment No 4.

Ms McCorley: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom leasú uimhir a ceathair a mholadh. I beg to move amendment No 4:

Amendment No 4 is about the consumption of sugar and the impact of sugary, sweetened drinks. The fact is that we are consuming too much sugar. We are told by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition that, according to experts in the UK, we should not be exceeding 5% in sugar of our total dietary intake, but evidence shows that, on average, all age groups consume between two and three times more than the 5% target.

The highest percentage of sugar intake is among young people. We know —

Mr Speaker: Order. If Members are leaving, will they do so? Let us cease the conversation. I cannot hear the Member whatsoever. Can you speak into the microphone? Thank you.

Ms McCorley: Sorry.

We know that it is bad for our health. There is a strong connection between sugar consumption and health problems, and that includes dental decay, obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular conditions. In the North, 24% of children under 16 and 61% of adults aged 16 and over are overweight or obese. The number of people diagnosed with diabetes has grown by 33% over the last five years, with 4% of the population in the North now diagnosed with diabetes. Sixty-one per cent of five-year-olds in the North show signs of dental decay, compared with the UK average of 43%. It also has detrimental impacts on our health service. For example, research carried out by Safefood in 2012 estimated that the direct health costs, including GP costs, inpatient and outpatient costs and prescriptions, of dealing with obesity in the North are £92 million a year.

Sugary soft drinks are of particular concern. We know that the sugary soft drinks imbibed by children aged 11 to 18 are their largest single source of sugar — 30%. The fact is that they have zero nutritional value and low satiety. Just one can of sugary drink can take you over your daily intake level.

One way of reducing the consumption of sugary drinks is to raise the price, which we already do with taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. Basic economic theory suggests that demand for a product will fall as price increases, and that is backed up in practice. Public Health England reviewed the evidence on the effect of tax increases introduced on unhealthy foods in OECD countries since 2010 and concluded that higher pricing does lead to lower consumption of unhealthy foods.

Mr Ross: I thank the Member for giving way. She is looking at the evidence; does she share my concern that the evidence actually suggests that a sugar tax would be a tax on the poor? Much evidence has backed that up. What we want to do is not to have additional taxes on people who can ill afford it.

Ms McCorley: I thank the Member for that intervention, and I will come to that point later.

We also have to take into account the fact that Cancer Research UK has given us statistics which warn that obesity is escalating at such a rate that it will cause almost 700,000 extra cases of cancer within the next 20 years. We also have evidence from Professor Mike Rayner of Oxford University, who has been looking at the issue for the last 10 years. What he says is this:

We have to acknowledge other facts: children consume three times more sugar than is recommended, and soft drinks are the biggest source, accounting for 29% of the sugar intake of 11- to 18-year-olds and 16% for younger children. In the last few weeks, the British Medical Journal published a study showing that a 10% sugary drinks tax in Mexico has led to a 12% reduction in sales after a year.

Another aspect — this has been referred to by the Member across the way — is that people on low incomes consume a higher level of sugary drinks and are more likely to suffer the adverse health consequences. That means that people on lower incomes stand to gain the most from reducing their sugar intake. It is true that there is no single solution to obesity. A sugary drinks levy is one part of a wider strategy that is needed to encourage healthy diet and exercise. Importantly, as well as helping to reduce sugar consumption, the levy will raise revenue that could be reinvested in other initiatives to improve health. So, there will be a double benefit of the levy itself and the health initiatives funded by it.

In the South of Ireland, the Department of Health commissioned a piece of research that was carried out by the Irish Heart Foundation and Ipsos MRBI. They consulted on public attitudes to steps to tackle the high rates of consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. What they discovered was that almost 100% of people agreed that children drink far too many sugar-sweetened drinks, with 44% saying they would reduce their intake if prices increased and 60% saying they would increase water consumption if they drank fewer sugary drinks. The facts are out there about why it is extremely important to take action as soon as possible on the issue. So that we achieve the right outcomes, we are calling for detailed, comprehensive consultation that would take place within a year of enactment and that would become part of the basis of introducing a levy on sugar-sweetened drinks. I call on the Assembly to support amendment No 4.

Mr Easton: While this is probably a well-intentioned amendment, I do not believe that consultation on the issue will achieve anything. The evidence is not clear that it would work. It is not even clear that the Assembly has the power to introduce a tax anyway; this is probably a Westminster issue. It would use up a lot of departmental resources that are focused on other things to produce a consultation within a year.

Such a tax would be regressive and would have the biggest impact on the poorest families, potentially exacerbating food poverty. Based on what little we know, we are not clear whether we can do this, and without being able to take advice on the impact, I would tend to err on the side of caution on the issue.

I call on the Minister to maybe look at it at some stage in the future when all the facts are known and clear. At this moment in time, I am not able to support it without the facts and without the Committee being able to discuss it properly.

Mr McKinney: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the group 2 amendments and the amendment that asks for the Department of Health to consult on the possible benefits of introducing a levy on sugar-sweetened drinks.

Obesity is a 21st-century epidemic. A recent study by the Institute of Education in London found that a staggering one in four children born here at the start of the century were obese by the time they reached 11 years of age. It also showed that levels of childhood obesity here are the highest in the UK at 24%, while in Wales they are 23%, in England they are 20% and in Scotland they are 19%. Such levels are not acceptable when we consider the extent to which obesity presents health problems for our children and others and all the problems that those then present to the health service. Serious health conditions often emerge, and the SDLP believes that the Assembly should do all within its power to prevent them from occurring in the first place. That will in turn, as I say, provide savings for the Department of Health.

Part of the global effort to tackle childhood obesity and to raise health revenues surrounds the introduction of a levy on sugary drinks, which is colloquially known as the sugar tax. Here, it is fair to say that we are at a very early stage in the debate. The Health Minister has indicated, and we heard further reflection tonight, that he has no plans to consult on the issue.

A recent RaISe paper that was tabled to the Health Committee stated that there are no recent figures on consumption, so there is a lack of clear data available. A consultation as proposed in the amendment is perhaps a logical step to ask the Minister to take, as we need to make informed decisions on this important issue. I say this sort of humorously, but here we are legislating for consultation when we do not have sufficient consultation for legislation. With regard to the implementation of a tax on sugary drinks, the paper stated that there have been mixed levels of success within other jurisdictions in providing better health outcomes. In Mexico, where there is a 10% levy on sugary drinks, that resulted in a 6% decrease in consumption, but similar strategies elsewhere have had different results. For example, the Danish model saw people buying cheaper brands and travelling across borders to buy products, and, of course, there would be an implication for that here too.

The Finnish model shows that, despite a high level of taxation on sugary drinks since the 1940s, obesity amongst children is actually increasing, albeit at marginally lower levels than in the UK. There is a lot to be considered in this. We need a concerted approach to tackling obesity, and a sugar tax may be one of the elements that would provide an overall solution.

There has been some movement in the UK on the introduction of sugar taxes. The Health Committee considered the issue and recommended the introduction of a tax of between 10% and 20%, along with a crackdown on the advertising of sugary products aimed at children, but that did not find overall favour. As we consider today's amendment in relation to here, there is an issue concerning taxation and who would enforce it. If we take the same approach as the countries that I mentioned, it would require a change in VAT. Of course, that is outwith our control; it is a reserved matter. There are other issues that need to be considered, such as the impact that such a tax could have on the local economy and on local businesses, and they must be given thorough consideration.

The SDLP is open to the concept of having a consultation and is content enough with amendment No 4, but we believe that a more holistic approach is required to tackle all the issues around childhood and other obesity.

Mrs Dobson: I support the amendment. We should first be clear about what the amendment means or, rather, what it does not mean. It does not mean that a sugar tax will be inevitable, and it does not mean that every item of confectionery will suddenly cost more. I am glad that those who tabled the amendment have decided to restrict it for the time being to sugar-sweetened beverages or SSBs. There is no doubt, however, that the regular or excessive consumption of sweetened soft drinks is directly linked to weight gain and obesity and a raft of other health conditions, such as diabetes and heart disease. A fairly recent study found that —

Mr Ross: I thank the Member for giving way. This might seem like a very technical matter, but two Members have referred to diabetes being affected by sugar. Of course, there is type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes. It is important to put it on record that type 1 diabetes has nothing to do with the intake of sugar.

Mrs Dobson: I thank the Member for clarifying that. I am very aware of that.

A fairly recent study found that 24% of children living in Northern Ireland were obese, and our obesity figures for children aged 11 years were higher than England, Scotland or Wales. It is in that young age group that the consumption of excessive SSBs can have the biggest impact. The average child obtains one tenth of their daily calorie intake from SSBs. Of course, that is only the average child: some will not consume them at all, and, at the other end of the scale, there will be children consuming wildly excessive amounts.

Soft drinks and other sweetened goods more generally are far more prominent now than they were 50 or 60 years ago. However, I believe that, in the last number of years, the tide has started to turn, with many parents actively trying not to put such items in lunch boxes or in kitchen cupboards. Nevertheless, through the sheer variety of items on display and the effectiveness of advertising, too much sugar is being consumed. It is time that we started looking at other measures to reduce the sugar intake of children, not only in Northern Ireland but across the British Isles. I am aware that a number of countries, including many states in the US, have introduced taxes, mainly on sugar-sweetened drinks.

I am very conscious of the fact that government should not usually interfere or introduce additional charges on something that many people consider to be entirely a matter of choice. However, like the banning of smoking in cars in which there are children, sometimes, if there is clear and solid evidence and a foundation for doing so, difficult options need to be explored. This is why I believe that, if a levy were to be introduced in Northern Ireland, its primary motivation should be to influence consumption levels rather than simply to raise revenue. I expect that any money raised would be invested directly in public health campaigns. It has been estimated that a 20% duty on SSBs would reduce the number of obese adults in the UK by 180,000 or 1·3% of all obese adults and would raise around £1 billion in taxation revenue.

Whilst we support the amendment, we would have much preferred to see it being brought forward as part of a wider UK package. It would, however, be right to have concerns about the capacity of a relatively small country like ours to adopt such a scheme on our own. How, for example, would it be administered without placing a major bureaucratic burden on whatever Department would ultimately be responsible? Also, major care would need to be taken to assess properly the differing impacts on families from different socio-economic backgrounds. Whilst I want average consumption reduced, I do not want the occasional can of Coke to be priced out of reach of young people or their families.

I support the amendment; it is only right that we have a consultation and start to open up a public conversation on the issue, but, in reality, I suspect that we are still some time away from being able to make an informed decision as to whether or not to introduce such a scheme.

Mr McCarthy: Very briefly, our party can concur with the content of the amendment. Obesity, as was said, is a major public health issue. It can limit life opportunities and lifespan, it brings a range of economic and social consequences, and it is responsible for considerable expense in an overstretched health service. We can, of course, sympathise with constituents who have an obesity problem. The amendment is unusual in that it is mandating that a public consultation occur. I would have thought that that could take place at any stage without public consultation. That said, the Alliance Party has no objection to the amendment if it is the view of the Assembly that it wants a watertight guarantee that a consultation would occur. Nevertheless, a consultation does not in itself entail follow-up action, and I am interested in the Minister's thoughts regarding any action that his Department might take on the issue.

Mr Hamilton: In this job, I have often had occasion, when discussing the need to reform, change and remodel our health and social care system, to talk about the many challenges that face it as well as the broader societal challenges that we face now and into the future. Among those sorts of challenges that I often refer to, there is one that I have described as the "ticking time bomb" of unhealthy lifestyles. In their contributions this evening, many Members talked about the ticking time bomb of obesity in our society. It is not just in Northern Ireland; it is in the Western World, and many countries and states in this part of the world are suffering and experiencing the same problems as us, with growing levels of obesity and, particularly worryingly, childhood obesity.

The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health recently estimated that nearly 20% — one in five — children in Northern Ireland are now overweight or obese before they start primary school. We often bandy figures and statistics about, and we have done so in the debate so far and will continue to do so, but a statistic that says that one in five children, before they start primary school —not when they end primary school or move from primary school to secondary school — is obese or overweight is evidence of a deeply worrying trend that is not getting any better.

A recent health survey of Northern Ireland showed that there has been a 5% rise in the rate of obesity in adults since 1997. As many Members said, poor diet is also linked to the prevalence of many conditions such as cancer, stroke, heart disease and type 2 diabetes. I accept that these are, in many respects, arguments for action, which is why my Department published 'Making Life Better 2012-2023', which is our 10-year public health strategic framework. The framework provides direction for policies and actions to improve the health and well-being of people in Northern Ireland, and it builds on the Investing for Health strategy, which ran from 2002 to 2012, and retains a focus on the broad range of social, economic and environmental factors that influence health and well-being.

It brings together actions at government level and provides direction for implementation at regional and local level. The Making Life Better framework seeks to reduce inequalities in health and create the conditions for individuals and communities to take control of their lives and move towards a vision of a Northern Ireland where all people are enabled and supported in achieving their full health and well-being potential.

I am not convinced that we should act to introduce a so-called sugar tax at this time, and I urge caution on the amendment for several reasons. First, it is still unclear whether the Assembly has the power to implement a sugar-sweetened drinks levy or tax independently in Northern Ireland. This is an important issue because a decision to proceed is likely to come under very significant challenge. Therefore, we need to be very sure of our legal position before we proceed. Otherwise, we could create expectations that this is an area that we can take action in, when that might not be the case. The Department is seeking further advice on the issue, but it remains crucial to the entire debate, and we simply may not have the powers to implement such a levy in Northern Ireland.

Secondly, it is unclear from the current evidence that such a tax would have the desired effect of improving health outcomes. To date, studies have simply shown changes in purchasing behaviours. At Second Stage, I referred to an article that appeared in 'The Times' a number of weeks ago, and I think that its points are worth repeating this evening. The report contained comments from Catherine Collins of the British Dietetic Association (BDA). 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 BDA, 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 question whether it would make people lose weight, and her view was that it would not.

She said that there was no evidence that reducing sugar-sweetened beverages in adults reduced body weight. It might be logical that any reduction in the purchasing of sugary drinks might improve health, but food consumption and diet are very complex, and people may well substitute sugar with other unhealthy products, such as those that are high in fat or salt, which would beg another question: should we tax those products as well or tax them further? Some in the House may welcome that. Should we tax a lack of exercise, which is another contributory factor to the rise in our obesity levels? A sugar tax might simply displace rather than solve the problem, and we would need to undertake very complex economic modelling of its impact. This could take time to complete and would be a waste of resources if we do not have the power to implement such a tax.

Thirdly, such a tax could well be, as Mr Ross said, regressive and have the biggest impact on the poorest families, potentially exacerbating food poverty.

Fourthly, we have no understanding of what the impact might be on businesses, especially small businesses here in Northern Ireland.

Fifthly, we do not yet have any analysis of the level at which a sugar tax should be set. If it was a few pence, would that really dissuade people? I suspect that it would not. If it was higher, what effect would that have on less well-off families and, indeed, businesses? We have no analysis either of the cross-border implications that Mr McKinney rightly pointed out.

Finally, on the argument for caution moving forward, I do not believe that this issue has yet to receive the attention that other public health issues have had over the years: for example, smoking, which we have been debating this evening. I do not believe that the impact that sugary drinks or sugary products have on health, and particularly obesity, have been properly discussed and debated in public in the way that other issues have.

Ms Maeve McLaughlin: I thank the Minister for giving way. Does the Minister agree that the amendment tabled today does exactly what it says on the tin? He mentioned some of the issues to do with consultation and the definition of sugary, sweetened drinks. What sugary, sweetened drinks should we subject to a levy? What factors need to be considered? What rate should a financial levy be set at? What are the anticipated health and economic impacts? Does the Minister not agree that consultation is exactly what we are calling for?

Mr Hamilton: I am not sure that that is what is being called for in a consultation, and I will come to that in my concluding remarks. The point that I am making is that I do not think that this issue has had the degree of attention in the media or public discourse that, say, the public health impact of smoking or even the consumption of alcohol has had. I defy anybody in the House to say the contrary. I think that we need to be careful of moving ahead of that public debate and discourse. We have not had TV adverts or warnings on packaging that we have seen, say, with smoking or other public health campaigns. I do not think that people know how much sugar there is in various products and I am not sure that it is as widely known as the impact that smoking has on our health.

An interesting point on this issue was made in a BBC 'Question Time' debate by the leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party, Mr Farage. Why is it so obvious that Mr Farage would drink something like ginger beer? It is so quintessentially British. He said:

I agree with him on that argument. At least for now, I agree that we need to seek to educate and inform people much better about the impact of sugary drinks and products.

As I predicted in advance, the proposers of the amendment, Ms McLaughlin and others, may well suggest that these are all issues that could be examined as part of their proposed consultation. I am not convinced that we should ever legislate for consultations. Notwithstanding that point, consultation is, in my belief, better suited to a scenario where you have a much clearer view about the ultimate direction of travel in which you want to go. In this case, that would be when we had determined that a sugar tax is a good idea. We have dealt with all the various questions that Ms McLaughlin raised in her intervention. You determine that a sugar tax is a good idea and something that you want to introduce, and you then consult on the details and specifics of how any tax or levy might operate.

What is perhaps more appropriate at this point, in this set of circumstances where we are still at the very early stages of our thinking on this and understanding of the issue, is a study as opposed to a consultation. I have consistently said that I am open to debate and discussion on this issue. However, given the concerns that I have set out — there are probably others that I have not touched on or which have not been thought about yet — I do not think that this Bill is the most appropriate place to have this discussion. I believe that a study, maybe one conducted by the Public Health Agency in Northern Ireland, would, in the first instance, be a far better first step than committing to a consultation. If the proposers of the amendment agree not to move it today, I will discuss the possibility of beginning a study later this year with the PHA. I therefore think that the amendment should be rejected at this stage and that discussions on taxing sugar-sweetened drinks should be taken forward separately.

Mr McKay: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Amendment No 4 does not introduce a levy on sugary drinks; it merely asks that a consultation be carried out. It is an opportunity, at this very early stage of the conversation and debate, for the Assembly to lead on an issue that will have a positive outcome in terms of improving levels of public health.

Only last week, I listened to a vox pop on the radio about the high level of sugar in some coffee drinks in some of our well-known coffee establishments in Belfast. A number of members of the public in Belfast were interviewed, and most of them were extremely shocked at the vast amounts of sugar in their drinks. This is not restricted to fizzy drinks in the fridge. Sugar in hot drinks is perhaps another area that can be looked at.

It is very surprising too, because the calories are listed on the menu in a lot of those establishments. The information may be there, but you are relying on those who go into the coffee shop reading it and taking it in while they are choosing what to purchase. I think that the message there is to mind your frappuccinos.

The proposer of the amendment, Rosie McCorley, referred to the fact that our diet is changing. There are greater levels of obesity and diabetes, at a cost of £92 million a year — £92 million that could be better spent elsewhere in our health service. Obesity also leads to increased rates of cancer.

It is interesting — and Mr McKinney referred to this — that there was a reduction in the sale of sugary drinks in Mexico after the sugar tax was introduced. So it works in some circumstances, and we need to take the time to look at the case studies as to where it failed and tailor our approach accordingly.

The argument was made that low-income households suffer most regarding health. This needs to override any other argument citing the low-income buyer.

Alex Easton was short and sweet. He said that it was, perhaps, a Westminster issue, and he was not sure that we could legislate. He said that it was regressive and that the poor would suffer. I disagree with that point. The same argument was made when we brought forward proposals for a carrier bag levy. At that time, we were told that, if the taxation measure was not already in place at Westminster — that is, that it was a novel tax — we could legislate for it. So this is certainly worth exploring further.

Fearghal McKinney referred to the fact that one in four is obese by the age of 11. He referred to the fact that the rate of child obesity is 24%, or one in four.

Jo-Anne Dobson referred to the fact that soft drinks are more prominent than they were 50 or 60 years ago. That is absolutely true. I know many young people who have a bottle of coke for breakfast, even though they are told not to do so. These products are available, and there is so much choice, between Red Bull, Diet Red Bull, Diet Coke, Coca Cola, Fanta, Sprite. There is so much more choice than there ever was. Then, there is the issue of where many shops place these products. Quite often, when you are standing in a queue to buy something healthy, you are surrounded by sweets, crisps and fizzy drinks. You can see quite clearly, from that example, how the choice of something that is not good for you is staring you in the face. This is also an area that is in need of further consideration. It is something that was introduced in some US states, but I agree with Mrs Dobson that we need to look at it carefully. She said that it was right that we had a conversation.

Kieran McCarthy stated that obesity is putting pressure on an overstretched health service, and he wants more than consultation; he wants to hear about action. I agree with him absolutely.

The Minister, in responding to the debate, referred to the ticking time bomb of our lifestyles and the fact that the strategic framework has been put in place. He also referred to the fact that there is no understanding of the impacts on business and on lower-income families and said that they should be considered. We would like them to be considered as part of any consultation or conversation.

Of course, you always hear the argument — and it applied to the carrier bag tax as well — that low-income households will suffer more from a levy. If there were no tax on cigarettes or alcohol, you would get the same argument. However, the fact of the matter is that these things do damage. They are very bad for our health. They kill people. Cancer caused by smoking kills people. Alcoholism kills people. Obesity and diabetes kill people as well. So, we need to take measures to prevent this spreading.

It is not the only thing that we need to do. We need to exercise more. As a society, we do not exercise enough. We spend too much time in our cars, whether there is smoke in them or not, and that is not good for us either. Equally, we need more investment in a walking strategy. I met Outdoor Recreation NI earlier this week. There is a walking strategy in Scotland. Why could we not have the same here? Of course, we need a greater cycling infrastructure to ensure that people make those choices in Belfast as well as in our rural areas.

To conclude, this is an idea whose time has come. It will be a good start.

Mr Speaker: We now come to the third group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 6, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 7 and 8. These amendments deal with a duty to promote information and awareness on human transplantation. Amendment Nos 7 and 8 are consequential to amendment No 6. I call Ms Maeve McLaughlin to move amendment No 6 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Ms Maeve McLaughlin: I beg to move amendment No 6:

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I will speak in support of amendment Nos 6, 7 and 8. There has been much public debate about the need to promote organ donation and transplantation over the last number of years and in recent times, centring around the former private Member's Bill. There has been much debate about the need to place a duty on the Department to promote organ donation and transplantation. We need to reflect on the facts and look at the information. For example, the British Heart Foundation highlights, very starkly, that the current system is failing to meet the demand for donor hearts and points to the fact that there are currently eight people in the North waiting on a life-saving heart. There is much expectation and indeed a very human cost to this particular debate.

It is good that the public conversation has developed and become very vocal. However, it has to be said that the private Member's Bill that came before us in recent times was complex and confusing. Expert evidence, medical and otherwise, highlighted that huge sections of the Bill were inadequate. Experts, from clinicians to charities, all heavily criticised the Bill. It needs to be said that, in the context of these amendments, they were particularly critical of the then clause 4 on the deemed-consent issue. Indeed, Joe Brolly, in his own formidable style, stated that the Bill was "gobbledygook".

The Bill was flawed, in our view. The majority of evidence heavily criticised it on the issue of deemed consent. That was a consistent approach from clinicians to charities, including Opt for Life, which stated, "deemed consent under no circumstances". I say that because it is important to lay out the context. There was simply no evidence anywhere in the consultation —

Mrs Dobson: I thank the Member for giving way. I thought that it would be useful, in the context of the debate tonight, to quote from the Opt for Life proposed legislative change in Northern Ireland. The proposal clearly sets out a three-pronged strategy for organ donation: putting in place new legislation, putting the required infrastructure in place and creating good public awareness during and after the proposed legislation.

Ms Maeve McLaughlin: I thank the Member for her intervention. There was absolute unity across all the sectors on public awareness and education. However, it is a matter of formal record that, when Opt for Life and many others came before the Committee, they stated clearly that what we were ending up with was not the journey that they had set out on. We need to be mindful of that.

It is important to point out that there was absolutely no evidence to suggest that the notion of opting out impacts either positively or negatively on organ donation rates. There was simply no evidence that the Committee could find. Often, Spain is heralded as the success, but evidence has shown us that the rates stayed exactly the same for 10 years. The only time that the situation in Spain changed was when the infrastructure was addressed, in terms of issues like specialist nurses. However, there was — I am coming to the point of the amendments — unity on promoting organ donation. Amendment No 6 before us tonight, which was consulted on in the private Member's Bill, does exactly what it says on the tin: it places a duty on the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to promote and raise public awareness of organ donation. There was overwhelming support for that duty on the Department to promote organ donation by way of a public awareness campaign.

Mr Ross: I thank the Member for giving way. I find it amusing that she is making all the arguments that I made at Second Stage of the private Member's Bill. Members of Sinn Féin argued against me at the time, and I remember some Members promoting the virtues of deemed and presumed consent at the time. I am glad that they have now examined the evidence, as I asked them to do.

I have no difficulty with what the Members are trying to do with their amendment, but perhaps they will look at it again in terms of the difference between promoting transplantation and promoting organ donation. It is organ donation that we need to promote; transplantation, obviously, comes afterwards. Obviously, you need to get the organs donated in the first place before you can do that. Perhaps the Member will consider that.

Ms Maeve McLaughlin: I thank the Member for his intervention. That is certainly one of the virtues of the democratic process and the role of the House in scrutiny. I think that all of us went on a journey in relation to the issue, and I do not expect that we are out the other side of it yet. I take the Member's point about language. It is certainly something that the clinicians have raised. Part of what we propose today is the inclusion of both organ donation and transplantation. I am happy to look at how we can strengthen that or even provide clarity. We will be guided by the Minister and the Department's sense on that as well.

There is overwhelming support for the duty. It was highlighted by many in their evidence that the public awareness campaign will need to motivate every family. We have heard much about the work that the Public Health Agency and other sectors have done. Each family needs to start to discuss organ donation and understand what their responsibilities would be, should a member of the family be in the position to save a life.

Amendment No 6 is clear and concise. It places a statutory duty on the Department to promote transplantation. Amendment No 7 sets up a mechanism that requires annual reporting by the Department on transplantation activities. That, again, has been an important feature throughout the debate. It would include the number and nature of such activities. It would require the Department, once every five years, to indicate how effective it has been in promoting transplantation activities and any potential ways in which the law could be amended to increase transplantation. That is an important point as well, because we have heard much about the legislation that has been implemented in Wales. This provides us with a space to find the learning, positive and negative, that comes from that process.

A number of organisations referred to the reporting requirements and suggested that any report should highlight successes and challenges. They said that, if there was a change in the number of organs donated, steps should be taken rapidly to understand the root cause. Again, those are all important pointers for us as we move forward.

I also suggest that the amendments provide us with an opportunity to develop an all-Ireland network for the sharing of learning that happens in Dublin and Belfast. I know that, recently, the Minister alluded to exploring something on a Belfast-Dublin corridor for that issue.

I am pleased to be able to take forward the amendments. They are clear and concise, and they provide us with a clear statutory framework to address the very core issues that have been raised with us by stakeholders from clinicians to charities in evidence and in the wider public debate. I urge the House to support the amendments.

Mr Easton: I will speak to the group 3 amendments, which are on the duty to promote information and awareness of human transplantation, and on amendment Nos 6, 7 and 8, which I support. I will wholeheartedly support all those amendments, although I will say that it was a wee bit cheeky for the party opposite to lift somebody else's Bill. However, I recognise that the contents of the amendments are far too important to be just let go. I agree that they must be taken forward, especially after the evidence brought to the Committee by clinicians and experts. While, like I said, it was a wee bit cheeky, it probably is the right thing to do. I agree with the Chair that the Committee and the experts, the Churches and charity groups that gave evidence agreed unanimously — this was the only thing that we could all agree on — that education and promoting public awareness was the way to do this. That is where all the evidence pointed us, and that is why I support that.

Amendment No 6 proposes placing a duty on the Department to promote organ transplantation in a campaign that informs the public at least once a year. That was echoed to the Committee by the experts and was seen as the best way to increase organ donation. The clinicians and medical experts all supported that. I trust the experts, because I believe they are the ones to advise us and that that is the way we have to go.

Amendment No 7 places a duty on the Department to report on an annual basis on organ transplantation, on how successful the strategy is and on awareness activities that take place to promote and highlight the issue in local communities. It also ensures that the Department will report its opinion every five years on whether the provisions have been effective in promoting the transplantation activities and on any recommendations the Department considers.

Amendment No 8 is the long title, and there is really not a lot to say on that.

Mr McKinney: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to tonight's debate on the group 3 amendments. We should remember that what we have here was never intended to be part of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. What we have is the skeleton of a Bill that was proposed by Jo-Anne Dobson and largely rejected by the two larger parties. The SDLP attempted to amend it, and that was largely rejected by the two larger parties. What we now have are measures that appear to be tagged on to the end of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. That was done without even giving Mrs Dobson the courtesy of telling her what was coming down the track.

Given the effort that was put into this, and in recognition of what Mr Ross says about how people have travelled in the debate, I think that she deserved that courtesy. I understand where you are coming from, Mr Easton, but I think that "cheeky" is an understatement. Earlier, somebody mentioned a journey. I think that Mrs Dobson has had her luggage taken by those who have jumped on the other carriage. I say that in the context of what has happened here. A lot of effort was put into this, and we still need to consider the issue much more fully than in the process that is being proposed tonight, but I will get to that later.

It is important to remind the Chamber that around 200 people here are waiting for an organ transplant and that, sadly, 17 died last year, long before being offered the opportunity for a transplant. A few weeks ago, I visited the renal unit at Belfast City Hospital and met clinicians who, frankly, are performing nothing short of miracles. They explained the detrimental impact that long-term dialysis has on patients and the importance of receiving a kidney as soon as possible. This is a startling thing, but, last year, seven people came to the centre and donated a kidney, not, as many might expect, for a spouse or other family member, but for a stranger. I think that all of us here tonight should applaud those people for that generosity.

One issue raised during the visit surrounded the potential to increase cross-border living donations. Clinicians stated that progress has stalled on a service agreement between both jurisdictions. I would like the Minister to reflect on that and to detail what work his Department is engaged in to make cross-border donation a reality. I think that that request for information speaks to the broader context of where the debate should be. There is a great potential to share resources, to collaborate on increasing donation rates on an all-island basis, and, ultimately, to save more lives, because it is my understanding that there are even more people in the Republic willing to donate anonymously. That is nothing short of marvellous, and it is preparation for even more miracles.

So, it is against that wider backdrop that it is important that the Chamber does everything that it can to promote organ donation to ensure that people on waiting lists have the best chance of receiving a life-changing organ. It is important, and the Chamber should acknowledge the amount of work that Jo-Anne Dobson has done in bringing forward her Human Transplantation Bill. It is with regret that she will not be moving forward with her Bill, due to a lack of consensus, but, as I said, I hope there will be a return to the issue in the new mandate.

The SDLP has always called for more debate on organ donation and has lobbied for an increase in the number of organ donors to improve the networks for sourcing and sharing donor organs and transplant services throughout these islands for those seriously ill people who are on long waiting lists and whose lives are dependent on the gift of organ donation. The SDLP believes that today's Bill does not resolve the outstanding issues surrounding organ donation; it also believes that the issues surrounding increasing donor rates need much wider consideration. I cannot emphasise that enough. However, due to the fact that we are coming to the end of a mandate, the SDLP will not object to the proposals made in group 3, which call for greater awareness raising and an annual review of organ donation.

Mrs Dobson: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the third group of amendments. It will come as little surprise to Members that I am prepared to accept my own wording in relation to organ donation, as contained in amendment Nos 6 and 7, which are a direct lift from my private Member's Bill, the Human Transplantation Bill. However, for the record, Members will be aware that, having been presented with the opportunity through a private Member's Bill to change the law to a soft opt-out system, parties and Committee joined together to oppose the system that they had both previously supported.

Whilst I support the amendments in the Bill, public awareness is just one part of the soft opt-out system and will not allow us to avail ourselves of the changes brought into being to the organ donor register last July, namely the ability for those who have an issue with donation to opt out. I do not, however, wish the Health Department to kick the can down the road by stating that, if these amendments are passed today, we must wait for the legislative changes to kick in before we can ever look at adopting a soft opt-out system in the future. Given the public will for change, I challenge the Health Minister to ensure that organ donation is given prominent billing in the ongoing discussions regarding the next Programme for Government.

I also noted the concern that was expressed during the Second Stage debate on the Human Transplantation Bill about the cost of my proposal for a public awareness scheme. I wonder whether those same Members hold those concerns tonight.

I strongly support all measures that will increase the number of organ donations. There are few more selfless acts a person can do than to sign up to become a donor. We must remember that many transplantations take place after the loss of a loved one, yet, for the recipient, that organ represents the chance of a new life. It is a second chance to live a long and healthy life, which is why the issue should be treated with sensitivity. There are countless examples of people who were desperately ill and are now living perfectly healthy lives. Members will be aware that my son Mark is only one of those people.

The fundamental point is that increasing the rate of organ donation will allow us to save more lives, especially given the ageing population, when need will only increase in five, 10 or 15 years' time. As long as Northern Ireland continues to look on from the sidelines, especially as other regions of the UK introduce or consider the introduction of their own soft opt-out systems, lives will continue to be needlessly lost. It is a tragedy that, last year alone, 17 people passed away while waiting on an organ. In addition, many other people on the transplant list, such as those who require a kidney transplant, are being confined to a lifetime on dialysis, and they and their families are suffering as a result.

Whilst I accept that good work is being done and that the amendments may go some way to help, the brutal reality is that, despite many years of trying and public support for organ donation standing consistently at around 90%, the number of local people signing up to the organ donor register has not risen beyond around 35%.

Mr McCallister: I commend Mrs Dobson's work in introducing and progressing her private Member's Bill and the Committee's work in scrutinising and shaping it. It is probably slightly bittersweet for her. Whilst the wording of the amendments is similar to the Bill, they probably fall short of what Mrs Dobson would like to have pushed onto her agenda for organ donation. At least it lays down an important marker. We may have found agreement in the Chamber as to how we progress something and, as the Chair said, put some of the structure in place on how to improve organ donation and availability.

Much of the debate on organ donation is about how to continue to ensure that families have those important conversations long before they are confronted with a set of tragic circumstances and that families know about their loved ones' expectations and wishes and what they wanted. That is very important in dealing with the blockages and issues at times of organ donation that seem to be presented to the Department. People may be on the organ register, but their family objects to donation.

It is a set of circumstances that one would never want to be confronted with. Imagine the difficulties of such a traumatic event and having to make those decisions. However, that is the important point about these amendments, which are about promotion and putting some structure in place to make sure that we can maximise donation so that, from now, the number of lives that were not saved — 17 people — falls, year on year. We can ensure that people who wish to donate have their wishes respected in the end and are not overruled by their family. All of that has to be done through very sensitive conversations that must be had at a difficult time.

I support the amendments on organ donation. They do not go as far as I would have liked, but I will certainly support them.

Mr Speaker: I think that we owe Mr Kieran McCarthy an apology. His name should have been included on our list, so he will be the final Member to speak before the Minister.

Mr McCarthy: Apology accepted, Mr Speaker. I assure Members that I will be brief. On behalf of the Alliance Party, I support the amendments. However, the amendments come in the context of the recent de facto demise of Jo-Anne Dobson's private Member's Bill. I must express my astonishment about the opposition at the Health Committee meeting where Jo-Anne Dobson's excellent work and efforts were annihilated by the two bigger parties. That was unfortunate, to say the least.

While we do not yet have the basis or consensus to move towards a workable form of soft opt-out option, we have, nevertheless, had a much wider-ranging debate around human transplantation. There is clearly a need to encourage a greater volume of transplant organs, and I therefore support these amendments. Anything that the Assembly can do to provide organs for desperately ill people must be welcomed. We commend those who have given their organs to save the life of someone else, be they a family member or a stranger. Organ donation must be encouraged, and we support all measures to increase the number of donations available to be provided throughout Northern Ireland.

Mr Hamilton (The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety): I note that amendment No 6, which appears in the names of Rosaleen McCorley, Daithí McKay and Maeve McLaughlin, mirrors the amendment to clause 1 of the Human Transplantation Bill recommended by the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety in its report on the Bill. Members will be aware that the Human Transplantation Bill, as has been mentioned during the debate, was withdrawn by the Bill's sponsor, Mrs Dobson, following the Committee's report. That report proposed significant amendment of the Human Transplantation Bill, given the almost unanimous views expressed by clinicians that the system of statutory soft opt-out from organ donation, as proposed by the Bill, would potentially undermine the significant achievements of our organ donor programme over the last 20 years. I believe that the Committee was brave in doing what it did and should be commended for listening to the clear and unequivocal evidence that came from clinicians who work in the fields of intensive care and transplant surgery. I believe that the private Member's Bill was designed with the best of intentions but, in its drafting, it had the potential to damage our organ donation system; a system that is among the best in the world for live donor rates.

The work undertaken by the team at Belfast City Hospital was mentioned by Mr McKinney. I concur with his remarks entirely, and I am glad that he had the opportunity to visit the unit. I met clinicians and visited the same unit in the summer of 2015.

Mrs Dobson: I thank the Minister for giving way. Just for clarity, as you know, Minister, I met your senior officials on three occasions about departmental amendments. Why, despite repeated requests from the Committee Chair and me, did you not bring forward those amendments?

Mr Hamilton: I am happy to take that point now, but I will come to it in more detail later in my contribution. It became clear to me, as it became clear to others and, indeed, to the majority of the Committee that, when you have public evidence such as we had before the Committee during its deliberations and evidence sessions from clinicians saying that they were deeply concerned about the Bill as it was drafted and that any move to soft opt-out or deemed consent — whatever one might want to refer to it as — could damage our system, it was only right and proper not to move forward with any amendments and to take a different approach. Again, I commend the Committee and its members for taking the approach that they did.

I noticed in some evidence sessions that the Member said that she had possession of various amendments that would have altered the Bill and perhaps made it more workable. She was at perfect liberty, if she had those amendments, to bring them forward at Consideration Stage when she brought the Bill back to the House. Perhaps she can explain why she did not do that if she was in possession of those amendments.

We have a system that is amongst the best in the world. I concur with what Mr McKinney said. The team is quite extraordinary. As I may have said at Second Stage, it is refreshing when you meet a team of clinicians in any field and they say to you quite openly — it is not something that we are very good at in this part of the world or that we are known for — that they want to be the best in the world. They are amongst the best in the world, if, indeed, not the best in the world, at what they do. We should be rightly proud of what they do. It is a team that has equalled the UK record for the number of transplants by one unit in one day. We should put on record again our thanks for everything that they do and our support for all the endeavours that they make. The fact that they are amongst the best in the world is a reason why we should listen to them when they speak.

The work undertaken by that team has seen live organ donation rates in Northern Ireland rise and rise to a level that is absolutely definitely the best in Europe and is one of the best in the world. That is amazing. We tamper with a system that is working well at our peril.

I will pick up on another point that a couple of Members spoke about. Cross-border organ donation opportunities was a point that I mentioned in my North/South Ministerial Council sectoral format statement last week. I think that there are opportunities to open up a cross-border Belfast/Dublin corridor for organ donation. When you talk to our clinicians at Belfast City Hospital, they will tell you about how there are two teams doing very similar work in two jurisdictions but who have not really spoken to each other properly, formally or consistently over 20, 30 or more years. Clearly, there are opportunities for them to learn from each other, as, indeed, there are opportunities to learn from teams around the world. However, there are particular opportunities to develop a service on a cross-border basis, which would be to the benefit of people on both sides of the border.

It is notable that, in 2014, the Republic of Ireland reported a dip — it was more than a dip; it was a drop — of a quarter in their organ donation levels. They are experiencing a very different problem from us. We have seen an increase in our organ donations in recent years. We have a far superior live organ donor rate. I recall media reports earlier this year that their figure was much lower than ours in Northern Ireland. To answer the questions that have been raised, I understand that discussions have started between clinicians. It is something that I raised proactively at the recent North/South Ministerial Council meeting, and I am keen for officials to take forward and explore the opportunities that there might well be.

We do kidney transplantation here but we do not do other transplantation in Northern Ireland. Many people, including some I know very well, have had to travel to Great Britain to get their transplant. Many of them would say to you that they are very grateful for the service that they get, but, on many occasions, they have to travel and it is unsuccessful and then they have to return home. They have to make several journeys before they get a successful match and a transplant.

That travelling is nearly more stressful than the fact that they are waiting for a transplant. Therefore, anything that we can do on a cross-border basis is to be welcomed.

We tamper with a system that is amongst the best in the world at our absolute peril. That is the message of clinicians such as Tim Brown and Aisling Courtney. Aisling Courtney said to the media recently that the clinicians are:

Doing damage to our organ donation system was a genuine fear, and Dr John Trinder, a consultant in intensive care medicine who gave evidence to the Committee during its deliberations, described the Bill as being "unhelpful and potentially harmful."

A one-time cheerleader for the Bill, Mr Joe Brolly, whom the Chair of the Committee referred to earlier, said that the Bill was "total gobbledygook" and "very confusing". When leading clinicians and organ donation advocates were freely expressing their concerns about the possible negative impact of deemed consent, the Committee was right to listen and to act as it did.

Since coming into this job, I have been pressed by many inside and outside this House to make my decisions as Minister of Health on the basis of the available scientific and medical evidence. I have made it crystal clear that I will always be guided by the scientific evidence and that I will listen to our clinicians. In circumstances in which virtually every transplant surgeon, nephrologist and intensive care consultant expressed deep concern that the original private Member's Bill could damage our world-leading organ donation system, we were all wise to sit up and listen.

I listened to comments from some Members, including those of the previous Member to speak, who suggested that decisions were taken on the basis of party politics. To suggest that is completely and utterly inaccurate. I stress again that transplant surgeons, nephrologists, intensive care consultants, with one voice, urged caution and expressed their worry that the Bill would damage our system and possibly deter people from donating organs. When that sort of evidence comes forward, it affirms the views of many in the House, and I am glad that it convinced others to change their mind as well. Caution, as we were urged to take, was the right thing to do in the circumstances.

To return to the amendment, it proposes placing a duty on my Department to promote organ transplantation in a campaign informing the public at least once a year. Although my Department believes that our record on promoting the organ donor register speaks for itself in raising awareness, I have decided to support the amendment, especially given that it has emerged from an informed and comprehensive review of the matter by the Committee. Furthermore, the very same clinicians that I mentioned earlier have encouraged us all publicly to enhance our efforts to educate the public about organ donation and, in so doing, raise societal awareness of the subject to a new level. I therefore support amendment No 6.

Amendment No 7 broadly mirrors the amendment to clause 14 of the Human Transplantation Bill, which was also recommended by the Committee in its report. The amendment proposes placing a duty on my Department to report annually on organ transplantation and awareness activities. It also proposes that, every five years, the Department should report its opinion as to whether the proposed provisions have been effective in promoting transplantation activities and any recommendations that the Department considers appropriate for amending the law so as to promote transplantation activities.

The proposed five-year interval for examining the need for any new legislation is, in my view, a responsible and sensible proposition. It is responsible because it should provide the clinicians with the space to get on with their job without any further short-term distractions of legislative proposals for soft opt-out or deemed consent. It is sensible because it would provide the Assembly with sufficient time to assess and reflect on the impact of the soft opt-out system introduced in Wales last year.

Although I have decided to support the amendment, my Department will seek to bring forward a technical amendment at Further Consideration Stage on the operation of the annual reporting cycle to clarify that, if the proposed report is to cover activities in a year fully, it can be finalised only after the year has ended. That having been said, I support all the amendments in the group.

Mr McKay: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. First, it is important to clarify that I do not share the same position as Mr Alastair Ross in this debate.

It has been a good debate. I came onto the Health Committee relatively recently. This has been a good Committee Stage. We all came at this from the perspective that we needed to secure the best outcome for organ donation rates. Many of us have been on a journey. I still think that soft opt-out, and all options, should remain options and should be given full consideration in the new mandate. However, a mixture of views were presented to the Committee. There were views given on some of the proposals to the Committee that I did not expect, and I think that the right decision was to hold off on this. The system we have is one of the best in the world and, given that mounting evidence and those mounting presentations, we need to be very careful about what we do next. As we were coming into the new year, concluding our evidence, and only had a number of weeks to take a decision that could have massive ramifications, I felt that the proper decision was to ensure that we take more time to look at this. Many made the point that we should wait and see how Wales does. I think that the Department should consider soft opt-out, keep that under review, and see the experiences elsewhere, but, on the basis of the evidence given to the Committee and the many differing views that we held, I felt that this was not the time to move forward with soft opt-out and that it certainly was not right to do it in a rushed manner given that the clock was ticking down to the end of the mandate.

On the other hand, credit has to be given to the proposer of the private Member's Bill, Jo-Anne Dobson. As a proposer of private Member's legislation, I know that there is a lot of work, a lot of effort and lot of grief. We have all seen the energy and commitment that Mrs Dobson put into that. It has generated great debate over the past year, and I have no doubt that that debate has, in itself, contributed to more people signing up for organ donation. I think that all Members agree that Mrs Dobson has done a great public service in bringing the private Member's Bill forward. As Mr Easton said, we felt that we needed to hold on to aspects of that Bill and put them forward. It may look messy as part of a miscellaneous Bill, but, given the impact that those amendments could have on organ donation rates, we believe that it is the right thing to do to improve the world-class system that we have. I congratulate Mrs Dobson on the work she has done, and I have no doubt that this issue will come back to the Chamber in the new mandate. We will need to give it full consideration again then.

One of those who is urging people to consider organ donation is Lucia Quinney Mee, a student at Cross and Passion College in Ballycastle in north Antrim. She has had three liver transplants in her life and has campaigned vigorously to find ways to improve the organ donation system. She has set up a Facebook page called Live Loudly Donate Proudly, and I am sure that some Members are probably sitting on Facebook at the minute and could check that out, like it and share it. A lot of people out there are campaigning to improve the organ donation system, and they all deserve much credit for the immense work they have done on that in recent months. Public awareness is the big issue and is a huge factor in ensuring that we get more names on that list, and I have no doubt that the success stories of Lucia Quinney Mee, Joe Brolly, Shane Finnegan and others have helped contribute to the higher donation rate that we have.

Maeve McLaughlin opened the debate and said that there had been much debate about organ donation promotion. She referred to the different views of the original PMB but stated that there was now unity on promoting organ donation and that it was important that we moved forward on that. Alastair Ross made a useful intervention, saying that the amendments needed to be tweaked. That is what Further Consideration Stage is for, and we will be open to agreeing those amendments.

Alex Easton said that the amendments were cheeky and the contents too important to let go. Fearghal McKinney took a counter view, saying that this was a skeleton of a Bill and that "cheeky" was an understatement. However, he made a good point about the good work of our clinicians. They perform nothing short of miracles. I spoke to someone recently who was with a close friend as they were carrying out work, and they worked from night until morning with hardly any rest. The service was absolutely fantastic. He certainly respected the fact that they could act under such pressure, given that what they were doing was life-saving work.

Jo-Anne Dobson accepted the wording of the Human Transplantation Bill. We need to do more to improve organ donation rates. That needs to continue to be a priority for the Assembly in the new mandate. John McCallister welcomed the fact that consensus to some degree had been met. Kieran McCarthy was also a supporter of the private Member's Bill.

The Minister referred to the fact that our system and our transplant team are amongst the best in the world and at the moment compare quite favourably with the South, which has seen a dip in figures recently. He made the point that this was not about party politics, and I think it is important to say that again. The debate about organ donation is a matter of life or death. We all have different views and are quite passionate about it. From our perspective, in our contribution at Committee Stage we always had an open mind and a focus on an outcome that was the best for all the people we represent. Tinkering with a system that leads to a better outcome is brilliant, but making a decision that could undo some of the great work that has already been put in place to ensure that we have a high organ donation rate is something that you cannot undo at short notice.

It is important that we keep a watchful eye on the issue. It needs to be a focus for the Assembly and the Department in the new mandate. We believe quite passionately in this and that these amendments will lead to greater organ donation rates. Again, I thank the sponsor of the private Member's Bill. She has put a lot of effort into the issue, and it is only right that credit is given to her. I hope that the Assembly will now agree and unite in ensuring that we change the law in regard to organ donation.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. Thank you very much.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Education, Mr John O'Dowd, to move the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in my provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There is a single group of amendments. It contains amendment Nos 1 to 14, which deal with a definition of bullying, reporting requirements and cyberbullying. I remind Members intending to speak that, during the debate, they should address all the amendments in the group on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on the group has been 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 Speaker: With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 to 14. The amendments deal with a definition of bullying, reporting requirements and cyberbullying. Amendment No 2 is an amendment to amendment No 1. Amendment Nos 7 and 8 are mutually exclusive. Amendment No 14 is consequential to amendment No 12. I call the Minister of Education to move amendment No 1 and address the other amendments in the group.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Education): I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr O'Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I am pleased to bring the Addressing Bullying in Schools Bill before the Assembly this evening. I am particularly heartened by the fact that the passage of the Bill has to date been supported by all parties. I believe that sends a clear message that the Assembly is united in its desire to act on this problem.

The Bill was drafted to create a clear and consistent framework for schools to follow and as a means of ensuring that all pupils are protected to the same best practice standards. In providing an inclusive definition of bullying, introducing a duty on schools to record all allegations of bullying and strengthening the role of boards of governors in ensuring that effective policies are in place at their school, we can provide that framework while still allowing schools the flexibility to adopt policies that are reflective of their individual needs.

I have carefully considered the issues that Members have raised in their amendments and the concerns identified by the Committee during its scrutiny of the Bill. I have sought to address several of those issues in the amendments that the Department has brought forward this evening. I am keen that we continue to engage constructively to make the Bill as effective as it can be, and, in that spirit of constructive engagement, I emphasise that, where I speak to oppose any amendments, it will be because I feel that they either detract from the consistency we seek to build or will unnecessarily add to the complexity of the duties that we will place on schools and school governors.

Given that all the amendments have been placed in a single group for today's debate, I will now address them each in turn. Amendment No 1 is largely technical, using language that is more consistent with best practice in legislative drafting and serves to make the definition more straightforward for readers to understand. In its scrutiny, the Education Committee had reservations about the use of the word "includes" to convey that the definition was intended to be open and non-exhaustive and was not sufficiently clear. To address that concern, the amendment inserts in brackets the phrase "but is not limited to" to provide a clear additional emphasis that schools will have the discretion to identify and treat as bullying incidents that do not meet the specification in clause 1 but that the school considers would justify such recognition.

The definition set out in the initial draft of the Bill used the term "physical act". Specific advice from the Office of Legislative Counsel has highlighted that that terminology is not used in any other statute and is, in legislative terms, unnecessary. The drafting preference is simply to refer to "act", which is broader in scope and includes physical or non-physical acts or omissions. The term "physical act" has therefore been removed, and the definition has been refined further to provide greater clarity and less scope for misinterpretation. I urge the House to accept amendment No 1.

I now turn to amendment No 2, which proposes to include "an imbalance of power" in the definition of bullying. I understand why Members have moved the amendment for inclusion and fully appreciate that "an imbalance of power" is a recognised characteristic of bullying. However, my preference is for it not to be included in the Bill. If the Bill referenced "an imbalance of power", it would need to specify what that actually means in a watertight but practicable, workable way. Advice received from both the Departmental Solicitor's Office and the Office of Legislative Counsel recommended against the inclusion of "an imbalance of power". It was highlighted that the characteristic was not commonly referenced in anti-bullying legislation in other jurisdictions.

The absence of the imbalance of power wording has no adverse impact on the identification, actioning or recording of bullying incidents where an imbalance of power exists, as the proposed definition will inherently pick up all incidents of bullying: those where an imbalance of power exists; and those where it does not it. Lastly, I have a concern that putting a particular focus on an imbalance of power in the Bill could be interpreted by some schools as justification for not addressing and recording some incidents as bullying because, in the school's view, there was not an obvious imbalance of power between the victim and the perpetrator. I therefore urge the House to oppose amendment No 2.

Amendment Nos 3 and 4 are of a minor technical nature to bring drafting consistency to the rest of the Bill regarding the use of the term "registered pupil". Amendment No 4 will also clarify that the duty on governors to determine measures to be taken at school to prevent bullying also covers those instances where only one of their pupils is involved in a bullying incident.

Amendment No 5 addresses a query raised by the Education Committee regarding what action will be expected of schools in relation to incidents occurring when their pupils are attending lessons in other schools or external settings as part of the delivery of the entitlement framework. All post-primary schools are members of area-learning communities that work together to provide a broader and balanced curriculum to young people, which helps schools to deliver the requirements of the entitlement framework.

Through collaboration, schools offer courses not necessarily delivered on their school premises but through other schools, further education colleges or other training providers. That gives pupils access to a wider selection of courses. Therefore, subjects may be delivered in schools or educational facilities other than where the pupil is registered. This addition clarifies that schools and governors will be required to address the circumstances in their anti-bullying policies. The school where the pupil is registered will be responsible for taking any action in respect of disciplining or supporting their pupil. However, I will expect schools and institutions to work together, with a view to preventing or addressing any incidents of bullying involving their pupils. I therefore urge the House to accept amendment Nos 3, 4 and 5.

I now turn to amendment No 6. The Committee has proposed that a board of governors should be required to review its anti-bullying measures:

rather than "from time to time". I can confirm that I am happy to support that amendment.

I now turn to amendment Nos 7 and 8. I brought forward amendment No 7 to address strong concerns raised by the Education Committee that clear and more explicit recognition needed to be given to the problem of cyberbullying. While the Committee accepted that clearly defined boundaries for schools' responsibilities were an essential part of the Bill, it felt that cyberbullying occurring outside school hours often had an impact that carried across into the school day. The Committee was also particularly anxious that schools would have some legal cover to address cyberbullying incidents, which often have imprecise boundaries in terms of when and where they arise but which clearly have a detrimental impact on a pupil's education.

While I have some concerns about the imposition of additional, wide-ended legal duties on schools, I accept the merit of providing a clear enabling power, allowing schools to act in such circumstances should they wish to do so. The Committee has proposed its own amendment on the issue: amendment No 8. My amendment No 7 is a slight rewording of that to make it clear that a school's responsibilities are to act to support its own pupils if they are victims of cyberbullying or to take action against their own pupils if they are found to be undertaking cyberbullying. I believe that my amendment maintains the clear boundaries of responsibility that we have established elsewhere in the Bill while addressing the Committee's concerns. I urge Members, therefore, to support amendment No 7.

Amendment No 9 is, in essence, a technical amendment that would replace the words "or alleged incidents of bullying" in clause 3(1) with "of bullying or alleged bullying". That will clarify that bullying incidents and allegations of bullying must be recorded by a school. I again urge Members to support that amendment.

Amendment No 10 mirrors the changes that we considered under amendment No 5. It clarifies that schools would still be under a duty to record and respond to incidents that occur outside of school premises when those occurred in connection with registered pupils participating in shared lessons, for example, under the entitlement framework or other sharing engagements organised by a school. I should emphasise that, when such incidents involve pupils from the two schools, each school will be responsible for taking appropriate action to support or sanction its pupils in line with its own agreed policies. I again urge Members to support that amendment.

I oppose amendment No 11 to clause 3, which would require a record of bullying to state the methods of bullying. I consider the requirement to record each incident already adequately covers that point. A standard recording format that does not capture the nature and wider circumstances of an incident would be of very limited value to schools in monitoring their own performance or providing supporting evidence of those actions should they ever be challenged. The Department will issue guidance to support schools, governors, parents and pupils in understanding the Bill and its implications for them. That guidance will be developed in consultation with all the key stakeholders involved and will provide recommendations on all the details that schools should aim to capture when recording an incident. We believe that to be the correct place to offer that additional clarification rather than as an addition to the Bill.

Amendment No 12 is a technical amendment to the list of motivating factors set out in the original wording of clause 3. The purpose of that clause has always been to provide an illustrative list of the possible motivations for bullying behaviour that we would expect schools to record. That list was deliberately chosen to highlight relevant section 75 groups and other legislatively protected groups. The Education Committee expressed concerns that the original wording was unclear and could be interpreted as providing an exhaustive list of motivations. The amendment more closely mirrors the language that is used in other relevant legislation and identifies that motivation will arise from differences in relative circumstances rather than an exclusive characteristic of either the pupil being bullied or undertaking the bullying. I also believe that, by replacing the introductory comment "motivation may include" with:

will remove any scope for confusion over the inclusive and non-exhaustive nature of the list.

I do not believe that amendment No 13 is required. As I outlined, the Bill provides a non-exhaustive list of the types of motivations that a school would be required to record. Amendment No 12 will provide sufficient clarification of our intentions in that regard and will, therefore, negate the need for a power to amend a list that, by its very nature, is designed to be illustrative and non-exhaustive. Making that a matter for amendment by order would go entirely in the opposite direction and suggest that the list is somehow exhaustive and that inclusion on it confers greater weight or legitimacy to those motivations, which is simply not the case. The departmental guidance that will accompany the legislation will provide additional clarification on the non-exhaustive nature of the list and will elaborate on a much wider range of factors that can lie behind bullying.

Amendment No 14 is a final technical amendment. By removing clause 3(5), the meaning of the terms "gender reassignment" and "disability" will revert to their commonly used meanings, rather than requiring readers to cross-reference through the complex legal definitions of each set of their own respective orders. I urge Members to support amendment No 14.

Mr Weir (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I will speak initially on behalf of the Committee. During Committee Stage, members considered written evidence from around 16 organisations and undertook six oral evidence briefings and six formal meetings. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many stakeholders who wrote to the Committee or gave oral evidence. Owing to the time pressures associated with the legislative programme, it was not possible to receive oral evidence from every organisation that made a submission, but I can assure stakeholders that we studied every submission, whether written or oral, and greatly valued their input into Committee Stage. I would also like to thank the Department for attending a number of oral evidence sessions and providing written responses and clarifications to the Committee in such a short timescale.

At Second Stage, and on behalf of the Committee, I addressed some remarks to children and young people who have been the victims of bullying at school. I promised them that we would take bullying in schools very seriously. I indicated that we understood that bullying can have a very substantial impact on its victims, and, sadly, it has even led to the death of some young people. I also promised that we would listen to their concerns and, with the Minister, do something about it.

To help with the listening process, the Committee undertook a series of focus groups involving children and young people from schools representing each sector from across Northern Ireland. Those were organised by the Assembly's Research and Education Service. The moderators for the sessions included Committee staff members. I would like to thank the contributors to and facilitators of that important work. The findings from the focus groups are summarised in our report on the Bill and helped us greatly in developing the amendments that I will discuss shortly.

The Committee generally takes the view that this is a good Bill and that the Committee’s amendments, and some or all of those proposed by the Minister, will make it better. There was a suggestion, at one stage, that we change the title of the Bill to "Eradicating bullying". Will the Bill eradicate all bullying in schools? Sadly, it will not, and I do not think that anybody will make that false claim. However, I think that an amended Bill would support and promote good anti-bullying practice in schools; clarify the scope of schools’ responsibility; inform future policy development through consistent record-keeping; and boost the confidence of boards of governors who want to take action on all forms of bullying, particularly cyberbullying. I suggest that, by passing an amended version of the Bill, we will be keeping the promise, which I mentioned earlier, to do something about bullying in schools.

I will now turn to the amendments that the Committee agreed to table or support. Clause 1 provides a definition of bullying. In general, all witnesses at Committee Stage supported the clause but wanted to change it. Some wanted to include wording that identified bullying targeted at specific groups. Others took issue with the apparent restriction of the definition to repeated acts. Still others wanted an explicit reference — this is taken forward in one of the other amendments — to the "imbalance of power" between the bully and their victim.

The Committee wanted the Bill to support good practice in schools and, therefore, listened carefully to the considered responses from the representatives of teachers and school principals. These teaching professionals were generally supportive of many of the proposed changes to the clause, but they also called for discretion that would permit schools to treat serious, one-off incidents as bullying.

Members felt that bullying was quite difficult to define exactly. It was therefore agreed that some space should be left in the Bill to allow schools the flexibility to include serious, unwanted behaviour that might not precisely conform to the definition as drafted. The Committee felt that the simplest and most effective way to do this was through the inclusion of the words "but is not limited to" in the definition. To be fair to the Department, while it initially raised concerns about that form of words, there was a common objective between the Department and the Committee on this, and I am pleased, therefore, that the Minister has incorporated this into his technical amendment — amendment No 1 to clause 1.

I am also pleased by the departmental assurances that, before provisions are commenced, guidance is to be issued on addressing the treatment of one-off events; bullying that is targeted at section 75 groups; and bullying by omission.

At this stage, I should also mention the feedback from representatives of special schools. They expressed concerns about the application of these provisions to their sector and to mainstream schools with a high number of children with special educational needs (SEN). It was suggested that the Bill might wrongly classify as bullying unacceptable conduct that may be associated with behavioural conditions linked to SEN or to a significant non-school-related trauma.

Members were quite exercised about this issue. The majority of members accepted the Department's assurances that the intention provisions would provide suitable protections for special schools and for children with SEN who were experiencing trauma. That said, the Committee felt strongly that the Department should consult widely with the SEN sector, including special schools and learning support units, in the development of appropriate guidance for teachers and principals regarding the treatment of children with SEN and those in exceptional circumstances. I hope that, in his response, the Minister will provide that assurance.

On the issue of cyberbullying, the Bill generated two types of commentary. There were those, mainly teachers and professionals, who felt that the Bill had perhaps gone a little bit too far, and there were those, most of the other witnesses, who felt that it did not go far enough. The Committee noted extensive evidence from the school focus groups and other witnesses in respect of cyberbullying; that is to say bullying related to the use of electronic communication, social media or the Internet. These witnesses generally contended that this form of bullying could have a very substantive impact on its victims and was significantly under-reported in schools. It was asserted that the Bill did not go far enough to address this form of bullying and that cyberbullies could very easily evade the relevant provisions. Others made the argument that cyberbullying accounted for only a small fraction of all bullying incidents and was the subject of a disproportionate level of exposure by the news media.

The Committee felt that cyberbullying is an issue of significant importance that requires immediate action and support for schools. The Committee also noted the complexity presented by a wide-ranging legislative solution and the potential for conflict, for example between the rights of the victim and the rights of others to privacy. Additionally, members noted that other jurisdictions have yet fully to address these issues in legislation. That was the conundrum that the Committee faced. To help to resolve it, the Committee listened to the conflicting views of witnesses. We listened to the concerns of schoolchildren and to the good-practice examples of anti-bullying provided by schools. It was on that basis that the Committee decided to put down amendment No 8, which is before us today.

Members felt that boards of governors need our support and the backing of legislation. Amendment No 8 is designed to empower them and give them the confidence to bring forward anti-cyberbullying measures. The Committee wanted schools not to feel constrained by a requirement to determine that the cyberbullying occurred during the school day, on the journey to and from school, or when under the lawful control of school staff. The amendment, which is permissive rather than obligatory — we take on board what the Minister said about imposing additional duties — is, we believe, the best possible compromise between the different sides.

I draw the House's attention, as has the Minister, to ministerial amendment No 7. While the Minister has indicated that it is slightly better drafted than amendment No 8, it is virtually identical. That being the case, I think that members of the Committee will be content to support amendment No 7 in place of amendment No 8.

The Committee could have gone further. We considered an amendment that would have dramatically altered the scope of school responsibility in providing protections from bullying. Attractive though such a proposition might be, the Committee was a little bit worried that it might lead to legal challenges and other undetermined consequences for schools, and might even promote unwelcome changes to the relationship between schools and parents. Members also noted the long-awaited anti-cyberbullying guidance. We should not always see a single piece of legislation as the silver bullet that will lead to all solutions; there are, indeed, other areas coming forward. That guidance, produced by the Anti-Bullying Forum, and the e-safety guidance which is to be produced by the Safeguarding Board this year, are very important documents that will inform schools' responses to this relatively new form of bullying.

I mentioned the scope of responsibility of schools and their boards of governors. Clause 2 of the Bill requires the latter to devise anti-bullying measures and to consult on them with children and parents. Like many witnesses at Committee Stage, the Committee strongly supported this aspect of the legislation. To further strengthen this obligation, the Committee agreed to put down amendment No 6, which requires the process to happen within a typical period of office of a board of governors, namely once every four years as a minimum period.

A key part of the Bill is the requirement to keep records of bullying incidents. This appears to be an inescapable requirement for schools, following fairly recent legal proceedings. The Bill provides some necessary clarity, which the Department has assured us will be followed by guidance designed to limit the bureaucratic burden on school principals and boards of governors. I think that the Committee accepted this assurance and, therefore, did not put down a related amendment to further specify that, although we appreciate amendment No 11, which has been put down by some members of the Committee.

Clause 3 also requires schools to record the motivation or perceived motivation underpinning bullying. All members of the Committee agreed that the list of motivations required some improvement. I think that there was some disagreement on how this should be done. Some wanted some limited changes; some wanted the list in the Bill to be removed and replaced with a regulation-making power; others – the majority – preferred amendment No 13. That is an order-making power that can amend the existing list of motivations. I note the ministerial amendment Nos 12 and 14, which would appear to closely align the motivations with section 75. I think that the majority of members felt that the nature of bullying is changing and that some flexibility will be needed if schools are to capture emerging trends. The majority of Committee members, therefore, felt that Amendment No 13 will allow this to happen.

During Second Stage, I made reference to concerns about the misuse of bullying records kept by schools and the development of the risk of unofficial bullying league tables. The Department has clarified that records will be held at school level and that usual data protection controls will be applied to personal information. I also understand that the Department will make use of related, aggregated statistics to inform anti-bullying policy development.

The Committee agrees that bullying is an important issue and requires robust and coherent responses from schools. Good record-keeping underpins this. I think that we all feel that, on balance, addressing the real problem of bullying is more important than the possibility of reputational damage to schools. In any event, the Department has advised us that, whether the Bill passes or not, recent court decisions will oblige all schools to keep and retain better disciplinary and bullying incident records. It is hoped that the passage of this Bill, departmental guidance, review by the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI), and the anticipated extension of the scope of the Northern Ireland Public Service Ombudsman to include schools will lead to more consistent record-keeping by all schools.

Finally, when the Committee was agreeing its report, a member asked an excellent question — it does occasionally happen at Committee. What happens if a pupil is attending another school, as part of the entitlement framework or a sharing activity, and engages in bullying activity at the other school?. Indeed, as we are in the process of passing the Shared Education Bill, the frequency of children being at another school for some form of shared activity is likely to increase. The Bill, as drafted, would have placed no obligation on the pupil’s home school to take action or keep a record. The Committee advised the Department of this, and I am pleased to note that ministerial amendment Nos 5 and 9 appear to be designed to deal with exactly this problem. The Committee has not taken a formal position on this. I imagine, however, that Members would be happy to support these sensible provisions, which oblige the home school to address bullying perpetrated in another school by one of its pupils, although I also note the comments of the Minister that, where this is happening in one school, a degree of cooperation is needed between the schools. I also suspect that the Committee would have no problem in supporting the technical drafting amendment Nos 3, 4 and 9.

Even if we have a couple of Divisions today, and we shall see how that turns out, it is fair to characterise the Committee Stage of the Bill and the interaction with the Department and the Minister as positive and cooperative. On behalf of the Committee, I wish to commend the Minister and his officials for the progress achieved to date on this Bill and the legislative programme generally.

At Second Stage, I described the Bill as a good beginning. I think that an amended Bill will be exactly that – a good beginning for the development of a consistent anti-bullying culture for all our schools. This, I believe, will be flexible enough to deal with the new challenges from things like cyberbullying and robust enough to give children the confidence to know that, when they are being bullied at school, something really will be done about it.

Now, turning briefly, because I do not want to reiterate all of that, to the position from a DUP perspective. I think that, as a party, we are happy with all the ministerial amendments and, indeed, all the Committee amendments.

Again, I do not want to go into a great deal of detail. When the issue in amendment No 1 was raised by the Committee, the Minister brought forward an amendment that encapsulated an almost identical position to that of the Committee, and I think it is quite sensible. It was raised with me on a number of occasions that the word "includes" could, by its definition, go beyond simply repeated bullying. I think that to have a specific reference in the Bill will give reassurance that very serious incidents will be taken seriously.

Similarly, I think that we find favour with amendment Nos 5 and 10, which have been mentioned, and which cover the shared education position. Similarly, with the technical amendment Nos 3, 4 and 9 proposed by the Minister, there is no particular problem.

I should also indicate that, with amendment Nos 7 and 8, we initially brought forward amendment No 8. It is virtually, word-for-word, what is in amendment No 7. From that point of view, therefore, we are happy with either amendment. Clearly, amendment No 7 will be put and, if, as I assume, the House is able to unite behind it, it will render amendment No 8 null and void. Again, we are giving power to governors to look at cyberbullying without going the further step of imposing a particular duty on them.

We support the Committee's amendment No 6, which, again, has a degree of cross-party consensus, to ensure that this is not something that is done as a one-off exercise and simply left to drift into the ether, but places an onus on the boards of governors to do this at intervals of no more than four years.

With amendment No 11, from the DUP perspective, there were issues raised in trying to ensure that boards of governors and schools, when recording these incidents, are not overburdened. However, amendment No 11 seems modest enough. The additional information may well be useful, and it is something that, I think, does not place any massive additional burden on schools. From that point of view, my party is happy to support amendment No 11.

I will return to amendment No 2 in a moment.

Amendment No 12, which is consequential to amendment No 14, is a better-drafted version of the requirements under clause 3 in covering all situations. I appreciate that the Minister expressed the view that amendment No 13 is not particularly necessary. However, as a party, we support the amendment. When this matter was looked at, by admission, the list was not got right initially and had to be corrected slightly. We are in a moving situation. It may well be that what is in amendment No 12 covers the situation at the moment adequately. However, we do not know what situation we are going to be in in a few years from now, and, if any amendment were required to clause 3, without amendment No 13, it would have to be done purely by way of primary legislation. We believe that there needs to be some level of adjustment to give the option of subordinate legislation subject to negative resolution. It gives that little bit of flexibility, and seems to be a relatively sensible amendment.

Finally, I turn to amendment No 2. I have some sympathy for the motivation behind the amendment, and it is something that has been included in a number of other jurisdictions. However, I have concerns about it, both as to whether it is necessary and whether, from a practical point of view, it might be slightly counterproductive. What I mean by that is that we have a clear definition of bullying, and this would add an additional limb to that definition to show that there was an imbalance of power. That may well be implicit in all cases of bullying. However, what would concern me are the situations in which some level of assessment that either a teacher or a member of staff is making. If they felt a little bit unsure about that additional limb, we may see some incidents of bullying that do not get recorded because there is a feeling that they have not jumped that extra hurdle. So, to that extent, I do not believe that amendment No 2 adds anything to the Bill, and it runs a danger, in some cases, of excluding cases where there is bullying. So, from that point of view, while I am happy with the other amendments, the DUP will be opposing amendment No 2.

Mrs Overend: I thank the Committee Chair for giving way on this issue. Just to clarify, I challenge Members who do not want to support this particular amendment to provide an example of where, theoretically maybe, an imbalance of power cannot be identified?

Mr Weir: I will give you an example that occurs to me. It strikes me that, without that, there is no incident of bullying that is excluded. There is at least a danger that that would be the case. An imbalance of power, to some extent, could be in a situation with a group of young people and it may well be that, physically, the person doing the bullying is a lot smaller than the person being bullied. A teacher looking at that may take the view that the meek but larger pupil — we will call him "Pupil O'Dowd" — is being grossly intimidated by a smaller but much fiercer pupil — we will call her "Pupil Overend". In those circumstances, a teacher may say, "I see clearly where I believe there to be bullying". However, is there an imbalance of power where a larger pupil is bullied by a smaller pupil? I am not sure that ticks the box. Most teachers, to be fair, will have the common sense to see the cowering, intimidated Pupil O'Dowd and recognise that as bullying. However, I do not want the guidance, whatever it is, to be misinterpreted and an act of bullying unnecessarily excluded. That is my concern. I fail to see what the reference in the amendment adds to the definition, but I can see where, in some cases of misinterpretation, it may exclude something. I hope that the Member will not seek to bully or intimidate us as she moves on with that. With that explanation, Mr Speaker —

Mr Kennedy: Will the Member give way?

Mr Weir: Yes.

Mr Kennedy: I am sure that I am not alone in the hope that, in any dispute between a pupil called O'Dowd and someone else called Overend, the teacher would not be called Weir.

Mr Weir: In those circumstances, it would be extremely unlucky for both pupils. [Laughter.]

As in all things in life, we have to cover all eventualities. There may be a teacher out there called Weir who does not arbitrate well in a situation. There may be some, depending on their perspective, who would accuse a teacher called Weir of encouraging a bullying situation between pupils called Overend and O'Dowd. There are others in the House who would, perhaps, accuse my party of being keen to facilitate a situation where Pupil O'Dowd was bullying Pupil Overend. It is a question of perspective in that regard.

Setting aside the broader situation, in those circumstances we want to ensure that no genuine incident of bullying does not get properly recorded. If it sows some level of doubt, creates an additional hurdle and means that, in a small number of cases, the bullying is overlooked because there is not perceived to be an imbalance of power, that would be wrong. That is why we are opposed to amendment No 2.

Mr Hazzard: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The House will be glad to know that I was never taught by Mr Weir, so this should be short and relatively painless. The Chair of the Committee and the Minister before him covered a lot of the detail at great length, so I will provide the executive summary of my thoughts.

We will oppose amendment No 2. While we disagree with amendment Nos 11 and 13, we do not find enough in them to disagree to the same extent. A large part of this goes back to what the Chair said about good practice and consistency. That is the hallmark of the Bill; indeed, I think that it will be celebrated for providing a platform for good practice and consistency in and around policy development and disseminating that through schools. Amendment No 2 from Mrs Overend just goes too far by creating a grey area where the waters get muddied, and where I would feel for the teacher having to step outside. I understand the power imbalance in theory, but in the real world in schools it would be hard for teachers to apply that. Academically, we could debate all the stuff about power balances, but, in the classroom or wherever it may be, the teacher needs to be able to rely on good, sound legislation that will not have the school in courtrooms with difficulties. That is why we will have to divide on amendment No 2.

As the Chair said, amendment Nos 3, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 12 are very technical amendments, some of them on shared education, which was a good point raised about the extent of the entitlement framework. On that point, as the Chair also did, I congratulate the Department and the Minister for working with the Committee through various sittings to get a very robust Bill. I think that it will be celebrated by parents, schools and the various stakeholders whom we met. It provides a good platform to build consistent policy on tackling bullying in all our schools.

The same goes for amendment Nos 7 and 8. Amendment No 7 is the stronger. Were it not for amendment No 7, I would have thought that amendment No 8 was fine. However, having looked at the difference in amendment No 7 and the rationale behind it, I am happy to go with amendment No 7. It is right that amendment No 7 is the stronger.

We do not agree with amendment Nos 11 and 13, but we will not push it to a Division. To a certain extent, amendment No 11 is pointless and should not be in the Bill. The guidance to deal with this will be developed at later stage through consultation with parents and stakeholders. On amendment No 13, for me, the very point of the list is that it is not exhaustive. If we are suggesting that there needs to be a mechanism to amend it somehow, we nearly give expression to the perception that the list is there to be amended. For me, it is not an exhaustive list, but it is inclusive. However, we will not push it to a Division.

On the whole, this is good news for schools, parents and kids. It goes without saying that education can be great for empowering our young people, but a school can be a horrible place for a young person suffering bullying. Anywhere can be a horrible place to be if you are suffering bullying. This will go a long way. As the Chair asked, will it eradicate all forms of bullying everywhere? Unfortunately, it will not. However, it creates a great platform for schools and boards of governors to deal with it. I look forward to the further comments.

Mrs D Kelly: I am grateful for the guidance of my colleague Mr Seán Rogers, who served on the Committee throughout the passage of the Bill. I want to put on record our party's thanks to the Minister and the Department for the engagement that he and other stakeholders had with the Committee. The fact that the Minister has tabled so many amendments shows how he has listened during the passage of the Bill. The comments from around the House show that it is a Bill that all Members largely support. It should, I hope, lead to behavioural and attitudinal change amongst our schoolchildren. To that end, I am sure that the Minister will live up to the commitment that, I understand, he gave to the Committee on training and development opportunities for teaching staff on the implementation of the legislation. I also urge further debate with parents and with the children themselves to give an understanding of the implications of bullying in schools and how there will be zero tolerance.

As I read through many of the amendments, I saw that there seemed to be a reversion to the three Rs — only, in this case, it is reporting, recording and reviewing. We are somewhat disappointed that the review time frame is longer than we would have liked; we would have liked a much shorter one. On reporting, I do not think that it is onerous to add to the responsibilities of a teacher the task of recording the nature of an alleged bullying incident.

I will say for the record that we support amendment Nos 1, 3, 4 and 5. My earlier comment about a shorter time frame related to amendment No 6. I welcome the clarification from the Minister and the Committee Chair on amendment No 7 and appreciate that, if it is supported, amendment No 8 might not even be moved. We support amendment Nos 9, 10 and 11. On amendment No 12, we want to listen a bit more to some of the arguments about the list of motivations currently included in clause 3. At this stage, we do not believe that amendment No 12, which the Minister has tabled, is as strong as what was originally drafted in the Bill. However, before deciding and voting on it, we want to hear some of the arguments.

We support amendment No 13. However, we will not support amendment No 14 because we believe that it is beneficial to keep included in the Bill the definitions of disability as outlined in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and gender reassignment as outlined in the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976.

We are minded to support amendment No 2, although I have listened carefully to some of the arguments about the imbalance of power. I have some concerns about some of the scenarios outlined. I think that the Minister, who I thought maybe should be the bully in the relationship, should be named. I hope that he can assure his wife that he was not, at any stage, referring to her and how she can handle him.

This is a good piece of work by the Assembly. We all know about this issue, if not from our own years at school then from constituents who have come to us because of the different approaches to bullying in many schools and the sense of powerlessness not only among the families of the victims of bullying but among boards of governors. I hope that this sets a new standard in Northern Ireland and that, when we teach our young people, it will hopefully be something that they live by and endorse as they enter adult life.

Mrs Overend: I welcome the opportunity, as Ulster Unionist education spokesperson, to speak to these amendments. I welcome the progression of the Bill, which aims to address bullying in schools. Of course, as Members have said, it cannot realistically be completely eliminated, but it is something that school principals, staff and parents take very seriously, as they must. Appropriate steps must be taken to reduce bullying and to stop it once it has been identified. I add my thanks to the officials who appeared at Committee and to the Committee staff for all their work on the Bill.

I recognise that much good work is already ongoing in many schools across Northern Ireland. This legislation will tie down the obligation on all schools to take action on bullying and create uniformity of shared good practice across all schools. Of course, the legislation must not be seen as stand-alone; schools are already very well aware of other obligations in pastoral care, behaviour and discipline, as well as adhering to specific school codes of conduct.

As a mother of three children and as a past child, I am well aware of the behaviours that go on in school. I have watched my own children develop, mature and change how they deal with the other little personalities in their class and in their school year. Fortunately, I have not had any of my children suffer at the hands of a bully at school, but, as an MLA, I have helped other parents to deal with the after-effects of bullying incidents and ensure that the various authorities adhere to their appropriate responsibilities.

I will refer first to clause 1. Amendment No 1 refers to the definition of bullying; indeed, that created much debate in the Committee. It amends the wording to:

That is a good amendment and means that incidents, whether an individual incident or a repeated act, are included in the definition. I therefore support amendment No 1.

Amendment No 2 was tabled by me and my colleague Danny Kennedy. It proposes to include in the definition "an imbalance of power". As I have said, there are policies in schools that deal with behaviour and discipline, as well as such things as adhering to the school code of conduct and so on. Therefore, I think that it is important that we identify bullying where there is an imbalance of power. That clearly states that there is a victim who finds it difficult to defend himself or herself.

Members will agree that there can be numerous and various forms of aggressive behaviour in schools that will not be defined as bullying. Think of two boys who regularly fight in the playground or the school bus, where there is no clear victim of bullying and they both seem to enjoy the fight. That type of aggressive behaviour is not to be condoned but must be dealt with under the school's disciplinary policy rather than an anti-bullying policy.

Research in Norway by Dr Dan Olweus states:

Furthermore, Professor Peter K Smith from Goldsmiths, University of London, said:

Professor Smith has also confirmed in personal correspondence that the new European Anti-bullying Network decided in December 2015 to include "imbalance of power" in its definition of bullying.

In Ontario in Canada, which seems to be leading in legislation in the area, in its Accepting Schools Act 2012, the definition of bullying states:

The National Association of Head Teachers, in its presentation to the Committee, also supported the idea that the definition should include a power imbalance as international best practice. Its representatives said that schools and teachers:

I am concerned that leaving out "imbalance of power" from the definition might result in a weaker definition, and that this legislation, which is written to address bullying in schools, may try to address all aggressive behaviour and indiscipline. Those issues are dealt with in other legislation, and if there is a feeling in that regard, surely it should be addressed in that legislation rather than in this Bill. There could also be an unfair and inaccurate inflation of bullying incidents due to a weaker definition.

As a parent, I am aware of the system in schools, which has reports on each pupil's behaviour. Believe you me, I regularly log into the school information management system (SIMS) database to read about instances when my children's behaviour has not been what it should be have, whether they have been late to class or forgotten homework books. From what I understand, that is where the reporting of indiscipline or bullying incidents would be recorded. As I said, I ask those Members who do not support amendment No 2 to provide an example of where it is difficult to define an imbalance of power.

Moving on to the clause 2 amendments, it is important that, in working to address bullying in schools, not only do we clearly define what bullying is but that the Department also provides clear and unambiguous guidelines to schools.

Amendment No 6, which has been brought forward by the Committee, put the onus on schools to review their measures at least every four years. It is important to examine their recording to analyse the need to change ways of dealing with particular behaviour or bullying and update them, especially considering changes in technology and the need to address its dangers. The period of four years was chosen as that was the term of a board of governors, and I was pleased that the measures can be reviewed more often than that if necessary.

There was much debate at Committee Stage with regard to cyberbullying and whether to include a responsibility on schools to deal with incidents that happen outside school. I am minded to support amendment No 7 rather than amendment No 8. Amendment No 8 does not provide an obligation and instead acts as encouragement. There are many issues that should be included as part of a school's pastoral care policy in a similar way, yet they are not included in the Bill. I have concerns that amendment No 8 may create a lack of uniformity across schools when the Bill is attempting to create uniformity in how schools address bullying.

Putting in that amendment gives an option, but it does not create uniformity across schools, so I have concerns with that.

I move now to amendments to clause 3, which relates to the duty to keep records of bullying incidents. We are minded to support amendment Nos 9 and 10.

Amendment No 11, which the Ulster Unionist Party tabled, proposes that the method of bullying must be included in the recording of incidents. That is our belief. We believe that it is important to provide the ability to look back and analyse the most common form or type of bullying, whether that is verbal, physical, cyber, social exclusion, material or indirect. Good analysis will provide for the possibility for specific needs to be identified in order to change or improve guidelines in an area. Proper recording allows proper analysis. A method may be recorded, but I feel that it should be in the Bill. That may require definition at Further Consideration Stage, and I am open to that.

The final three amendments relate to the motivation of a bullying incident, which also created debate in the Committee. I am content with amendment No 12, tabled by the Minister, but I feel that amendment No 13 should be supported to provide the ability to amend the list of motivations.

Mr Speaker, I will draw my remarks to a close. I look forward to the further progression of the Bill.

Mr Lunn: It is surprising that a Bill with only five clauses should generate so much discussion, but it has been constructive. The Committee took a lot of evidence, and I think that we have arrived at the point at which there is great consensus. That is credit to the Committee, the Minister and the Department because it did not look that way six weeks ago, and I thought that other amendments might come through, but we are where we are.

The point is that we all know — Members referred to it — the destructive effect that bullying can have. The Bill now refers to "a detrimental effect", but it is the same thing. We could all quote an anecdote or two. I saw a situation in which two children were removed from a primary school because it would not acknowledge that there had been a problem. The parents had to take the matter into their own hands. The fact that the school had "zero tolerance of bullying" posters on every wall in every classroom made it all the more ironic that the parents had to do that, but it does happen. The effect on a child's well-being, mental health, concentration and ability to work also come into play.

I do not have very much to say about any of the amendments. I agree with them, except for one. Amendment No 1 is a very good tidying up of the wordings that we have gone through. By implication, I take it that:

means that it includes single acts, or has the potential to include single acts, which was a bone of contention for the Committee for a while. I am perfectly happy with the rest of amendment No 1.

I may as well deal with amendment No 2 straightaway. Mrs Overend said that the notion of an imbalance of power came from Ontario. I had the Ontario version on my phone, but I do not need it now because Mrs Overend read it out. It is too hard to define, is it not? Is it physical? Is it mental? Is it strength of character? The Ontario wording is quite lengthy, but, as far as I can tell from the Ontario information, it is guidance, not legislation. I may be wrong about that, but, be that as it may, it seems to me that it is still possible to identify an act of bullying without being able to identify an imbalance of power. We have a pretty clear definition, so I do not think that we need —

Mrs Overend: Will the Member give way?

Mr Lunn: Certainly.

Mrs Overend: Just to clarify, from what I can understand, it is legislation. It is the Accepting Schools Act 2012. I quoted the part about imbalance of power from that legislation.

Mr Lunn: We may have to disagree about that, or agree to differ; let us put it that way because we are such good friends. I still say that it is not really necessary. It is adding another condition to what is already a good set of conditions. It is supplementary to them. It appears to me that you have to satisfy the original meaning of the Bill plus an imbalance of power, so I do not think that we will accept that.

The Minister referred to amendment Nos 3 and 4 as minor and technical amendments, and so they are, but they are actually quite significant because we are moving from a plural situation to a singular situation. That is significant. Instead of "registered pupils", we have "a registered pupil". Any possible ambiguity there has been ruled out by that simple turn of phrase.

Amendment Nos 5 and 10 are to be welcomed. They extend the lawful custody of the school:

That is good wording.

With regard to amendment No 6, I really do think that that interval of "no more than 4 years" is probably a better effort than "from time to time", which does not sound very legalistic when you look back at it. We have no problem with amendment No 6.

As for amendment Nos 7 and 8, it appears that we will all go with amendment No 7. On the basis that it would have been the first one that we vote on, I suppose that it would have happened anyway. There is not much difference between them. There are just very slight differences. One says, "as it thinks reasonable" and the other says, "as is reasonable", and, "taken at the school", rather than, "taken by the school". I do not think that there is any big significance in that. The point about it is that it is an attempt to deal with the problem of cyberbullying. We heard different interpretations and assessments of what that meant at the Committee. I think that one figure that was quoted was that around 16% of all bullying was, in fact, cyberbullying in some form or other. Anecdotally, having spoken to heads, principals and so on, I think that the scale of the problem is miles in excess of that; much, much more. This is an attempt to deal with it. It involves the use of electronic communication that:

That is probably as far as we can go. It does, at least, set some ground rules for it.

Amendment No 9 is technical as well. It leaves out, "or alleged incidents of" and inserts, "of bullying or alleged". Amendment No 10 relates back to amendment No 5. We are happy to support amendment No 11. I think that it is a useful addition to the clause.

Clause 3 says, "motivation may include". We originally wanted something along the lines of "may, but not be restricted to" — something like that. I think that the Minister has got it pretty much right with amendment No 12, which says, "may, for example, relate to". There are subtle differences even in the descriptions of what it could relate to. For example, "religion or belief" is being changed to "differences of religious belief", and, "race" becomes "racial group", which seems far more correct to me. "Marriage" becomes "marital status". Again, that is probably a better description for what we are trying to achieve, so I am quite happy with amendment No 12.

The Minister says that we do not need amendment No 13, but the Committee feels it is useful, and I cannot see any harm in it. It is one of those things, "You pays your money; you takes your chance." On balance, we will probably support it. As it is a Committee amendment, we probably supported it in Committee. [Laughter.]

As for amendment No 14, I know that the Minister referred to it in his opening remarks, but it is not always easy to hear down here sometimes, and I am not quite clear as to why he wants to remove the definitions. Perhaps, if he sums up the debate tonight, he could explain that to me.

Having said all that, I do not need to say any more about this. It is a good Bill. It has almost total consensus. We have one more stage to go, and I hope that there will not be any surprises when we come to it. I am happy to support the amendments, subject to dismissing amendment No 2.

Mr B McCrea: I must say that, when I borrowed the notes from Mr Rogers, he gave them to me with a warning that I was not to speak for too long. I will try to honour the commitment.

I made a special point of being here to talk about the Bill because I mentioned during a previous debate that I was particularly concerned with cyberbullying. When I raised the issue, the Minister said that he thought it was one for the criminal justice system and a justice Bill. I remain of the opinion that there is great danger in giving people responsibility without giving them the tools to deal with the matter. Although I will mention a number of amendments, my key concern is cyberbullying. Mr Lunn, I think, mentioned that the estimated amount of cyberbullying is probably understating the really serious situation that exists out there. Whilst I welcome the fact that we have put bullying on the agenda and indicated that we will deal with it, we will have to return to the subject at another time, presumably in another mandate, for those of us who will be here.

Let me deal with amendment No 1. Mr Lunn helpfully identified for me that the change includes:

Actually, when I read it, I understood it to be the other way round. However, I am happy that it is a more general stance and is not limited to single acts.

As regards amendment No 2, I approached the concept in a sympathetic manner, but I am not convinced that we can properly define an imbalance of power. I remember, when I was on the Education Committee, that I was introduced to a nursery school, where one of the learning experiences was that teachers would put objects in a sand pit and you could rummage around to see what you could find. That was very educational for the children until one of them picked up a brick and managed to hit another child with it. I wonder whether that was an imbalance of power or what was going on. You get into the issue of some people having verbal skills where others have physical skills. I just think that it is a pretty complicated interaction, particularly as people go through the changes in life that they will experience in school.

Mrs Overend: Will the Member give way?

Mr B McCrea: I will indeed.

Mrs Overend: I think that the example that the Member provides to the Floor is similar to incidents that may happen in special schools, and the Chair referred to that. I think that there is flexibility in the Bill, and in the guidelines that will come after it, to provide for schools to be flexible and to understand different behaviours of children at different stages in their life. However, the imbalance of power might be easier to understand if I say that the child being bullied feels a level of intimidation. They feel lesser, to an extent. Maybe that is easier for the Member to understand.

Mr B McCrea: I am grateful to the Member for the explanation, and I have no doubt that her efforts to draft the amendment were well-intentioned. Maybe she can help me on this, if it has come up in the discussions. One of the real concerns that I have about bullying is that the old idea of it being a one-on-one experience, where one person was having a go at another person, seems to me not to reflect what happens in real life. Quite often what you get, particularly in cyberbullying, is that multiple people will pick on an individual. So, one individual may or may not be strong, but they are, in effect, set upon by a group of people. That is a very serious issue, and one that we have to look at. As I said, I will consider what the Member has said about her amendment. It is difficult to see how we would actually organise that, but I will think about it.

I struggled to find out the exact difference between amendment Nos 7 and 8. I guess, from the comments of others, that if we go with amendment No 7, so be it. Once again, I point out that the issue should be how we deal with cyberbullying. I know that in legislation, when we consider these issues, there is a determination to keep within the areas that are in locus — in other words, within the school. The problem that I see about bullying is that it does not confine itself to time or space. An awful lot of bullying that goes on amongst pupils takes place outside school hours, but the effects are, indeed, felt in the educational achievement of the person affected and their mental and physical well-being. I think that there is an issue in that and that schools have to play a part, whether it takes place in the school premises or school time.

I move on to the last amendment that I want to talk about, amendment No 12, which seeks to give examples of motivation. I have to say that the ones listed are not, in my experience, the core causes of bullying. Most of the issues that I experience or am aware of come from a power for supremacy. It is the jungle of the playground; it is people trying to assert themselves in what might be a throwback to former times. It is not for any of the more objective reasons that we list there. Whilst I can accept the fact that the amendment says "may", I will put on the record that I do not think that this really gets to the core of why people are bullied. I think that it is a much more fundamental issue than that.

My conclusion on this is that my reason for speaking tonight, at this late hour, is just to make sure that, in the future when I bring up the issue of cyberbullying with the Justice Department, no one can say to me, "You did not deal with it during the education debate". It is a wide-ranging issue. It is something that schools are fully involved in. It is not exclusively for them. I think that, in the fullness of time, we will have to tackle this particular issue with many more powers than we are currently looking at.

Mr O'Dowd: Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. In conclusion, I say that bullying remains all too common an experience for young people in our schools, and that has been reflected in Members' contributions about their experiences as elected representatives and as parents. In responding to all the amendments proposed today, I have taken my position based on what I firmly believe will best serve the needs of those young people. I am confident that the Bill will provide a framework that schools, parents and pupils will welcome. The duties that it introduces reflect best practices, and many schools will find that it endorses what they are already doing.

I will also use the opportunity to offer some final words of reassurance on some of the issues that were raised during the scrutiny of the Bill or which have been touched on directly this evening. There have been repeated references to the need for supporting guidance to be provided before the commencement of the new duties that the Bill will introduce.

The Department has committed itself to engaging with school staff, governors, parents' groups and other key stakeholders, including young people, in both the development of the guidance and the identification of any associated training needs.

During the Committee Stage, and as mentioned by the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Committee, concerns were expressed that the Bill introduced an unfair burden on special schools, unreasonably asking their principals and staff to hold their pupils to account against the same standards as children in mainstream schools. I fully appreciate that young people in special schools will have significant social, emotional and behavioural difficulties and will face other challenges, so issues such as intent to cause harm may be difficult for staff to determine. I believe, however, that there is sufficient flexibility in the proposed arrangements to adapt to the unique nature of special schools and, indeed, to allow all schools to develop policies that fully reflect the needs, special needs and wider circumstances impacting on their pupils. Nonetheless, I acknowledge his concern, and I can assure Members that the Department will specifically engage with special schools in the development of our guidance.

Concerns were also raised that further clarification was needed to ensure that all schools understood how they should treat serious, one-off events and what data schools would need to include in their record of an incident; and that the list of motivating factors cited at clause 3 should be wider. It has also been suggested that we need to specifically clarify what would constitute bullying by omission. We recognise the validity of all those points. Those are all issues that we intend to explore fully, working with stakeholders, as we develop our guidance. The passage of the Bill will put the right legislative bones in place and maximise the value, and guidance will be key.

I turn to specific points around a number of the amendments. Amendment No 2 continues to cause debate. Indeed, I have debated the issue with the Anti-Bullying Forum, which has provided excellent work and guidance in relation to the development of the policy and the Bill. Indeed, I used a similar example to the one that Mr Weir used, though I did not include Mrs Overend in it. I used the example of me — 6 feet 6 inches and heavier than I should be — presenting myself in the principal's office along with someone who may be smaller in stature, though I may be the victim of bullying. How does the school define that? The imagery says that it cannot be the case. How do you prove that someone is psychologically as strong as, or stronger than, the other person? I think that it puts too much of a demand or responsibility on our schools within a legislative framework to overcome. I accept that jurisdictions have legislated for that, though the question that I posed at the time was that we do not know how effective the legislation has been in those other jurisdictions. We are all familiar as legislators that well-intended legislation may not become effective legislation moving forward.

Mrs Overend: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: I will in one moment.

I accept that the amendment has been brought forward in good faith, but I do not believe that it will make good legislation, because I do not believe that it can be defined properly or that we could even give guidance to schools to define it properly.

Mrs Overend: I thank the Minister for giving way on the issue. First of all, if the Member is tall and whatever and is being bullied, the feeling that he is being intimidated surely is sufficient to say that there is an imbalance of power. That may be easier to define than to say that someone small is being overbearing.

Mr O'Dowd: There are valid arguments on either side of the point. Let us say that there are two individuals of a similar build, the same age, from the same socio-economic background and have the same abilities in school. How does the school decide where the balance of power is? That may be a better example, with so many similarities rather than a difference. It just places an unnecessary burden on the schools at this time.

Mrs Kelly and Mr Lunn touched on amendment No 14. For the record, Mr Lunn, what I said during the introduction was that this is a technical amendment to the Bill. By removing clause 3(5), the meaning of the terms "gender reassignment" and "disability" revert to their common use meanings rather than requiring readers to cross-reference to the complex legal definitions of each as set out in their respective orders.
There is no attempt being made here to undermine the definition of either "disability" or "gender reassignment", but I propose to not move the amendment this evening. I want to have further consultation with my officials on the matter. I may table it again at Further Consideration Stage, but I want to take on board your comments this evening.

Mr Speaker: Amendment No 2 is an amendment to amendment No 1, so we need to dispose of amendment No 2 before I put the Question on amendment No 1.

Mr Speaker: We now return to amendment No 1.

Mr Speaker: I will not call amendment No 8, as it is mutually exclusive with amendment No 7, which was made.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Addressing Bullying in Schools Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

The next Item of business — [Interruption.]

If Members are leaving the Chamber, they should do so quietly. The Minister of Finance and Personnel needs a lot of attention and order.

Mr Storey (The Minister of Finance and Personnel): I beg to move

The scheme was initially introduced in 2007 for a fixed period of three years with the objective of encouraging and sustaining the provision of ATMs in rural areas. It has been extended three times following evaluation. The latest order provides for a further one-year extension for the 2016-17 Budget period until the end of March 2017. It is not a big policy, but, next year, it is expected to provide rates exemption to 82 ATMs that would otherwise be liable for a separate rates bill of slightly less than £2,000 a year.

Although it is hard to assess its effectiveness as a measure, there are three good policy reasons for its continuation. First, evaluations have shown that, whilst the scheme is not a factor that encourages financial institutions to invest in new stand-alone ATMs, it is a factor in retaining existing ones, particularly those that are borderline viable. Secondly, despite the first assertion, the number of ATMs in rural areas has more than doubled in the eight years since the scheme started. Thirdly, in the context of the loss of many of our rural bank branches, the ATMs become even more of a lifeline for our rural communities, an issue that I know was raised during last week's Finance Committee session.

It will be helpful to Members if I provide them with a brief outline of what the scheme does. The exemption is provided for stand-alone ATMs in designated rural areas that are individually valued in the valuation list; for example, those located outside petrol stations or on high streets. It does not apply to those located in banks or building societies, which tend to be valued as part of that property. The current financial cost of the scheme is around £150,000 in revenue forgone in 2016-17, which I consider to be an affordable and modest sum given the benefits that it can bring. ATMs play an important role in the sustainability of rural economies; indeed, previous evaluations of the scheme have demonstrated that almost two thirds of every £10 withdrawn from one of the cash machines is likely to be spent locally.

The eligible rural wards are currently designated by my Department through the Rates (Automatic Telling Machines) (Designation of Rural Areas) Order (Northern Ireland) 2006. The recent reorganisation of local government that came into operation last year altered both district council and ward boundaries in Northern Ireland, and, as a result of that process, it was necessary for my Department to formally designate new rural wards for use in the scheme. New multipurpose and cross-departmental rural, urban and mixed wards have not yet been centrally redesignated by DARD or by any interdepartmental working group. It was, therefore, necessary for my Department to ask the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) to conduct specific analysis to meet our specifications to determine wards as rural. The list of the new rural wards for the purposes of the scheme was arrived at by NISRA on the basis of the specifications given by the rating policy division and through analysis of the 2011 census, the 2015 settlement definition and the 2014 ward boundary files. The rural wards are designated through subordinate legislation that is subject to the negative resolution procedure, and the Committee cleared that policy.

My Executive colleagues and members of the Finance and Personnel Committee have already been advised on the detail of the statutory rule. The Committee indicated that it was content for individual separately valued ATMs in designated rural areas to continue to be exempt from rates, particularly given the modest cost of the scheme.

Article 1 sets out the citation, commencement and interpretation provisions. Article 2 provides for the extension of the relevant date before which the scheme must end, which is the end of the forthcoming financial year.

I look forward to Members' comments and commend the Rates (Exemption for Automatic Telling Machines in Rural Areas) Order (Northern Ireland) 2016 to the House.

Mr McKay (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. On 1 December 2015, the Department wrote to the Committee to highlight its proposal to make this draft rule to help sustain ATMs in rural areas. The Committee was aware that, in 2009, DFP undertook a policy evaluation that noted a 16% increase in the number of ATMs in rural areas. That was very welcome, and the extension of the measure was supported. It has also been noted that recent figures from Land and Property Services (LPS) show that there are now approximately 70 ATMs covered by the scheme. Moreover, the regulatory impact assessment stated that it was unlikely to have any detrimental effect on small businesses but might actually assist small rural businesses.

The Committee considered the proposal to make the order at its meeting on 13 January and had no objection to the policy proposals at that time. The formal SR was considered by the Committee, together with the report from the Assembly's Examiner of Statutory Rules. The Examiner raised no issues by way of technical scrutiny, and the Committee agreed to recommend that the order be affirmed by the Assembly. This is a very good initiative, it has been successful for a number of years now, and, hopefully, it will stay in place for many years to come. I support the motion.

Mr Cree: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I was pleased to support this in Committee, and I am pleased to support it in the House this evening.

Mr Storey: Thank you Mr Speaker. I thank the Chair of the Committee and the member of the Committee for their comments. In particular, I thank the Committee for its help on the order. I, therefore, ask that Members support the measure and commend the order to the Assembly.

Mr Storey (The Minister of Finance and Personnel): I beg to move

Before dealing with the statutory rule, I will set out some background to the measure. The purpose of the legislation is to extend the empty shops rates concession. It was introduced in April 2012 and subsequently extended for a further two years in April 2013 and again for a further year in April 2015. The concession was first introduced as an amendment to the Rates (Amendment) Bill of 2012. At that time, a package of measures was introduced to help rebalance the rating system, assist ailing businesses and improve the appearance of our town and city centres. The empty shops rates concession provides a one-year subsidy for new ventures occupying properties that have been vacant for a year or more.

The current legislative provision under article 31D of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 as inserted by the Rates (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2012 permits applications for the concession until 31 March 2016. The window for applications will close soon, and, following the success of this scheme, I have decided to extend the application period for a further 12 months to 31 March 2017. Unfortunately, there remains a need to provide whatever assistance we can to counteract the many shop closures and the effect that then has on the viability of our towns and cities. The extension of the concession will allow Land and Property Services (LPS) to continue to receive applications for the scheme until the end of the forthcoming financial year.

Where outcomes are concerned, I have to say that my assessment is that the scheme is a good scheme. So far, it has seen over 530 new ventures get up and running across Northern Ireland, and that is to be welcomed by all Members. A recent survey by Springboard Services on behalf of the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium shows that vacancy rates in Northern Ireland are at a four-year low. However, we cannot be complacent about the issue; I know all too well from my constituency and my home town of the difficulties and challenges that are caused by the issue of vacancies.

This is a good news story, although I am not claiming that the scheme is the reason that things have improved. That needs a stronger economy and action by many parts of the Executive. There is still a need for a scheme of this type, and I say that informed by responses to the recent consultation on the review of the rating system; indeed, some have asked for it to be enhanced by relaxing the rules. My Department will consider that in due course. In doing so, we must balance the interests of established businesses in an area and avoid this becoming a rates avoidance mechanism.

In the coming weeks, my Department will do what it can to publicise the current scheme with those involved in letting or moving into property. The scheme is open to all commercial uses and has, as a result, provided new jobs for local people in a wide range of businesses. This is a policy that makes a real difference to new business start-ups, particularly in our town centres and on our arterial routes. Furthermore, it is a sensible measure in terms of cost. In all likelihood, the Executive would not have been getting any more revenue from these units through rates if they had continued to be empty, so this is, effectively, a cost-neutral policy.

Beyond that, after an initial period of reduced liability, these businesses will end up paying full rates after the difficult first year of trading is over. In the longer term, it is likely to bring in more money than it costs. This policy was made and developed in Northern Ireland through engagement with business and was deemed effective enough to be adopted in every other part of the United Kingdom. That in itself is a testament to the strengths behind the policy logic for such a scheme at this time.

My Executive colleagues and members of the Finance and Personnel Committee have already been advised on the detail of the statutory rule. The Committee indicated that it was content for applications to be received for the empty shops rates concession until 31 March 2017. Article 1 of the order sets out the citation and commencement. Article 2 provides for the amendment of article 31D of the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, substituting the new end date of 31 March 2017.

I look forward to Members' comments and I commend the Rates (Temporary Rebate) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2016 to the House.

Mr McKay (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Committee was mindful that the current legislation came about in 2012 as a result of proposals by respondents to a consultation on rebalancing the rating system during the economic downturn. In response, legislation was introduced for one year with the aim of reducing unwanted displacement, minimising any advantage over established traders and creating a time frame to allow the Department to review the success of the initiative.

The Committee noted that the review of the scheme in 2013 highlighted the number of successful applicants throughout the North. The Department has also advised that there has been no evidence to suggest any significant displacement caused by people moving premises in order to avail themselves of the scheme. The scheme does not come with any significant cost, as the Department has pointed out that many of the properties involved would have remained empty in the absence of the policy. Revenue lost, then, could be measured only against a proven case of displacement from a previously occupied property. As has been indicated, there is no tangible evidence at this stage that that is occurring.

Following evidence, the Committee agreed to support the extension of the empty properties rates concession for a further period and agreed that it had no objection to the policy proposals. The Committee formally considered the statutory rule at its meeting on 10 February, along with the report from the Examiner of Statutory Rules, who had no points to raise. The Committee agreed to recommend that the order be affirmed by the Assembly. I support the motion.

Mr Storey: I thank the Committee Chair and members for their help on the order. I ask Members to support the measure, and I commend the order to the Assembly.

Mr Storey (The Minister of Finance and Personnel): I beg to move

As Members will be aware, this order, which is brought forward annually, stems from the Executive’s Budget, which was agreed on 26 January. The regional rate helps to supplement Northern Ireland’s share of national taxation allocated through the Barnett formula for public expenditure. As members will know, it provides a supplement to our share of national taxation through Barnett of between 5% and 6%, helping to fund departmental expenditure on hospitals, roads, schools and other essential public services and investment. The rating system provides significant revenue for Northern Ireland, with well over £1 billion now collected in rates — regional and district, domestic and non-domestic. Taken together, the domestic and commercial regional rate is forecast, as part of the Budget, to raise in the region of £678 million in the forthcoming financial year.

In terms of the specific breakdown of rates bills, the regional rate represents just over half of the typical bill, the other half being made up of the district rates, which were set independently by the new local councils. The district rates this year range from a 0·49% cut to a 2·98% increase. Household bills remain the lowest, by some considerable margin, in the UK. The economic outlook is continuing to improve. However, many challenges lie ahead, as we are all too aware from last week’s disheartening news about Bombardier. Such news only stiffens the resolve of my Executive colleagues to do whatever we can to make sure that the conditions for economic recovery and growth are in place in Northern Ireland.

The real-terms freeze in the regional rate is adjusted at the time of the Executive’s Budget for the effect of inflation, in line with the long-established measure used. This is the Treasury gross domestic product (GDP) deflator, as used more widely within the 2016-17 Budget. The legislation before you this evening for approval is simply the mathematical outworking of that important Budget decision. It will fix two regional rates in the pound for 2016-17, one for households and the other for business ratepayers.

The new rates in the pound represent a small increase of 1·7% in the regional rate for the 2016-17 rating year both for households and businesses. This continues the inflation-capping practice adopted each year by this Assembly since 2007. A few of the Members may remember the whopping 19% increase in the domestic regional rate imposed by direct rule Ministers in their last year in office. We continue to do this in very difficult times for our public finances.

Keeping the lid on rate increases is something else that we can be proud of, but it is not something that is appreciated by everyone. Indeed, inflation capping comes on top of other mitigating measures adopted by this Executive to protect businesses and households. This includes two multi-million-pound shortfalls that we are absorbing. The first of these is the £30 million that the Executive set aside last year to fully fund the district rates convergence scheme to help the many ratepayers who otherwise would have been badly affected by local government reorganisation. The second is the cost of the housing benefit rates, or the rate rebate, which is now funded out of our departmental expenditure limit (DEL), but with a 10% cut. That carries a price tag of £11 million this year, and rising next year.

Finally, it is worth noting that the Executive delivered on their promise last year to make the revaluation a genuinely revenue-neutral exercise for this Assembly by actually reducing the non-domestic regional rate by a couple of pence, which was not reciprocated by local government when the various district rates were struck last year. All of this carries a real cost. Every pound forgone in rates is a pound less for public expenditure, but it is the right approach in my view.

This order — alongside the extension of the small business rate relief (SBRR), industrial derating, the empty shops rates concession, the retention of relief for rural ATMs, all brought forward this year by my Department and the Executive through the Budget, as well as the continuation of the district rates convergence scheme — represents the best that we can do to balance the interests of ratepayers and the demands of public expenditure.

Allow me to move on, then, in more technical terms, to what is covered in the order. Its main purpose is to give effect to the decisions already made during the Budget 2016-17. Article 1 sets out the title of the order and gives the operational date as the day after it is affirmed by the Assembly. Article 2 provides that the order will apply for the 2016-17 rating year through to 31 March 2017. Article 3 specifies 32·40 pence in the pound as the commercial regional poundage, and 0·4111 pence in the pound as the domestic regional rate poundage. That represents a clear and technical outworking of the difficult decisions made by the Executive as part of the Budget agreement.

I look forward to hearing the comments that Members make in relation to the order, and I commend it to the Assembly.

Mr McKay (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

The Committee is aware that the Rates (Regional Rates) Order represents the technical outworking of the Budget process and is a key element of the annual financial planning cycle. The level of the regional rate rise therefore reflects the final uplift that was agreed as part of the Executive's Budget.

The policy proposals contained in the statutory rule (SR) were considered by the Committee, and we had no issues in respect of them. The Committee formally considered the SR before the Assembly this evening at its meeting on 10 February, along with the accompanying report from the Examiner of Statutory Rules, who had no points to raise in his technical scrutiny of it. As the Minister said with regard to rates, they can be very challenging at both council and central level. The Executive have done well to ensure that a cap has remained on the rates in recent years; that is a challenge that has been met.

The Minister is right. People and businesses out there perhaps do not know the detail of it, but I hope that the new Executive can continue to ensure that that burden is not put on our businesses or householders. I suppose there is also a challenge to local government. We all have to be very prudent with the taxpayers' money. We need to continue to follow through in that vein in the Executive and Assembly, but it is always a balancing act. We need to balance that with the delivery of public services. It is a challenge that the Executive have met until now, and I hope that they continue to be up to it.

To summarise, the Committee agreed to recommend that the order be affirmed by the Assembly. I therefore support the motion.

Mr Storey: I thank the Chair and Committee again for the work that they have done on this issue and on the items that we have brought to the Floor of the Assembly this evening.

As I have already stated, the Rates (Regional Rates) Order (Northern Ireland) 2016 gives effect to decisions made as part of the 2016-17 Budget. The Executive have aimed to strike a balance between meeting the needs of ratepayers, following the challenging economic times that we have been through, and ensuring that public finances are sufficient to cover the priorities that we have set ourselves. No one likes to have to pay more, but the minimal increase in the regional rates will be welcomed by households and businesses alike. It clearly demonstrates that all ratepayers have benefited from the decisions taken by the Executive.

I therefore commend the order to the Assembly and thank Members for their support.

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